When British prosecutors dropped charges in September 2025 against two men accused of spying for China, it sent shockwaves through Westminster and reignited a fierce debate over the United Kingdom’s approach to national security and its complex relationship with Beijing. The collapse of the high-profile case involving Christopher Cash, a 30-year-old former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, a 33-year-old teacher from Oxfordshire, has left many in government, the legal world, and the public asking: how did it unravel, and what does it mean for Britain’s stance on China?
According to BBC News, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had charged Cash and Berry under the Official Secrets Act for allegedly gathering and passing sensitive information to a Chinese intelligence agent between December 2021 and February 2023. Both men denied the accusations, maintaining their innocence throughout. Their arrests in March 2023, following a counter-terror police investigation, marked the start of what many expected to be a landmark espionage trial.
But by September 2025, just weeks before the case was set to go to trial, the CPS abruptly dropped all charges. The decision sparked criticism from politicians across the spectrum and prompted calls for accountability from both the government and Britain’s top security officials. As Reuters reported, the case’s sudden collapse coincided with renewed efforts by the UK government to rebuild economic ties with China—a timing that did not go unnoticed by opposition parties and commentators.
The central issue, as explained by Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, was the legal threshold required under the Official Secrets Act. After a 2024 High Court judgment in a separate Russian spying case, prosecutors were required to prove that the alleged enemy—in this case, China—represented a threat to UK national security at the time of the offences. This precedent raised the evidential bar significantly.
Parkinson detailed the difficulties in a letter to MPs, stating, “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.” He added, “When this became apparent, the case could not proceed.” (The Independent).
The crux of the problem was that the UK government, both under the previous Conservative administration and the current Labour government, had not officially designated China as a national security threat during the period in question. Instead, the Conservative government’s assessment labeled China as an “epoch-defining challenge”—a phrase that, while serious, fell short of the legal criteria required to prosecute under the Official Secrets Act.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who has faced pointed questions over the government’s role in the case’s collapse, was quick to clarify the legal realities. Speaking to reporters while traveling with a trade delegation in Mumbai, Starmer explained, “You have to prosecute people on the basis of what was the state of affairs at the time of the offence. Nothing changes that fundamental, whoever is in government.” He emphasized that the government could only rely on the previous administration’s assessment of China, and that “the designation at the time that matters. You can’t prosecute someone two years later in relation to a designation that wasn’t in place at the time.” (Reuters and The Independent).
Parkinson, for his part, insisted that the CPS had done “everything possible” to bring the case to court. In his correspondence, he noted, “It is important to provide assurance ... that everything possible was done to bring this case to court.” (Reuters). He also took the “unusual” step of sharing more details publicly, citing government briefings that had commented on the evidential situation and the need for transparency.
The fallout from the case has been significant. Opposition politicians, particularly from the Conservative Party, have accused the Labour government of deliberately allowing the trial to collapse in order to avoid upsetting China at a time when the UK is seeking stronger economic ties with Beijing. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp remarked, “I can’t imagine Jonathan Powell, who’s one of Keir Starmer’s closest and most senior advisers, would have done that without discussing it with the Prime Minister first, so Keir Starmer now has some very serious questions to personally answer.” (The Independent).
Downing Street, however, has pushed back against suggestions of political interference. Number 10’s press secretary stated, “The suggestion that the government withheld evidence, withdrew witnesses or restricted the ability of a witness to draw on a particular bit of evidence are all untrue.” (BBC News).
The legal intricacies of the Official Secrets Act have also come under scrutiny. The Act, which dates back to 1911, specifies that it is a crime to communicate documents useful to “an enemy.” But as clarified by recent case law, an “enemy” must be a state that represents a threat to UK national security at the time of the alleged offence. Since the alleged spying activities took place under the Conservative government—which stopped short of labeling China a threat—prosecutors faced an insurmountable hurdle in court.
Adding to the complexity, the National Security Act, which superseded elements of the older legislation, was not in force during the period of the alleged offences. As a result, the CPS could not rely on the broader definitions now available to prosecutors in espionage cases.
Meanwhile, the Labour government has been taking steps to reset relations with China. Since the 2024 general election, senior officials have engaged in a cross-Whitehall audit of Britain’s relationship with Beijing. Notably, Foreign Secretary David Lammy visited China in October 2024, becoming only the second UK foreign secretary in six years to do so. During his visit, Lammy emphasized the importance of “pragmatic solutions to complex challenges.” National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell also traveled to China in July 2025, a trip that was not announced by the UK government but was later publicized by Beijing, which described Britain’s willingness to “enhance dialogue and communication” for a “stable, practical and long-term partnership.” (BBC News).
As the dust settles, the fate of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry remains a cautionary tale about the intersection of law, politics, and international relations. Both continue to deny any wrongdoing, and the government maintains that the trial’s collapse was a consequence of legal requirements, not diplomatic maneuvering.
For now, the episode stands as a stark reminder of the challenges facing Western democracies as they grapple with the legal and political complexities of countering modern espionage—especially when the accused nation is a powerful global player like China.
