China spy trial raises serious questions for Starmer

Two men accused of spying for China had their charges suddenly dropped, and the political fallout is growing. The collapse of the prosecution has put the spotlight on whether the UK government withheld key evidence — and whether preserving diplomatic relations with Beijing played a role in derailing an espionage case.

What happened at the Old Bailey, and why did the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) feel it could no longer proceed? Officials, MPs and legal experts are publicly sparring over who is responsible and what this means for national security and the rule of law.

Fast-moving case: arrests, charges and a sudden stoppage

Last year two British nationals, Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, were charged under the Official Secrets Act. Prosecutors claimed the men had passed information to Chinese handlers between late 2021 and early 2023. The accused pleaded not guilty at a brief hearing at the Old Bailey, but the trial never advanced to a full hearing.

• October 2023: Charges filed and pleas entered.
• Months of pre-trial activity followed behind closed doors.
• Recently: Charges dropped unexpectedly, prompting renewed media attention.

The abrupt end to the prosecution prompted the director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, to write to Parliament explaining why the case could not go ahead. His account has sparked a fierce debate over whether legal standards, government communication and national security considerations were properly balanced.

What the DPP told MPs and the claim about missing evidence

In his letter to the House of Commons, the director of public prosecutions said the CPS lacked a crucial piece of material: official evidence that, at the time of the alleged offences, China was judged to be a threat to the UK’s national security. According to Parkinson, attempts to obtain such material stretched over many months but failed to produce a statement saying China represented a national security threat at the relevant time.

That gap, the DPP argued, undermined the legal basis for prosecution. Without it, the CPS could not meet the evidential threshold required to proceed under the relevant statutes.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s defense and the parliamentary dispute

Prime Minister Keir Starmer told MPs his administration could not produce the statement the CPS requested and argued there was a legal distinction between describing a state as an “enemy” and other descriptors. He referenced a recent espionage conviction involving six Bulgarian nationals and said prosecutors had relied on Russia being characterized as an “enemy” when pursuing that case.

Conservative critics pushed back, saying the government’s public documents already used language strong enough to justify a prosecution. They pointed to wording in the 2023 Integrated Review Refresh that linked Chinese Communist Party activity to threats to people, prosperity and security — language they say amounts to acknowledging a national security risk.

Key points in the parliamentary exchange

• Starmer: The evidence the CPS sought was not available in the form required.
• Opposition MPs: Existing government documents and intelligence statements already described China in threatening terms.
• Judicial wording cited in debate suggested a state posing an “active threat” can be considered an “enemy” in ordinary language.

Intelligence warnings and past public assessments on China

This controversy did not arise in a vacuum. Senior intelligence figures have publicly warned about Chinese efforts to acquire technology and intellectual property. In 2023, then-MI5 director Ken McCallum said tens of thousands of people in the UK had been approached by agents or intermediaries working on behalf of China.

Former senior civil servants and security officials have regularly described Beijing’s activities as a material threat to the UK’s economic and national security interests. Those public comments are central to critics’ argument that the government could have supplied the CPS with evidence supporting a prosecution.

Consequences for justice, security and public confidence

The immediate consequence is that two defendants, who had faced serious charges, will not be tried on those allegations now. Beyond that, commentators warn of wider implications:

• Legal precedent: Concerns that prosecution of state-linked espionage could be harder if classification of a foreign power’s threat level is treated as a gating factor.
• National security: Fears that the inability to bring cases may embolden hostile actors.
• Public trust: Questions about whether political or diplomatic priorities are trumping criminal prosecutions.

Some observers are especially troubled that the government did not ask a judge to rule on any disputed document or classification, a step that might have resolved legal uncertainty before charges were dropped.

Possible explanations offered and demands from MPs

Debate has concentrated on two broad possibilities: either officials misread the legal requirements and concluded prosecution was impossible, or there was an intentional decision to avoid producing evidence that could complicate relations with China.

• Explanation A — legal caution or error: The government genuinely believed the available material did not meet the CPS’s needs.
• Explanation B — political calculation: Evidence was withheld to prevent diplomatic fallout, even at the cost of a criminal trial.

Opposition politicians and some former civil servants have called for an independent inquiry to establish the facts. They argue transparency is essential when national security and the integrity of the criminal justice system intersect.

Questions left unanswered and what officials should clarify

At the heart of the controversy are a handful of straightforward questions that have yet to be fully answered:

1. What specific material did the CPS request, and why was it not produced?
2. Who within government decided not to release the material, and what rationale was given?
3. Was any legal process, such as judicial review or a closed hearing, attempted to resolve disputes over classification or relevance?
4. How will the government ensure future national security prosecutions are not impeded by similar disagreements?

Calls for a public investigation are growing louder. Critics note that Keir Starmer, who once served as director of public prosecutions, is in a unique position to explain the sequence of events and the legal judgments made by his administration. Supporters of an inquiry say only a transparent review will restore confidence that political or diplomatic concerns did not override criminal justice.

Why this matters beyond the courtroom

Espionage prosecutions carry implications far beyond the fate of individual defendants. They send signals about how seriously a country will defend its secrets, how it balances legal standards against diplomatic relationships, and whether political expediency can curtail criminal proceedings related to national security.

As the dispute plays out in Parliament and the media, the public and legal community await further disclosure. The answers could reshape how the UK pursues future cases involving alleged espionage and how it defines and responds to strategic threats posed by state actors abroad.

Luke Gittos is a columnist whose recent work includes a book on human rights law published by Zero Books.

You might also like:

• China spy case reveals Keir Starmer’s contempt for the rule of law
• Starmer approves China super embassy plan, prompting security concerns
• Jimmy Lai: Hong Kong persecution raises concerns about press freedom
• Manchester Airport brawlers: did they escape arrest?
• Louvre crown jewels heist: suspects arrested in Paris probe

Robert Johnson

Robert Johnson is a dedicated columnist focusing on political and social debates. With twelve years in editorial writing, he provides nuanced, well‑argued perspectives. His commentaries invite you to form your own views and engage in critical issues.