The British government is under heavy criticism after the failure of a trial against two men who were suspected of spying for China last month, with critics claiming that the prosecution was dropped out of concern for upsetting Beijing. The collapse of China’s spying case has triggered a political and legal storm. Highlighting conflicts between foreign policy, the legal system, and national security.
The case began in March 2023 when British police detained Christopher Cash, a former member of a conservative-linked China-research group, and Christopher Berry, a parliamentary researcher. Both were arrested in April 2024 under the Official Secrets Act of 1911; they were accused of providing information “useful to an enemy”, in this instance, a Chinese intelligence agent codenamed “Alex”.
However, China rejected the allegation, calling it “entirely fabricated”. The two men awaiting the trial denied any wrongdoing, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) abruptly dropped the case in September 2025, less than a month before it was schedule to begin. This decision shocked the MPs and reignited the debate about how the UK defines and prosecutes espionage.
The Reason Behind the Case’s Collapse
The CPS came to the conclusion that the evidence no longer met the legal threshold for prosecution. The definition of “enemy” under the official Secrets Act was a crucial point of contention. After a separate 2024 ruling made it clear that a country must declare the present threat to the UK to qualify as “enemy”. Prosecutors sought government confirmation that China met this description at the time of the alleged offence. Advisers and other government officials provided a witness statement that described China’s “malign activity” and “active espionage threat”, but they did not specifically classify China as a national security concern. Without the definition, prosecutors claimed they couldn’t comply with legal requirements to proceed without that definition.
Starmer’s Response
In response to criticism, Prime Minister Starmer declared that his administration would publish the key witness statement to demonstrate transparency and prove that the CPS decision was free from political influence. He emphasized that the prosecution’s collapse was solely due to legal reasons, and ministers had no say in whether the case should proceed.
The published document confirmed that the top authorities had issued warning about the dangers of Chinese espionage without designating China as enemy state. Starmer stated that this showed the independence of Britain’s legal system, but opponents charged his administration’s strategy of avoiding conflict with Beijing.
Why does the definition matter?
Prosecutors must demonstrate that the accused disclosed information that was useful to an enemy. In this instance, the court needs clear legal evidence that the UK officially regarded China as an “enemy”. The government refrained from using that term, likely for diplomatic reasons, so prosecutors were forced to dismiss the accusation due to the lack of a crucial legal basis.
The Broader Impact
The China spying incident is more than just a domestic security issue in Britain. It’s turning into a defining test of Britain’s resilience in the age of great power competition. The allegation has forced the UK to confront how foreign influence can reach democratic systems, and how urgent safeguards must be modernized to protect them.
The case has changed the way that the British public and its allies view national security in an environment where information is both a weapon and a point of vulnerability. The government’s response to transparency reflects a recognition that espionage today no longer plays out in the shadows, but within everyday political, digital, and diplomatic spaces.
At last, the investigation may reshape Britain’s long-term policy towards China, from a cautious approach to a strategic defense one. Its implication will stretch beyond the future of UK policy and potentially shape how democracies defend themselves in an increasingly interconnected and competitive world.
