Still in the Headlines

In December of last year the UK news headlines were full of Chinese spies and Prince Andrew.  The revelations that one of Prince Andrew’s closest contacts was a Chinese national with extensive involvement with the United Front Work Department, which is responsible for actively cultivating sympathetic ties between offshore groups and the PRC, exposed the failure of repeated governments to rein in Chinese influence activities within the UK.

The headlines these past few weeks again focus on these two topics.  Prince Andrew remains in the spotlight because of his long-term friendship with Jeffery Epstein while the failure to proceed with what was called a “slam dunk” case against two individuals accused of passing information to China has shaken the government to its core.  Neither the government nor the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which dropped the case has been able to coherently explain why the trial was scrapped only weeks before it was due to go ahead.  The resulting excuses and explanations have left domestic political commentators, legal experts and China watchers both bemused and frustrated as to why such an important case could not continue.  The failure to prosecute has caused severe credibility problems for the government but also exposed how difficult it is to balance the challenge of dealing with China.

The “Slam Dunk” case

In March 2023 Christopher Berry and Christopher Cash were arrested on suspicion of breaching the Official Secrets Act, OSA, which relates to gathering information that could be useful to “an enemy”.  A year later in April 2024 they were formally charged.  Numerous MPs such as Iain Duncan Smith, former leader of the Conservative Party and Tom Tugendhat former security minister under the last Conservative government both longtime critics of the PRC have described the case as a slam dunk case based on the briefings they received from the security services at the time.

The charges related to activities dating back to the period from December 2021 to February 2023.  Berry and Cash had met in China and once Cash had returned to the UK they had stayed in touch.  Cash worked as a parliamentary researcher with what is called the China Research Group, a group of MPs who are broadly critical of the PRC and the actions of the CCP.  Cash passed various bit of confidential, although not necessarily secret information to Berry who produced a series of reports which were passed to a Chinese contact called “Alex” which prosecutors claimed is a Chinese intelligence operative.  That information was then passed to Cai Qi, often described as Xi Jinping’s right hand man and de facto chief of staff.  The prosecution claims that Cai Qi even had a meeting with Mr Berry in July 2024.

This was without doubt a high-profile case deserving the highest level of attention from all sides.  In 2022 the UK security services had warned MPs that Christine Lee, who had provided financial support to both current and aspiring MPs, was a Chinese agent.  Then last year’s revelations regarding Prince Andrew’s contacts with China further added to the depth of penetration by Chinese state.  No politician nor civil servant could afford to play down allegations of Chinese espionage.

When the CPS then announced it August 2025 that it was not going to proceed with a trial after building a case for over a year there was clearly explaining to be done.  Witnesses were told that the decision to drop the case was taken at the “highest level” although whether that was within the CPS or government was not made clear.

The Excuses

The UK Official Secrets Act dates back to 1911.  To say the world has changed since then is the height of understatement.  Understanding that the act is no longer sufficient to address the modern-day challenges of national security a new act, the National Security Act 2023 was enacted.  Under the OSA the requirement is that information must be passed to “an enemy”.  Does that mean that China is an enemy of Britain?  Clearly the two countries are not at war as per the usual definition of the term.  Yet in May 2024 another case in the High Court clarified that the term enemy can be interpretated as a threat to national security.

The prosecution received three statements from the Deputy National Security Advisor, Michael Collins, which stated very clearly that China was a threat across a number of areas to the UK but his statements did not use the word enemy.  This omission of that particular word would appear then to be the reason why the CPS refused to proceed with the case.  But testimony to MPs following the collapse of the trial had DNSA saying he was surprised by the announcement not to proceed and the head of the CPS, Stephen Parkinson claiming that Collins knew the trial would collapse without the inclusion of the word enemy.  They can’t both be right.

If the CPS felt the DNSA statements were insufficient, then there was ample time to get other witnesses whether China experts or security experts to testify yet the case seemed solely to rest on Collins statements.

The Prime Minister has insisted that no political pressure was brought to bear on the proceedings although doubts remains as Collin’s statement directly quoted the Labour manifesto from 2024: “co-operate where we can; compete where we need to; and challenge where we must”.  This 3 Cs policy of Labour is their Chinese mantra but they are unable to develop it into a coherent policy as opposed to a slogan.

Where does the fault lie then?  How can such a high-profile case be mishandled in such a fashion?  This column doesn’t have answers and facts continue to come out but almost every point of discussion could have best been addressed by holding a trial and airing all the relevant facts.  Instead, the case is being played out in the media.

Berry and Cash maintain their innocence and although the court formally recorded a non-guilty verdict their reputations have clearly been tarnished.  Berry claims he believed his reports were for a Chinese company looking to invest in the UK and since neither he nor Cash had security clearance their level of knowledge was sometimes no more than parliamentary gossip.

The Fall Out

Perhaps one of the most infuriating aspects of this failed prosecution is the feeling that the CPS and the government are, while perhaps not lying, are being economically with the truth.  There is no doubt that China did not want this trial to go ahead.  Anytime the role of the United Front or Chinese influence is raised within public debate the PRC machines kicks into action about how China and 1.3 billion Chinese are being harmed.  And it is not unreasonable to think that a government who wants economic growth and inward investment would be reluctant to upset as large and potentially significant investor as the PRC.  So questions around whether ministers or political appointees pressured the CPS to stop the prosecution are not unexpected.

Not only has there been a lack of clarity about what happened and who spoke to whom but if there was a clear failing then no one has been disciplined for it.  Nobody has been fired or resigned.  Instead each party has a carefully constructed argument to blame someone else.  Such a pantomime is impressing no one.

This is not the only major issue facing the government in the UK.  In 2018 the Chinese government bought the old Royal Mint site situated beside the Tower of London.  The PRC has applied to convert the site into its new embassy.  The proposal building would be 20 times as large as its existing embassy building and one of the largest embassies in Europe.  The Chinese needless to say have been very reticent about explaining why they need such a large building and large blank areas on the proposed planning application has raised concerns of secret interrogation and detention rooms underground.  A more realistic concern is that the site allegedly sits atop numerous telecommunications cables connecting the City of London to Canary Wharf.  The implication is that by locating the embassy over these cables the Chinese would be able to hack in some way to monitor the information.  The Chinese has refused to provide any more details about their plans and have threatened consequences if the plans aren’t approved.  The government’s repeated response is to postpone the decision.

So what then does Labour’s manifesto Chinese mantra, “We will co-operate where we can; compete where we need to; and challenge where we must” actually mean in practice?  The Prime Minister and his cabinet probably don’t know, it reads like a ChatGPT construct by those looking for a catchy sort of balanced approach to China which tries to please all, including the Chinese.  But sadly that doesn’t work for real world policy making.  The Chinese state is actively involved stealing trade secrets from British companies, it is active in trying to influence policy makers and it makes no secret of it using economic sanctions to try and influence political decisions in other countries.  Those activities clearly constitute a major threat to Britain and while some may not use the world enemy it should not be forgotten that Russia most important backer in the Ukraine war is China.  Whatever polite diplomatic wording civil servants or politicians use to describe China there is zero room for complaisance or complacency.  Not upsetting China should not be the policy of the British government nor of any other democracy.

The Prime Minister says that national security is paramount in his decision making.  He and his chancellor also claim their goal is to increase economic growth in the country.  Those two issues very much intersect when it comes to China.  The Labour government continues to think that China promises some golden growth opportunity for the UK but the past few decades show clearly that is not the case.  UK success stories within China are few, Chinese investment in the UK is small and yet the risks are generally large.  The last government was committed enough to ban Huawei from the UK’s 5G network yet at the same time every large city now has at least one Chinese EV dealership.  Addressing the risks of Chinese intrusion and control within Britain is patchwork at best.  The areas where Chinese firms do want to invest are generally related to power production such as wind turbines, solar and nuclear power.  All critical infrastructure issues where national security issues are obvious.

It can only be hoped that the British public will eventually get to the bottom of the failed Berry and Cash trial but nothing can be assumed.  If it becomes a turning point in government policy for putting British interests first and stop worrying about upsetting the PRC then it will have had a positive legacy.  Yet recent history has shown that many governments have been far too slow to understand the very real threat China poses to open democracies.  The irony is that the Chinese themselves make no secret of their desire to acquire overseas technology and increase self-sufficiency in technology and other industries.  The latest Chinese 5 year plan stated exactly that.  Keir Starmer would do wise to learn from one aspect of Chinese policy making, and that is putting your own country first.  At times that might lead to tantrums from the Chinese but he was elected Prime Minister of Great Britain, not of China.