Legal experts have raised doubts about the Crown Prosecution Service's explanation for dropping charges against two Britons accused of spying for China. Former Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald suggested the current DPP, Stephen Parkinson, may have been 'over-fussy' in seeking further government assurances that China posed a current threat to national security.
Nick Vamos, a former CPS lawyer, said prosecutors likely 'messed up' either when charging Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry in April 2024 or when abandoning the case last month. He added, 'I cannot fathom what about this case has changed.' The two men had been due to stand trial this month under the 1911 Official Secrets Act.
Parkinson argued that a ruling in a separate spying case involving Bulgarians changed the legal definition of an 'enemy', requiring the CPS to seek further government evidence. However, Macdonald noted the ruling had 'set lower' the bar for prosecution, while Vamos said it 'expands the definition of an enemy' to include countries considered a national security threat.
Spy chiefs have previously described China as a threat, but Parkinson complained the government would not provide witness statements to that effect. Gavin Millar KC suggested the government may have found it 'awkward and embarrassing' to detail China's threat in open court. The political row continues, with Labour and the Conservatives blaming each other for the collapse of the case.
