The collapse of a China spy trial has prompted much finger pointing between Downing Street, the former Conservative government and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Christopher Cash, 30, a former director of the Beijing-sceptic China Research Group of Tory MPs, and financial analyst Christopher Berry, 33, were arrested two years ago.
They were charged in April 2024 with passing politically sensitive information to a Chinese intelligence agent between December 2021 and February 2023.
The pair, who previously taught in China together, denied allegations they provided information prejudicial to the interests of the state in breach of the Official Secrets Act.
They were set to go on trial on 6 October, but three weeks before, the CPS suddenly announced they had dropped the case because the “evidential standard” was “no longer met”.
Questions are now being asked about why the case was suddenly ended, with a blame game emerging.
Sky News looks at what each party claims – and speaks to a Cambridge law professor about what the law actually says.
‘Disappointed’: Starmer blames Tories for China spy trial being dropped
Spying trial collapsed after government refused to brand China a threat, says top prosecutor
Renewable energy produces more electricity than coal for the first time, experts say
What does the government say?
Sir Keir Starmer, a former head of the CPS, said the government was “disappointed” the case did not reach trial and blamed the Tories.
He said the trial would have had to take place based on the government’s position during the period Berry and Cash were accused – which was when the Conservatives were in government.
“Now, that’s not a political to and fro, that’s a matter of law,” he said on 8 October.
“You have to prosecute people on the basis of the circumstances at the time of the alleged offence. And so all the focus needs to be on the policy of the Tory government in place then.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Minister Emma Hardy said the case was dropped due to a change in case law after a Court of Appeal ruling following a group of Bulgarians being found guilty of spying for Russia last year, which meant the evidence in the China case did not meet the threshold.
She also denied the government had applied pressure on the CPS to drop the case over fears of calling China an enemy.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
What does the CPS say?
Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions (DPP) – the current head of the CPS – took the unusual step of sending a letter to MPs on 7 October to explain why they dropped the case after he felt he was being publicly briefed against.
He said the government had refused to label Beijing an enemy and the Official Secrets Act, under which the charges were brought, specifies it is a crime to communicate any documents which might be useful to “an enemy”.
Mr Parkinson said prosecutors had “over many months” tried to get the government to provide them with evidence after the Russian spy case to prove the government sees China as a threat to national security.
đŸ‘‰ Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app đŸ‘ˆ
Read more:
Bulgarians who ran Russian spy ring from England jailed
Former assistant to German politician guilty of spying for China
What do the Conservatives say?
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused the government of having “deliberately collapsed” the trial because the PM “wants to suck up to Beijing”.
Former Conservative chair of the powerful foreign affairs committee, Alicia Kearns, who Mr Cash worked for, told Sky News the government’s explanation did not make sense as they were blaming the Tory government at the same time as saying the CPS is independent of government.
She accused the government of having “stonewalled” her and the public by failing to explain why the case was dropped.
What is the law?
Mark Elliott, professor of public law at the University of Cambridge and a former legal adviser to the House of Lords constitution committee, said the government is both wrong to say the previous government did not consider China to be an enemy, and that the current government is bound by that.
“There’s nothing in the Official Secrets Act or the case law that recognises this concept of a declared enemy,” he said.
“There’s no official status where countries are an enemy or not.
“The prosecution has to prove to the jury they were trying to pass information to an enemy, the court can form its own view.
“There is also nothing to stop the current government from saying a state was an enemy two years ago.”
He said the Court of Appeal case last year actually makes it easier to prosecute for espionage as it determined that an “enemy” under the Official Secrets Act includes states that represent a “current threat to the national security of the UK”.
Government ‘cherry picking’
Professor Elliott pointed out the 2023 Integrated Defence Review, under the Tories, clearly says China was a threat to national security, but the current government only picked out a specific sentence saying China is an “epoch-defining challenge”.
“The idea that because it doesn’t say China is an enemy it doesn’t count is hard to understand, given they refer to Russia, but not as an ‘enemy’,” he added.
“They’re cherry picking something to say the previous government didn’t regard China as a threat to national security.
“As a former DPP, I’m surprised by Sir Keir Starmer’s analysis of the law.”
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
Professor Elliott also questioned why the CPS spent months trying to get the government to provide evidence, in the form of ministers and officials saying whether China is a national security threat.
Former DPP Lord Macdonald also queried the DPP’s explanation, telling BBC Radio 4 it is “very hard to follow” why the DPP claimed the Court of Appeal case made the situation more difficult.
He agreed it actually “set the bar lower” for Cash and Berry’s prosecution.
The Chinese embassy said: “We have emphasised from the outset that the allegation about China instructing the relevant British individuals to ‘steal British intelligence’ is entirely fabricated and malicious slander, which we firmly reject.”
“We urge certain individuals in the UK to stop this kind of self-staged anti-China political farce.”
