The collapse of a high-profile spy trial involving two British men accused of passing sensitive information to China has ignited a fierce political storm in Westminster, with accusations of a cover-up, demands for parliamentary scrutiny, and questions about the government’s willingness to confront Beijing’s espionage efforts.
On September 15, 2025, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) unexpectedly dropped charges against Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher from Whitechapel, and Christopher Berry, a teacher from Witney, Oxfordshire. Both men had been accused of gathering and providing information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state between December 2021 and February 2023. The case, brought under the Official Secrets Act, had been set to proceed to trial within weeks, but its sudden collapse has prompted a political and legal reckoning that shows no sign of abating.
According to BBC News, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, explained that the trial could not proceed because the CPS was unable to obtain from the government the crucial evidence that China was officially considered a national security threat at the time of the alleged offences. Parkinson wrote, "Efforts to obtain that evidence were made over many months, but notwithstanding the fact that further witness statements were provided, none of these stated that at the time of the offence China represented a threat to national security, and by late August 2025, it was realised that this evidence would not be forthcoming. When this became apparent, the case could not proceed."
Parkinson’s rare public intervention, detailed in letters to parliamentary committees, set off a cascade of political responses. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, whose Labour government took office after the 2024 general election, pointed the finger at the previous Conservative administration. He argued, "We were disappointed that the trial didn’t proceed, but the position is very clear that the trial would have had to take place on the basis of the situation as it was at the time, under the previous Tory government." Starmer maintained that under the rules of the Official Secrets Act, the prosecution could only move forward if China had been officially designated a threat by the government in power during the period of the alleged offences.
But this explanation has been forcefully challenged by both political opponents and former senior officials. Simon Case, who served as cabinet secretary between 2020 and 2024, told The Telegraph, "Going back over years, we have had heads of our intelligence agencies describing in public the threat that China poses to our national and economic security interests." Several former Conservative ministers and advisers echoed this sentiment, telling the BBC that there were "hundreds of examples of Chinese activity posing a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged offences," which could have been given as evidence to the CPS.
The Conservative Opposition, led by Kemi Badenoch, has seized on the controversy, accusing the government of a "cover-up" and demanding answers in Parliament. In a letter to Sir Keir Starmer, Badenoch wrote, "Your Government’s account of what has happened has changed repeatedly." Speaking to broadcasters in Grantham, she declared, "We will be making sure that we ask questions in parliament about exactly who knew what, where and when, but Jonathan Powell certainly has questions to answer." Powell, Starmer’s national security adviser, has been at the center of speculation, with critics alleging he failed to provide the evidence needed for the prosecution due to his efforts to cultivate closer ties with Beijing.
Downing Street, for its part, has robustly denied any government interference in the CPS’s decision. The Prime Minister’s official spokesperson told reporters, as quoted by Sky News, "It is entirely false. The CPS decision to drop the case was entirely a matter for the CPS. There was no role for any member of this government, no minister, or special adviser, to take any decision in relation to this case. That is entirely for the CPS." Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, gave what she called the government’s most definitive answer yet, stating, "Yes, I can give that assurance. We’re very disappointed that the CPS were not able to take forward the prosecution."
Yet the matter has only grown more contentious. The Liberal Democrats have called for a full inquiry, with foreign affairs spokesman Calum Miller arguing, "We cannot let the government sweep this case under the rug in its efforts to cosy up to President Xi. An inquiry - preceded by rigorous scrutiny through parliament - would provide the answers the public deserves." Luke de Pulford, head of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, told The Independent, "It is not credible at any level to try to claim that no evidence was available, so the government’s failure to provide evidence to the CPS in this case must have been motivated by something else, and it looks very much as if it was motivated by a desire not to upset China." Former security minister Tom Tugendhat was even more blunt, writing in The Telegraph that the only explanation for the collapse of the case is that someone in government "made a choice" that relations with China were more important than national security.
The political fallout has been exacerbated by the timing of the controversy. As Parliament returned from recess on October 13, 2025, the Conservative Opposition sought an urgent question and an emergency debate on the matter, even as Sir Keir Starmer was in Egypt attending a summit on the Gaza peace plan. The government’s shifting explanations and the absence of a clear official designation of China as an "enemy"—a requirement under the Official Secrets Act for prosecution—have only fueled suspicions and calls for transparency.
The row comes against the backdrop of Labour’s efforts to forge closer economic ties with China, with several senior ministers and advisers, including Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Chancellor Rachel Reeves, having visited the country over the past year. Critics, especially from the Conservative benches, argue that this approach has come at the expense of national security. Badenoch accused the Prime Minister of being "too weak to stand up to Beijing on a crucial matter of national security," while the government insists its approach is rooted in the UK’s national interests.
Legal experts, meanwhile, remain divided over whether the CPS truly needed an official government statement labeling China a national security threat to proceed with prosecution. Some suggest that the precedent set by a previous spying case earlier in 2025 required this evidence; others argue that the government could have provided ample examples of Chinese activity threatening UK interests without a formal designation.
For now, the fate of the two accused men—Cash and Berry, who have consistently denied any wrongdoing—remains overshadowed by the political and diplomatic reverberations of the case. The controversy has laid bare the complexities of balancing national security, legal standards, and international relations in an era of heightened global tensions. As Parliament resumes, the government faces mounting pressure to provide clarity, transparency, and, above all, a coherent strategy for confronting the challenges posed by foreign espionage.
Whether the answers demanded by MPs and the public will be forthcoming remains to be seen, but the episode has already left an indelible mark on the debate over Britain’s relationship with China and the integrity of its justice system.
