Former CPS top lawyer: China spy case ‘does not add up’

Public prosecutors have said a Chinese spy case involving Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry was dropped due the lack of evidence provided by the Labour government on labelling the country a threat. 

The Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) tried to take evidence from the government “over many months” but failed to gain enough evidence from the government. 

The CPS dropped the case around the pair’s alleged espionage for China in mid-September, prompting strong criticism from the Speaker of the House Lindsay Hoyle as well as other parliamentarians who believed they had been targeted. 

Both Cash and Berry deny all allegations and reject any wrongdoing around collecting information on politicians’ claims around the Chinese Communist Party. 

In a letter on Tuesday, Parkinson said prosecutors had attempted to get clarity from the government, with confirmation on whether it labelled China a threat necessary for the case to go ahead. 

“It was considered that further evidence should be obtained,” the letter said.

“Efforts to obtain that evidence were made over many months, but notwithstanding the fact that further witness statements were provided, none of these stated that at the time of the offence China represented a threat to national security, and by late August 2025 it was realised that this evidence would not be forthcoming.

“When this became apparent, the case could not proceed.”

Reports suggested last week national security adviser Jonathan Powell, a political appointee made by Sir Keir Starmer when he came into office, intervened on the case by claiming the state could not officially call China an “enemy” in court. 

The label is key to ensuring individuals can be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act of 1911. 

Explanation ‘does not add up’

Parkinson, the top prosecutor at the CPS, has said that they correctly charged Cash and Berry under the Official Secrets Act last year, but reviewed the evidence following a High Court judgment in the case of five Bulgarian citizens found guilty of spying in the UK for Russia.

In that case, judges ruled that in order to meet the “enemy” requirement in the Official Secrets Act, it must be proven that Russia was a “state which presently poses an active threat to the UK’s national security”. 

Nick Vamos, Head of Business Crime and Investigations at Peters & Peters LLP, and a former Head of Special Crime at the CPS said this explanation “doesn’t add up.”

“The explanation from the DPP still doesn’t add up. The Court of Appeal decision in the Bulgarian spy case expanded rather than restricted the definition of ‘enemy’.  The Court explicitly stated that “we do not think that this term raises a question of any particular complexity” and that “enemy means the same thing now as it did (since the Act came into force)” which includes countries that represent a current threat to national security.  The judgment did not set any new evidential bars. 

“Therefore, either the CPS did not have sufficient evidence to charge the defendants in the first place, or they misunderstood what they needed to prove. The fact that the government then refused to provide evidence that China was a threat to national security at the time the offences [were] committed is hard to fathom, but does not explain why the CPS did not ask for that evidence before the defendants were charged.”

Labour government defends role in case

The affair raises questions over the Labour government’s handling of sensitive cases, diplomacy and how it conducts key policymaking in respect of security risks. Starmer, who himself was formerly the director of public prosecutions, said the decision to call China a threat would have been taken under the previous government.

“You can’t prosecute someone two years later in relation to a designation that wasn’t in place at the time,” he told reporters ahead of a trade visit in India. 

“What matters is what the designation [of China] was in 2023, because that’s when the offence was committed and that’s when the relevant period was.

“Statements were drawn up at the time according to the then government policy, and they haven’t been changed in relation to it, that was the position then.

“I might just add, nor could the position change, because it was the designation at the time that matters.”

The government has also denied that it intervened on the case.

Separate reports have pointed to Powell’s meeting with officials from the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries (CPAFFC) in Beijing months before being appointed as national security adviser. 

CPAFFC is a group which the US has said “sought to directly and malignly influence state and local leaders to promote” China.

Powell is set to appear before MPs in a private hearing in the coming weeks where he will be scrutinised on his role in the case.