British prosecutors suspected that Cai Qi, China’s fifth-ranking official, was the recipient of intelligence passed by two British researchers charged with spying for China, the Guardian understands. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had alleged that a senior Chinese Communist Party politburo member received “politically sensitive information” from the researchers, but dropped the charges last month citing insufficient evidence.
Cai, a close ally of President Xi Jinping and de facto chief of staff, is a member of the standing committee of the CCP politburo, the party’s top ruling body. The CPS previously stated that between December 2021 and February 2023, a “Chinese intelligence agent” commissioned at least 34 reports from Christopher Berry, a British researcher living in China, who obtained information from Christopher Cash, then working in Westminster for the China Research Group.
The CPS abandoned the case on 15 September 2024, more than two years after the men were first arrested. In a letter to shadow home secretary Chris Philp, Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson said the “evidence no longer met the evidential test” required for a realistic prospect of conviction, though he maintained that sufficient evidence existed at the time of the charging decision. The CPS denied any political pressure.
The decision prompted outrage among Labour and Conservative MPs, as well as from Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle, who considered a private prosecution. Chairs of the home affairs and justice committees wrote to Parkinson requesting further explanation, stating the initial response “falls some way short of the level of detail that is acceptable for a case of this seriousness”.
However, China experts expressed scepticism that an official of Cai’s rank would receive unclassified Westminster gossip from junior researchers. Professor Kerry Brown of King’s College London said such a direct line of contact was “very, very, very unlikely” and that politburo members under Xi lack the liberty for such independent action. Berry’s lawyer, John Armstrong, noted that his client “does not accept that he met someone of the seniority apparently suggested by the crown”.
