China spying case collapse exposes failings, MPs find

What happened

A UK parliamentary committee concluded on 2 December 2025 that failures in communication and oversight contributed to the collapse of a prosecution against two men accused of spying for China.

The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS) found no evidence that senior government figures had worked together to bring down the case, according to The Guardian’s reporting. Its six-week inquiry instead identified unresolved differences between prosecutors and officials about the evidence required.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) withdrew charges against Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, a teacher, on 15 September. Both had faced espionage allegations under the Official Secrets Act 1911; the case did not reach trial.

Prosecutors said the government had failed to supply adequate evidence establishing that China threatened UK national security. The committee questioned that assessment, noting that the government’s material described several national security threats arising from China and presented them as an active threat overall.

The inquiry also criticised the CPS for not bringing disagreements over its requirements to senior attention sooner. On the government side, it found that procedures for resolving uncertainty were poorly defined and that ministers and national security advisers had not exercised sufficient oversight.

The committee’s findings concerned the handling of the prosecution. They did not establish whether the allegations against either man were true.

The background

A central issue was how prosecutors interpreted the evidence needed under the legislation used to charge the men. The CPS changed its approach following a July 2024 court ruling concerning a Bulgarian spy ring, but the committee said it could not see clearly why that judgment required such a substantial change.

Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser, provided witness statements for the government. The dispute centred on whether those statements met the prosecution’s legal requirements, rather than whether the government had supplied any assessment of the threat from China.

The committee examined the conduct of senior officials as well as prosecutors. Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions for England and Wales, and Collins gave evidence during October. Attorney general Richard Hermer and Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, also faced questions about possible involvement by ministers or political advisers.

Conservative politicians had focused on a meeting held on 1 September involving senior civil servants and Jonathan Powell, the prime minister’s national security adviser. That meeting considered the implications of the trial.

However, the inquiry established that prosecutors had reached their conclusion about the lack of necessary evidence more than a week before the meeting. That sequence was important to its rejection of suggestions that the gathering had prompted the prosecution’s abandonment.

The committee also found that Hermer had observed the constitutional requirements of his role, although it considered that he could have taken a more active approach to helping prosecutors address the difficulties.

The case sits within wider concern about foreign intelligence services targeting people who work in sensitive institutions. In a separate development, Insider Threat Roundup has reported on MI5’s warning that Chinese intelligence officers were approaching UK lawmakers through supposed recruitment opportunities, an allegation Beijing denies. That warning is distinct from the allegations in this abandoned prosecution.

For organisations managing insider risk — the possibility that trusted access could be misused — the inquiry highlights a separate challenge from detecting suspicious activity. Security assessments and material that meets the requirements of a criminal prosecution serve different purposes, making clarity between those supplying evidence and those assessing it important.

What people are saying

The committee said the handling of the case had damaged public trust and encouraged speculation about government involvement. It warned against treating the age of the Official Secrets Act as a complete explanation for what went wrong, challenging an argument advanced by some ministers.

The CPS maintained that it lacked the evidence necessary to proceed. The Guardian reported that senior lawyers, including a former director of public prosecutions and former Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption, had disputed that position.

Responding to the report, a CPS spokesperson said the service would examine the recommendations and discuss possible improvements with other bodies. The spokesperson emphasised that prosecution decisions were independent and governed by the evidence and the law.

A government spokesperson welcomed the inquiry’s rejection of interference allegations and said ministers remained disappointed that the case had not gone to trial. The spokesperson attributed the decision to withdraw the charges to the CPS alone.

An unnamed government source separately accused Conservatives of making unsupported allegations and argued that shortcomings in national security legislation reflected failures under their administration.

What happens next

The committee recommended that the Cabinet Office, intelligence and security agencies, and the CPS agree formal principles for managing sensitive prosecutions within six months. The aim is to establish a clearer shared approach before disagreements put a case at risk.

It also proposed a formal meeting within 30 days of charges being brought in such cases. That would provide an early opportunity to establish what evidence prosecutors need and address uncertainty between the organisations involved.

Further recommendations called for better government communication with the CPS and stronger support for deputy national security advisers. Together, these proposals address both the exchange of evidence and responsibility for resolving problems when they arise.

The responses reported by The Guardian did not set out an implementation timetable. The CPS committed to reviewing the proposals with its partners, while the government welcomed the report without detailing how it would put the recommended changes into practice.