The China spy trial shows we are ruled by incompetent lawyers

It has been nearly two months since the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) abruptly dropped its case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, who were accused of spying for China. Last week, the appearance of several government figures before a parliamentary hearing was supposed to shed some light on how the most significant espionage trial in recent British history was allowed to collapse. Incredibly, we remain none the wiser.

It was alleged that Cash, a parliamentary researcher, and Berry, an academic, passed on information to a Chinese intelligence agent. This agent, in turn, passed it to a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party. Cash and Berry deny the claims, which prosecutors allege took place between December 2021 and February 2023. The pair were arrested in March 2023 and formally charged with espionage under the Official Secrets Act in April 2024. They both entered pleas of not guilty at the Old Bailey in October of that year.

According to the CPS, it was forced to drop the case in September because it could not obtain evidence from the government stating that China was a threat to the national security of the UK. There has since been back-and-forth between Labour and the head of the CPS, Stephen Parkinson, over who was responsible for the collapse of the trial.

This was supposed to come to a head on Monday last week, in a hearing of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. At the centre of attention was the deputy national security adviser, Mathew Collins, who had provided three witness statements to the CPS to substantiate its case against Cash and Berry.

These statements have assumed a central importance. China, Collins said, posed a threat to the UK in a ‘range’ of ways, particularly in its desire to undermine the UK’s democracy and its economy. This ought to have been enough to take the case to a jury. In his appearance before the committee last week, he said that he was ‘surprised’ and ‘disappointed’ that the prosecution did not proceed. He is not the only one.

These statements leave the CPS and the government with much to answer. In a letter to MPs last month, Parkinson said Collins needed to prove that China was an ‘enemy’ of the UK between December 2021 to February 2023, the period of the alleged espionage. In his own evidence before last week’s hearing, Parkinson said his team ‘weren’t quite there’ when it came to establishing that Beijing was a ‘threat’.

It’s unclear why these issues could not have been left to a jury to decide. There was evidence in Collins’s statement that China was a ‘threat’. The jury could have decided, at the end of a trial, whether the evidence was sufficient. This is precisely what a jury should do. Instead, the decision has been taken out of their hands by lawyers.

There is also serious doubt regarding Parkinson’s view that China had to have been formally designated an ‘enemy’ by the government. This view isn’t shared by the Court of Appeal. In July 2024, in a case involving the (much publicised) Bulgarian spy ring, the court found that ‘enemy’ means a country that ‘represents a current threat to the national security of the UK’. These were more or less Collins’s words. Did Parkinson misinterpret the caselaw, or was he simply ignorant of it?

This whole fiasco is an embarrassment for the lawyers who purport to control our institutions. On the one hand, the lawyers at the top of the CPS do not seem to understand what is required to maintain a prosecution.

On the other hand, we have a government who failed to intervene to keep this case on track. The government knew that there was an evidential problem with this case because its deputy national security adviser was asked for further evidence. Yet it could do nothing to keep the case alive. Starmer, Parkinson and other key players simply let it collapse. To an ordinary member of the public, this will be staggering.

Yet there is an ongoing collective shrug from those involved. You would have thought that the collapse of the most significant espionage case in recent history might lead to some soul-searching – perhaps some law-making. You would think that accountability would be swift, if only to communicate that the UK is not an easy place to spy for foreign powers. Instead, we have had a ridiculous blame game coupled with complete inaction. The lawyers in government, who purport to care deeply about the rule of law, should be asking how this happened. Instead, they appear to be saying ‘nothing to see here’.

This gabble of bickering barristers has managed to put the country at risk through their misunderstandings and inaction. Perhaps this is all the fault of senior prosecutors, which would be worrying enough. But Starmer is the prime minister. It was his legal background, and his previous job as head of the CPS, which apparently made him so suitable for high office. It was also attorney general Richard Hermer’s legal background which enamoured him to so many in the commentariat. The fact that no one in this apparent legal dream team anticipated that this could happen is extraordinary.

It’s not enough to simply blame the CPS and move on. This catastrophe has highlighted the collective impotence of the technocrats at the top of our institutions. For the sake of our national security, heads must roll.

Luke Gittos is a spiked columnist and author. His most recent book is Human Rights – Illusory Freedom: Why We Should Repeal the Human Rights Act, which is published by Zero Books. Order it here.