China Spy Case Collapse Deepens UK Political Storm

 

Downing Street has published witness statements from Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Collins revealing that, as early as 2023, Britain viewed China as conducting “large-scale espionage” operations against the UK. The release follows the collapse of the high-profile espionage case against two men, Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, accused of spying for Beijing. 

 

Collins’ three statements — submitted between 2023 and 2025 — detail mounting concern over Chinese cyberattacks and infiltration attempts, including a hack of the UK Electoral Commission. Yet, they also stress the government’s commitment to maintaining “a positive economic relationship” with China, a point seized upon by critics who accuse ministers of prioritizing trade over security.

 

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped the case last month, saying it lacked formal government evidence that China was defined as a “national security threat” at the time of the alleged offences (2021–2023). The two men, charged under the Official Secrets Act, have denied all allegations.

 

Labour’s publication of the statements follows fierce accusations from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch of a “cover-up.” Tory officials say there are still “many unanswered questions,” including the role of National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell. Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve called the case’s collapse “utterly mystifying,” insisting the documents clearly portray China as a national security threat.

 

The scandal underscores a deepening political divide over how Britain handles Beijing — balancing national security and economic engagement — while raising broader questions about how espionage prosecutions can proceed without explicit threat designations.

 

Key Takeaways

• Newly released witness statements confirm UK officials saw China’s espionage as extensive and hostile.

• CPS dropped the case after concluding the government hadn’t formally labelled China a national security threat.

• Both defendants deny spying, while the row exposes Labour–Conservative tensions over China policy.

 

Source: BBC News

 

HIGHLIGHTS: Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch in furious clash over China spy scandal at PMQs

 

 

 

 

 

The US and other Western countries need to cease all intelligence sharing with the UK, which is burgeoning Islamic caliphate that toes the Chinese line.

Follow the money Starmer' would sell his granny for a new pair of glasses' make it Red' ones and you can have grampy as well 🤔 

Elon' for god's sake save us we are on a hand cart to hell here.

 

According to many reports Starmer ripped Badenoch and Cleverly new ones.

16 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

According to many reports Starmer ripped Badenoch and Cleverly new ones.

PMQ was savage.

 

Starmer dismantled Badenoch’s pathetic attempts to make political capital out of this.

 

The CPS reviewed the case between 2021 and 2023, during which time witness statements were presented by the Government, the Government refused to classify China a hostile state at anytime during the CPS review, which ended with recommendation to prosecute its in 2023.

 

The Tories were in office throughout all of that.

 

Starmer rounded off with:

“

Let me be clear: the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, gave a speech at Mansion House one month after the arrests. It was called “Our position on China” and set out the Government’s policy. He said in that speech that summing up China as a “threat” in “one word” would be

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”

He was Foreign Secretary at the time.

 

It was not just the right hon. Member for Braintree. The Leader of the Opposition was Business Secretary at the time. In September 2023—the relevant year—she said:

 

“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe”.

 

It should have dawned on the Tories by now that the sullen looking leader of their party needs replacing with someone whose ability to formulate an argument has developed beyond that of the Junior Common Room. 

China getting Antsy over its mega embassy in London which is seen as a snake pit of spies ,it’s on hold and they don’t like it

On 10/16/2025 at 12:40 PM, Social Media said:

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped the case last month, saying it lacked formal government evidence that China was defined as a “national security threat” at the time of the alleged offences (2021–2023). The two men, charged under the Official Secrets Act, have denied all allegations.

 

Why does it matter?

 

Spying is spying.

 

If the government has sufficient evidence, bring charges.

 

Apparently they din't, and this is their excuse.

8 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Why does it matter?

 

Spying is spying.

 

If the government has sufficient evidence, bring charges.

 

Apparently they din't, and this is their excuse.

Incorrect.

 

The activity that was scheduled to be prosecuted took place at a time when the then Government (Tory) had not designated China as an enemy/hostile.

 

Hence it was the Tories who scuppered the prosecution.

 

 

 

https://apple.news/Apidv__LkTb2vQeth6Obc0g
 

chinese threats

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Incorrect.

 

The activity that was scheduled to be prosecuted took place at a time when the then Government (Tory) had not designated China as an enemy/hostile.

 

Hence it was the Tories who scuppered the prosecution.

 

That's the bit I don't understand.  Does it matter who they were allegedly spying for?

Shirley, any act of spying should be actionable!

 

Why does it have to be for the benefit of a "designated hostile"?  So if they spy for France or Norway or Barbados, they get a pass?

11 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

That's the bit I don't understand.  Does it matter who they were allegedly spying for?

Shirley, any act of spying should be actionable!

 

Why does it have to be for the benefit of a "designated hostile"?  So if they spy for France or Norway or Barbados, they get a pass?

The principle is as follows:

 

The alleged spying for China occurred during a time when the UK Government had not designated China an enemy/hostile.

 

The designation cannot be retroactively backdated to apply at the time of the alleged spying.

 

Therefore the ‘National security’ charges relating to spying for foreign  enemy/hostile nation no longer hold water.

I would agree the spying ought to face consequences but clearly the grandstanding by the Tories of Labour having failed on the grounds of ‘national security’ are hollow political posturing.