Understanding the Collapse of Britain's Chinese Espionage Case: Politics, Evidence and International Relations

Intelligence agencies and lawmakers had consistently warned about Chinese espionage threats. (Representative)

London:

The British government has faced intense scrutiny following the unexpected collapse of a prosecution against two individuals accused of spying for China last month. Critics suggest the case was abandoned due to concerns about damaging relations with Beijing.

The espionage case involved Christopher Cash, 30, former director of the China Research Group think-tank, and Christopher Berry, 33, who worked as a researcher for a senior British lawmaker. Both men were arrested by British authorities in March 2023 under suspicion of espionage activities for China.

In April 2024, formal charges were brought against them under the 1911 Official Secrets Act, alleging they transmitted politically sensitive information to a Chinese intelligence operative identified as "Alex." Both defendants maintained their innocence, while China dismissed the allegations as completely fabricated and malicious.

In a surprising development, Britain's Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) abandoned the charges on September 15, approximately four weeks before the scheduled trial, stating that the case no longer met the required evidential threshold.

Following the case's dismissal, Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour administration has been accused by opponents of undermining the prosecution to preserve economic relations with China. Critics have particularly questioned National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell's role due to his alleged connections with China.

The UK government has firmly denied these accusations. Starmer emphasized that the CPS independently decided to drop the case, and ministers were disappointed by this outcome. However, the CPS revealed it had repeatedly requested new evidence from the government for months, which it deemed necessary for the prosecution to proceed.

The central issue involved the specific wording of the charge. The Official Secrets Act (OSA), legislation originally created to combat German espionage before World War One, criminalizes communicating documents that might benefit "an enemy."

When the charges were initially filed, the previous Conservative administration had categorized China as an "epoch-defining challenge" but stopped short of officially designating it as a threat, despite regular warnings from intelligence agencies about Chinese espionage activities targeting British politicians, businesses, and academic institutions.

In July 2024, a separate case involving Bulgarian nationals convicted of spying for Russia led London's Court of Appeal to determine that an "enemy" under the OSA meant a country that "represents a current threat to the national security of the UK."

Following this ruling, the CPS sought additional evidence from the government but reported that none of the supplementary witness statements obtained explicitly identified China as a national security threat at the time of the alleged offenses.

Government officials maintain that these statements, provided by a deputy national security adviser without Powell's involvement, needed to reflect the official position at the time of the charges under the previous Conservative government. The CPS has indicated that publishing these statements is the government's decision, and Starmer has committed to their release.

Legal experts suggest that both the government and CPS may have mishandled the situation. They question why the CPS required additional evidence after the Court of Appeal ruling, which seemingly broadened the definition of "enemy" under the OSA rather than restricting it.

Nevertheless, criticism persists that the government appeared reluctant to publicly acknowledge China as a threat in court proceedings, potentially to avoid diplomatic complications, even if not officially designated as such.