On October 16, 2025, the British government took the extraordinary step of releasing a trove of witness statements connected to the sudden collapse of a high-profile espionage trial. At the heart of the controversy: Christopher Cash, a parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, a teacher, both accused of passing sensitive parliamentary information to China between 2021 and 2023. The case, which had all the makings of a gripping spy novel, fizzled out just weeks before it was due to go to trial, leaving the public, politicians, and pundits alike scrambling for answers.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had charged Cash and Berry under the Official Secrets Act, alleging they acted as agents for Beijing during a period marked by rising tensions between the UK and China. But when the CPS announced it would not proceed, citing insufficient evidence that China posed a "threat to national security," a political firestorm erupted. According to Sky News, the newly published witness statements from Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser, came tantalizingly close to meeting the CPS's requirements. In a February 2025 statement, Collins described China as "the biggest state-based threat to the UK's economic security" and detailed instances of malicious cyber activity and the targeting of UK government officials by Chinese operatives during the alleged period of espionage.
Yet, as The Guardian reported, the crux of the issue was not the absence of evidence of hostile Chinese activity but the lack of an explicit, formal designation of China as a "threat to national security" in the government’s statements. This legal specificity, it seems, was the missing piece. DPP Stephen Parkinson, addressing MPs the day before the statements were published, revealed he had "95% of the evidence" needed to prosecute but lacked the crucial 5%—the unambiguous assertion that China constituted a national security threat.
Why, then, did the government not provide the CPS with the required explicit language? The answer, or perhaps the lack thereof, has only deepened suspicions and fueled partisan finger-pointing. The current Labour government and its Conservative predecessor have traded barbs over who failed to officially label China a threat. The Conservatives argue that Labour’s desire for closer economic ties with China led to a softer stance, while Labour insists the relevant government position at the time of the alleged offenses—when the Conservatives were in power—was what mattered. The witness statements themselves, however, muddy the waters. The third and final statement, submitted in August 2025, quotes directly from Labour’s 2024 manifesto: "We will co-operate where we can; compete where we need to; and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security."
As The Telegraph and The Times observed, this inclusion has sparked fresh questions. Did these "warmer words" toward China influence the CPS’s decision to drop the case? Was the inclusion of Labour’s current policy an attempt to contextualize the UK’s approach for the court, or was it, as some Conservatives allege, a strategic move to weaken the prosecution? Government sources have insisted it was the former, arguing that the statement was meant to provide context for the open court proceedings expected in 2025, not to affect the outcome.
Meanwhile, former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove told Sky News that "it seems to be there was enough" evidence to proceed, suggesting that the CPS could have called additional witnesses, such as sitting intelligence directors, to bolster the claim that China posed a threat. This sentiment was echoed by many MPs, who, according to The Times, privately admitted confusion over the legal and political nuances but were united in their frustration with the lack of clarity from both the government and the CPS.
The political fallout has been swift and severe. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has openly questioned whether Labour ministers or advisers influenced the content of the witness statements, particularly the decision to include language from the Labour manifesto. On the other side, Labour officials maintain that the only material consideration was the government's position at the time of the alleged offenses, not subsequent policy shifts.
Adding to the intrigue, The Week highlighted the broader context: while China is undeniably a profound security threat—engaging in large-scale espionage, cyberattacks, and efforts to compromise British officials—it is also a vital economic partner. Commentators have pointed to Germany, which managed to prosecute a Chinese spy without triggering a trade crisis, as evidence that strength and engagement can go hand in hand. Still, as columnist Michael Gove wrote in the Daily Mail, "with a nation as ruthless as China, engagement works best in tandem with strength."
What happens next is far from clear. The publication of the witness statements has raised the prospect of parliamentary inquiries, with DPP Stephen Parkinson expected to be called before a select committee to explain his decision. There are also calls for government officials to testify publicly about their handling of the case. And, as BBC News noted, the controversy has placed the UK-China relationship under an intense spotlight, just as senior British officials—including Chancellor Rachel Reeves and, potentially, Prime Minister Keir Starmer—prepare for high-level diplomatic visits to Beijing.
All the while, Cash and Berry continue to deny any wrongdoing. The allegations against them have never been tested in court, and the government’s own witness statements proceed on the assumption that the claims made by counter-terror police were accurate. Yet, the collapse of the case has prompted broader questions about the UK’s ability to confront foreign espionage, the legal hurdles involved in prosecuting such cases, and the political will to call out state-based threats—even when economic interests are at stake.
Perhaps the most significant impact of this episode will be its effect on the UK’s future stance toward China. As the row deepens, there are growing calls for a more assertive approach, with some suggesting that the government’s intended diplomatic and economic engagement with China may now be politically untenable. Whether this leads to a hardening of the UK’s policy remains to be seen—but for now, the unanswered questions and the collapse of the spy trial have left the nation’s security, legal, and political establishments grappling for direction.
