On September 2025, the high-profile case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry—two men accused of spying for China—was abruptly dropped, sending shockwaves through Westminster and igniting fierce debate across the UK’s political spectrum. The collapse of the prosecution, which had been brought under the Official Secrets Act, has since become a flashpoint for questions about national security, government transparency, and the UK’s relationship with China.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) stated plainly that the case could not proceed because the government failed to provide evidence explicitly designating China as a national security threat during the relevant period. This evidential gap, the DPP said, meant the case "no longer met the evidential test" required for prosecution. The accused—Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Berry—had faced allegations of gathering and supplying information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state between December 2021 and February 2023. Both men strenuously denied any wrongdoing.
The fallout was immediate. On October 12, 2025, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch issued a strongly worded letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, demanding urgent answers about the government’s role in the failed prosecution. Badenoch’s letter, as reported by BBC, accused the government of having "changed repeatedly" its account of events. She insisted, "This is a matter of the utmost importance, involving alleged spying on Members of Parliament. It seems that you and your ministers have been too weak to stand up to Beijing on a crucial matter of national security."
Badenoch’s frustration was echoed by Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, who publicly stated that ministers were "deeply disappointed that the case hasn't proceeded." However, Phillipson also emphasized that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was "best placed to explain why it was not able to bring forward a prosecution," distancing ministers from the evidentiary decisions at the heart of the controversy.
At the center of the dispute is Jonathan Powell, the prime minister’s national security advisor. The Conservatives have suggested Powell—who has advocated for closer relations with Beijing—failed to provide the CPS with the evidence it said it needed to secure convictions. In her letter, Badenoch questioned remarks by Phillipson that Powell had no role in the "substance or the evidence" of the case: "What does this mean? If he was not involved in the decision over months not to give the CPS what they needed, then who was?" she asked pointedly.
Prime Minister Starmer, for his part, has maintained that his government could only rely on the previous Conservative administration’s assessment of China, which had described Beijing as an "epoch-defining challenge." Starmer told reporters, "You have to prosecute people on the basis of the circumstances at the time of the alleged offence. So all the focus needs to be on the policy of the Tory government in place then." Badenoch, however, disputed this interpretation, writing, "As various leading lawyers have pointed out, this is not how the law works." She insisted that prosecution should be based on the circumstances at the time of the alleged offense, not on the shifting sands of government policy.
Amid mounting pressure, the Conservatives submitted an urgent question to Parliament, demanding that ministers address MPs on October 13, 2025, to explain why the trial collapsed. Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle was expected to grant this request, setting the stage for a heated Commons session. Former Conservative leader and China critic Sir Iain Duncan Smith reportedly asked for an emergency parliamentary debate to further increase pressure on the Labour government.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp was unequivocal in his criticism, telling the BBC, "Ministers must urgently explain why it chose not to disclose the reams of information it has demonstrating China was a threat to national security in the 2021-2023 period." He went further, stating, "It looks as if Jonathan Powell was behind this decision—and he should resign if he is." Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, who once hired one of the accused men as a researcher, described the case’s collapse as "absolutely abhorrent" and accused the government of being "willing to cover up for the actions of a hostile state." Tugendhat added that blaming Powell was "simply a diversion from the reality that it is the prime minister who orders, or does not order, special advisers to act."
Several former Conservative ministers and advisers have told the BBC there was no official designation of China as a national security threat at the time of the alleged offenses. However, they claim a document exists with "hundreds" of examples of Chinese activity posing a threat to the UK, including a suspected hack on the Ministry of Defence. "I don't think there is a sane jury in the world that would look at that evidence and conclude China was not a threat," a source from the previous government told the BBC.
Public statements from intelligence officials have bolstered this view. In 2023, former MI5 chief Ken McCallum warned of a "sustained campaign" of Chinese espionage on a "pretty epic scale." Such warnings, cited by former ministers, are seen as evidence that the threat posed by China was well understood—even if not formally codified in government policy at the time.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have criticized the government’s approach as "putting our national security at risk." The party has called for the blocking of a planning application for a new Chinese embassy in London. Calum Miller, the party’s foreign affairs spokesperson, argued, "Giving the green light to the super embassy being built in the heart of the City of London and above critical data connections would enable Chinese espionage on an industrial scale."
Under the Official Secrets Act, prosecution for espionage requires that the information allegedly passed to a foreign power must be useful to an enemy. The DPP’s decision to drop the case rested on the inability to demonstrate that China was officially regarded as a threat during the period in question, a point that has become the crux of the political row.
With Parliament back in session and the government facing calls for transparency, the coming days are certain to bring further scrutiny. Badenoch summed up the prevailing sentiment in her letter: "The public and Parliament deserve answers and transparency." For now, the questions hang in the air—unanswered, and politically charged.
