Legal experts have questioned the Crown Prosecution Service's explanation for dropping charges against two Britons accused of spying for China, amid a political row over responsibility. Former Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald suggested prosecutors may have been 'over-fussy' in demanding further government assurances that China posed a current threat to national security.
The CPS abandoned the case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry last month, citing a need for additional government statements on China's status as an enemy under the 1911 Official Secrets Act. Macdonald said the current DPP, Stephen Parkinson, may have sought a court statement that would be 'embarrassing' to British national interests.
Labour leader Keir Starmer expressed disappointment the trial did not proceed but noted the prosecution would have reflected the situation under the previous Conservative government. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused Labour of collapsing the case to appease Beijing.
Parkinson defended the decision, pointing to a July 2024 ruling in a separate Russian spy case that clarified the legal definition of an enemy. The ruling, by Dame Victoria Sharp, expanded 'enemy' to include a country posing a current national security threat. Parkinson complained the government would not confirm China's threat in witness statements for the Cash and Berry case.
Former CPS lawyer Nick Vamos suggested prosecutors 'messed up' either when charging the pair or when dropping the case, unable to fathom what had changed. The trial, which would have tested UK-China relations, was due to proceed this month.
