When politics meets counterintelligence

The case involves Christopher Cash — an expert affiliated with the China Research Group (CRG) — and Christopher Berry, an English language teacher in China. According to the Associated Press, both men were charged in April 2024 under the Official Secrets Act of 1911. The allegations concerned the collection and transmission of information that could be „useful to the enemy” between 2021 and 2023. The trial was scheduled for autumn 2025, but in September the CPS dropped the case, citing „evidential failure”, meaning a lack of sufficient proof.

According to the FT, internal disputes arose within the British government over whether to formally designate China as an „enemy” in court documents — a prerequisite for bringing charges under the 1911 Act. While some Home Office officials were reportedly open to such a classification, security advisers and the Foreign Office feared it would escalate tensions with Beijing. In the end, the government refused to approve the use of the term „enemy,” which — according to sources cited by the newspaper — made it impossible for prosecutors to proceed with the case.

According to The Guardian, investigators initially claimed that the information might have been intended for Cai Qi — the fifth-ranking member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party and a close ally of Xi Jinping — suggesting a high level of interest from Chinese authorities. As FT reported, the dispute also took on a personal dimension and escalated during a classified meeting in September 2025.

Journalist Maria Ward-Brennan revealed that the meeting was attended by National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, his deputy Matthew Collins, Foreign Office Permanent Under-Secretary Olly Robbins, and representatives from the Home Office. According to sources, this was when a major interdepartmental clash occurred over the future of the case. The Sunday Times disclosed that the meeting was strictly classified and resulted in the decision to drop the prosecution.

Following the decision to drop the case, a group of MPs — including former Security Minister Tom Tugendhat — demanded that Attorney General Stephen Parkinson release the full correspondence between the CPS, Downing Street, and the Cabinet Office. According to the Financial Times, parliamentarians are seeking clarification regarding potential political pressure.

A Cabinet Office spokesperson dismissed the allegations of Downing Street interference as „completely false.” Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said on BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that she was „very disappointed” by the collapse of the case but denied any involvement by her department. Prime Minister Starmer’s spokesperson also stated that the CPS decision was „extremely disappointing” but „rightly made independently of the government.”

Commentators cited by The Guardian and FT argue, however, that these assurances of full independence contrast with recurring reports of political interference and internal tensions within the government.

According to the FT, one of the key issues was that the case was pursued under the 1911 legislation, which requires proving actions „useful to an enemy.” Since the government did not want to formally designate China as an enemy, prosecutors were unable to meet the statutory burden of proof.

In December 2023, the National Security Act 2023 came into force, introducing new categories of offences related to foreign interference and removing the requirement to designate an „enemy.” However, as The Guardian reported, the new provisions cannot be applied retroactively and therefore do not cover activities from 2021–2023. Additionally, according to lawyer Adam King of QEB Hollis Whiteman, cited by City AM, bringing new charges under the updated legislation would be legally very difficult due to the principle of double jeopardy.

According to analysts, the situation in the United Kingdom bears striking similarities to events in Canada. As Reuters reported, China’s Ministry of State Security conducted intelligence activities targeting Canadian parliamentarians critical of Beijing, including Michael Chong, who was sanctioned after criticizing China’s policies toward the Uyghurs.

According to the 2024 report of the Foreign Interference Commission, Chinese diplomats and intelligence services categorized Canadian MPs based on their stance toward Beijing — as friendly, neutral, or antagonistic — in an effort to influence democratic processes. A document known as the „Targeting Paper” was revealed during inquiries in Ottawa.

In response, the Canadian parliament passed the Countering Foreign Interference Act (C-70) in June 2024. As noted by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, the new legislation established a foreign agents registry and expanded intelligence powers to counter foreign interference.

On 5 October 2025, The Guardian reported that Chinese authorities had threatened retaliation if British officials included Chinese intelligence agencies in the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. At the same time, according to the FT, officials claimed that the Starmer government’s decision to narrow the scope of the investigation aimed to protect trade ties with China.

Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the House of Commons, warned that dropping the case makes the UK Parliament more vulnerable to foreign influence. As The Guardian noted, he also stressed that a lack of consistent action could encourage foreign intelligence services to continue attempts at interference.

The Cash–Berry case exposes the tension between the United Kingdom’s national security requirements and its foreign and economic policy considerations. According to commentators, if it is confirmed that the government’s decisions were politically motivated, public trust in the independence of the British justice system could be seriously undermined. At the same time, Canada’s experience shows that states must continuously update their legal frameworks and counterintelligence mechanisms to effectively respond to modern forms of foreign intelligence interference.