Witness statements reveal CPS China spy row collapse in the UK

Published: 16 October 2025. The English Chronicle Des. The English Chronicle Online.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) abandoned a high-profile case against two Britons accused of spying for China, despite warnings from the UK’s deputy national security adviser that Beijing’s intelligence agencies posed a threat to national security. The government published three witness statements on Wednesday night in an effort to address controversy over why the prosecution was dropped.

The case involved Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry. Charges against them fell away after prosecutors were unable to obtain evidence from senior civil servant Matthew Collins demonstrating that China represented a specific threat to the UK’s security, despite repeated requests over many months.

The third witness statement, released in August, included language closely aligned with that requested by Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions, following guidance from a separate spy case. It described Chinese intelligence services as “highly capable” and conducting “large scale espionage operations against the UK to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the interests and security of the UK.” The statement also cited Chinese state-linked cyber attacks, including compromises of the UK Electoral Commission and “online reconnaissance activity” targeting MPs’ emails in 2021.

Other statements by Collins offered a more nuanced perspective. His second statement, dated February, acknowledged the government’s commitment to a positive economic relationship with China but also labelled the country as the “biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.”

The abrupt collapse of the case last month, which had been expected to be prosecuted under the 1911 Official Secrets Act, prompted accusations from Conservative MPs that Labour officials, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer and national security adviser Jonathan Powell, had interfered to prevent Collins from providing statements demanded by the CPS to maintain a positive relationship with Beijing. Starmer strongly denied these claims during Prime Minister’s Questions, calling them “completely scurrilous” and insisting that no political interference occurred.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch pressed Starmer over the case, asking why charges brought under previous Conservative governments collapsed under Labour. Starmer countered by arguing that the failure to prosecute was due to outdated legislation and the previous government’s delay in designating China as a national security threat. “To be clear, had the Conservatives been quicker in updating our legislation—a review that started in 2015—these individuals could have been prosecuted, and we would not be where we are,” he said.

On Wednesday, chairs of five parliamentary committees met with Parkinson to discuss how the affair will be scrutinised. Reports indicate that Parkinson told the committees that Collins’s witness statements were “5% less than the evidence threshold needed,” though the CPS declined to comment further.

Conservative MPs argued that the release of the witness statements was limited and insufficient, emphasising that the content highlighted the severity of the threat China poses to the UK. A party spokesperson said it was “all the more shocking that the prime minister knew of the imminent collapse of this trial, but did nothing to stop it.”

Downing Street stated that Starmer was informed of the trial’s imminent collapse only a few days before the CPS publicly announced the decision. A spokesperson added that it was not the prime minister’s role to intervene in an ongoing criminal case, which falls under the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS.

The case has reignited political debate over the UK’s handling of espionage threats and the intersection of law, security, and diplomatic relations. Observers note that the release of witness statements, while shedding light on the security risk posed by Chinese intelligence, leaves unanswered questions about procedural delays and legislative adequacy in prosecuting cases involving state-sponsored espionage.

While the CPS maintains that its decision was based on the inability to meet the required evidentiary threshold, critics argue that the collapse reflects broader systemic weaknesses in national security legislation and enforcement. The controversy is likely to prompt further parliamentary scrutiny and potential legislative review to ensure the UK can effectively respond to espionage threats in the future.

The witness statements, coupled with intense political debate, have intensified public interest in the case, underscoring concerns about the UK’s preparedness in confronting sophisticated foreign intelligence operations while maintaining legal and procedural integrity.