In a dramatic turn of events, the high-profile case against two British men accused of spying for China has collapsed, igniting fierce debate across the United Kingdom’s political landscape and raising pointed questions about the government’s approach to national security and foreign relations. The case, centered on former parliamentary researcher Christopher Cash and academic Christopher Berry, was dropped in September 2025, just weeks before trial, after prosecutors concluded they could not secure the necessary evidence to proceed under the United Kingdom’s century-old Official Secrets Act.
According to The Associated Press, the men were charged in April 2024 with violating the Official Secrets Act by allegedly providing information or documents that could be “useful to an enemy” and “prejudicial to the safety or interests” of the UK between late 2021 and February 2023. The charges, which both men strenuously denied, stemmed from accusations that they had shared sensitive information with a suspected Chinese intelligence official. The Chinese Embassy in London, for its part, dismissed the allegations as “fabricated” and “malicious slander.”
Yet the prosecution’s case soon ran aground on a crucial legal technicality. The Official Secrets Act, dating back to 1911, requires that prosecutors demonstrate the accused were acting on behalf of an “enemy.” This legal definition was sharpened by a High Court judgment in a separate Russian spying case last year, which clarified that an “enemy” must be a country posing a threat to the UK’s national security at the time of the alleged offense.
Stephen Parkinson, the UK’s Director of Public Prosecutions, revealed the heart of the problem in a letter sent on October 7, 2025, to Parliament’s home affairs and justice committees. He explained, “None of these [government witnesses] 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 emphasized that his team had done “everything possible” to bring the case to court, but without a government official willing to testify about China’s status as a threat during the relevant period, the legal requirements simply could not be met.
The government’s stance on China during the period in question proved pivotal. At the time of the alleged offenses, the Conservative government, led by former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, had described China not as a direct threat but as an “epoch-defining challenge.” While British intelligence agencies, including MI5, have repeatedly warned about Beijing’s covert activities—Ken McCallum, head of MI5, told the BBC in 2023 that “tens of thousands of people in the UK had been approached by Chinese spies” in a campaign he described as “pretty epic in scale”—the official government designation stopped short of labeling China an outright enemy.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, himself a former head of public prosecutions, echoed this legal reality in comments to reporters. “You have to prosecute people on the basis of what was the state of affairs at the time of the offence,” Starmer said, as reported by AP. “Nothing changes that fundamental, whoever is in government.” He further clarified, “You can’t prosecute someone two years later in relation to a designation that wasn’t in place at the time.” Starmer’s government, which took power in 2024, has continued to refer to China as a “strategic challenge” rather than a direct threat, a subtle but significant distinction in legal terms.
The abrupt collapse of the case has sparked a storm of criticism from across the political spectrum. Conservative lawmaker Alicia Kearns, who previously worked with Cash, demanded transparency: “The government must come clean. Who is responsible for spiking the prosecution? Continued stonewalling only invites further concern of concealment or conspiracy.” Meanwhile, Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, accused officials of sacrificing national security for diplomatic convenience: “This is a clear example of UK officials trading away our national security.”
Allegations of political interference have swirled since the case was dropped, though the Labour government strongly denies any such motive. Starmer’s office, expressing frustration at the outcome, stated, “It is extremely disappointing that these individuals will not face trial. Any attempt by a foreign power to infiltrate our parliament or democracy is unacceptable.” The government insists that the decision was dictated by the legal standards in place and the evidence available, not by a desire to avoid upsetting Beijing.
Behind the legal wrangling lies a broader context of shifting UK-China relations. Over the past several years, ties between London and Beijing have been strained by a litany of disputes, including spying allegations, human rights concerns, China’s support for Russia during the Ukraine war, and the crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong. Despite these tensions, Britain’s top diplomat and Treasury chief have both visited Beijing in the past year, and Starmer is expected to travel to China in 2026, signaling a cautious effort to reset the relationship.
Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee labeled China a “strategic threat” in 2023, reflecting mounting concern within the intelligence community. However, successive governments have stopped short of the more provocative “enemy” designation, wary of the diplomatic and economic fallout such a move could trigger. China remains a key trading partner for the UK, complicating any effort to draw hard lines in the sand.
The case has also reignited debate over the adequacy and relevance of the Official Secrets Act itself. Critics argue that the law, written over a century ago, is ill-suited to the nuances of modern geopolitical rivalry and espionage. The requirement to demonstrate that a foreign power is an “enemy” in the legal sense—rather than just a strategic competitor or challenge—creates a high bar for prosecution, one that may leave the UK vulnerable in an era of increasingly sophisticated foreign interference.
For Cash and Berry, the collapse of the case brings an end to a long period of uncertainty and public scrutiny. Both men continue to deny any wrongdoing, and the Chinese Embassy has remained adamant in its dismissal of the allegations. For the UK government, however, the episode raises uncomfortable questions about its ability—and willingness—to confront the evolving threats posed by foreign intelligence operations, all while balancing the imperatives of diplomacy, trade, and the rule of law.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the intersection of national security, legal standards, and international diplomacy is as fraught as ever, and the UK’s next moves will be closely watched at home and abroad.