Spy case suspect was stopped with suitcase full of cash on return from China
A suspect in the China spy case was carrying a “suitcase full of cash” upon being stopped by police under terrorism laws after flying into Heathrow from China.
Academic Christopher Berry, was discovered with £4,000 when he was intercepted at the airport in February 2023, almost six weeks before he was formally arrested on suspicion of spying for China.
First reported in The Sunday Times, the money is believed to have been given to Berry by his Chinese intelligence handler known only as ‘Alex’, according to sources familiar with the case.
It is unclear whether the cash was retained by the police or what currency it was in.
He was the subject of a port stop under Schedule 3 Counter and Border Security Act 2019, which is used by police when there is suspicion of ‘hostile activity’ involving a foreign state.
Both Berry’s phone and laptop were taken by police and later revealed his connection to parliamentary researcher, Chris Cash.
Cash was also accused of spying for China, as well as a person assessed to be a Chinese intelligent agent.
Prosecutors alleged the Chinese agent commissioned at least 34 reports from Berry on subjects of political interest, ten of which were deemed prejudicial to national security.
UK prosecutors suspected that Cai Qi, a confidant of President Xi and China’s fifth most senior official, was in receipt of intelligence from Westminster as part of the case.
The Metropolitan Police said: “A man in his thirties was subject to a stop at Heathrow airport on 2 February 2023 under Schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
“He was not arrested and inquiries continued.”
Collapsed case and Westminster chaos
However, the case against the two men collapsed last month, just weeks before the trial was set to begin, sparking uproar in Parliament and among the police.
Luke de Pulford of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) said: “These revelations paint a caricature of espionage that cries out for justice.
The alleged involvement of one of the most powerful men in China is unprecedented, underlining the priority Beijing had given to silencing backbench dissent.
What a travesty that the trial was frustrated, both for the security of the UK and the accused.”
The case collapsed two weeks after 20 senior mandarins and spy chiefs were summoned to a meeting chaired by national security adviser Jonathan Powell to discuss the upcoming trial.
According to two sources familiar with the meeting, it had been instigated at the request of Sir Oliver Robbins, the permanent undersecretary of the Foreign Office.
Others present included the cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, head of MI5, Sir Ken McCallum, and deputy national security adivser, Matthew Collins.
Collins was also the government’s sole witness for the prosecution, but he failed to state that China was an “ongoing” threat to national security in his evidence.
This has been cited by the Director of Public Prosecutions as the reason for the trial’s collapse.
Anger in the commons
The trial’s collapse has led critics, mainly across the other side of the aisle, to claim the government was to scared to stand up to China, prioritising a trade relationship that is seen as crucial to boosting the UK’s economic growth, over national security.
Last week, tensions hit boiling point, as the row led to angry questions in Parliament over what occurred during the meeting.
However, answers were evasive.
A source said: “There had been very little chatter about the case until late August, when, suddenly, it appeared to be at the top of Ollie’s [Robbins] agenda.
“It was like the Foreign Office had belatedly woken up to the fact that this trial was going to be a big problem for the UK’s relationship with China.
“There was clearly concern about China’s response to it and questions were being asked about it.”
MPs are now calling for answers into why the case collapsed, with Sir Iain Duncan Smith, co-chair of the Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China, calling the government’s handling of the case “a dangerous farce”.
Speaking on Times Radio, he said: “The problem here is really not so much guilty or innocent.
“The question really is why was the government so determined to shut this thing down and not have it go ahead?
“They behaved in a peculiar and bizarre manner.”