On October 29, 2025, the collapse of a high-profile espionage case against two men accused of spying for China set off a political storm in the United Kingdom, exposing the limitations of century-old espionage laws and sparking fierce debate over the role of politicians, prosecutors, and national security officials. At the heart of the controversy were Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, an academic, both of whom denied any wrongdoing but faced charges under the Official Secrets Act 1911 for allegedly gathering and providing information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state between December 2021 and February 2023.
According to BBC News, the government’s chief legal adviser, Attorney General Lord Richard Hermer, pointed the finger squarely at outdated legislation, telling Parliament’s Joint Committee on National Security Strategy (JCNSS) that the Official Secrets Act "wasn't fit for purpose" and posed a "very significant problem" for the prosecution. He stated, "Standing back in this case, where’s the problem? What is it, because I think we should all be concerned to try and identify what lessons can be learnt. I’m clear in my mind that certainly one very significant problem here was the Act. The Act wasn’t fit for purpose, it was out of date."
Prosecutors, Hermer insisted, had worked "in good faith" to secure convictions, but the law’s requirement that information must be passed to an "enemy"—a term enshrined in 1911—created insurmountable hurdles. As reported by The Evening Standard, Lord Hermer told the committee, "Had that Act been in force at the relevant time for this case, between (2021-23), I have no doubt that the prosecution would have proceeded to trial." He was referring to the National Security Act 2023, which replaced the problematic "enemy" criterion with the much broader necessity to prove that information was passed to a foreign power.
The case against Cash and Berry was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in September 2025, following concerns about insufficient evidence. A key issue, as detailed in The Independent, was the testimony of deputy national security adviser Matt Collins. Prosecutors argued that Collins’ refusal to describe Beijing as a "threat" to national security—reflecting the then-Conservative government’s policy—meant the prosecution could not demonstrate China was an "enemy" under the old law. Collins, for his part, told the committee that he had provided evidence of a "range of threats" posed by China but had not labeled the country a "generic" threat, in line with government policy at the time.
Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson explained that Collins’ witness statements would likely fail to meet the legal threshold set by the Official Secrets Act, especially after a Court of Appeal ruling in July 2024 further clarified the meaning of "enemy." Parkinson ultimately decided to discontinue the prosecution, a decision Lord Hermer said he did not interfere with, arguing it would have been "contrary to our constitutional values" for him to do so. "I engaged in a discussion with Mr Parkinson to understand his decision but did not intervene in the case or give any direction," Hermer told the committee, as cited by The Standard. He added, "Those are disgraceful allegations to make without evidence. They were baseless, as the evidence of the DPP and the Cabinet Secretary have made plain."
The fallout from the case’s collapse was swift and politically charged. The Conservative opposition accused the Labour government of letting the case fail in pursuit of warmer economic relations with Beijing. However, ministers, including Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones, firmly denied any political interference. Jones, who gave evidence alongside Lord Hermer, told the committee, "I think at the administrative level, the independence of the CPS, the role of ministers, the role of the attorney, that's all worked as it should do. The root cause of the problem here is that the case in question was charged under very old legislation." He also sought to distance the current government’s approach to China from that of the previous Conservative administration, stating, "It's right that we have a working relationship with the Chinese government and their officials, and it's right that we are robust in dealing with these issues."
Meanwhile, the committee heard from Lord Alex Carlile KC, a former criminal barrister and independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who strongly criticized the decision to drop the case. In a letter published by the JCNSS, Carlile wrote that the DPP had made "an incorrect decision" and had "failed to assess the evidence correctly." He asserted that, if in doubt, the DPP should have charged Cash and Berry with attempting to commit espionage, concluding, "These were major mistakes and have damaged confidence in the Crown Prosecution Service."
The controversy deepened when Labour MPs voted down a Conservative attempt to force the government to release correspondence relating to the case. Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds defended the decision, saying it was in Britain’s interest to "protect" sensitive material, while shadow home secretary Chris Philp accused Labour of voting to "carry on the cover-up."
At the core of the debate was the challenge of modernizing national security legislation to keep pace with evolving threats and geopolitical realities. Lord Hermer expressed frustration with Parliament’s slow response, saying, "Speaking frankly, I don’t understand why it took Parliament so long to pass that [the National Security Act]." He cautioned, however, against branding the collapse of the case as "farcical" or "a catastrophic failure." In his words, "It is easy, particularly when we are all so disappointed about the outcome of this case, it is a little easy to kind of jump to conclusions that may prove to be unfair. Now I don’t think that mismatch need be categorised as a mistake or farcical. You’re absolutely right to be looking at it, but I wouldn’t rush to say that. These are all people working incredibly hard to try and get this prosecution over the line."
Others, like Lord Carlile, remained unconvinced, arguing that the case’s collapse had undermined public confidence in the justice system and exposed the dangers of relying on outdated laws. The episode also highlighted the difficulties faced by prosecutors when government policy and legal requirements are out of sync, as well as the political risks of national security cases in an era of heightened global tensions.
As the dust settles, the collapse of the alleged China spy case stands as a stark reminder of the importance of timely legal reform and the delicate balance between national security, political accountability, and the rule of law.
