The UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) unexpectedly dropped charges against two men accused of engaging in espionage for the Chinese Communist Party this week. The move has sparked strong dissatisfaction in Parliament, with senior Conservative Party MPs urging the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee to launch an investigation into the decision to withdraw the prosecution.
The individuals involved in the case are Christopher Cash, 30, and Christopher Berry, 33, who were accused of passing sensitive materials to Chinese officials. They were originally scheduled to stand trial in October under the Official Secrets Act 1911, but CPS withdrew the charges on Monday citing “insufficient evidence”.
In response, Conservative MP Alicia Kearns, Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, and former Security Minister Tom Tugendhat wrote to the committees stating that the failure of the prosecution to explain the reasons for the withdrawal of charges warranted an investigation that is of “high concern to Parliament and the public”.
The MPs wrote, “Such investigations are protected by Parliamentary privilege, allowing Members of Parliament access to all facts of the case. These facts are no longer sub judice and can be scrutinized appropriately.”
Kearns and Tugendhat suggested that the two House committees should exercise their powers to request evidence from top officials including MI5, MI6, and senior counter-terrorism police personnel.
They pointed out, “Throughout the investigation, counter-terrorism police and the Deputy National Security Adviser consistently found the evidence persuasive; and subsequently the police told us they had confidence in the case.”
This move increases pressure on UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to provide a more comprehensive explanation for dropping the case. Some critics argue that the Labour government at times prioritizes increasing trade with Beijing over national security. In July this year, the UK government excluded China from the highest level in the new “Register of Secret Foreign Influence”.
During a heated exchange in Parliament this week, several MPs expressed anger and disappointment over the withdrawal of charges, strongly questioning whether it was due to a lack of substantive basis for the case.
Conservative MP and Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp, under the protection of “Parliamentary privilege”, read from a CPS document indicating that between December 2021 and February 2023, one defendant was “commissioned by Chinese intelligence officers to write at least 34 reports… covering a wide range of topics”. These reports were deemed to be “directly or indirectly” beneficial to Beijing and “detrimental to the security or interests of the UK”.
Kearns stated, “From a security perspective, the developments today are catastrophic.”
“This will embolden our enemies and make us look unwilling to defend our country even when under attack,” she said.
Senior government sources revealed to The i Paper that the Official Secrets Act requires the prosecution to prove that the defendants assisted the “enemies of the UK”. However, the government’s inclination to define Beijing as a “challenge” rather than an “enemy” in order to maintain economic relations with China has made prosecution challenging.
Security Minister Dan Jarvis emphasized that CPS made the decision to drop the case in a completely independent situation. However, the Home Office also expressed “disappointment” at the withdrawal of charges.
Independent MP and House of Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle stated on Monday that he was “very unhappy” about the situation and that MPs cannot “just leave it at that”.
Some MPs suggested that it might be possible to try to reopen the case through a private prosecution, but lawyers indicated that the chances of success are slim.
Kate McMahon, a lawyer specializing in private prosecutions, told the Financial Times that decisions to prosecute under the Official Secrets Act 1911 are usually carefully considered and subject to a review process.
“It is very difficult to restart this case through a private prosecution,” she said.
Cash’s lawyer, Henry Blaxland, noted that because the court had acquitted both individuals when the prosecution was dropped, it amounts to a declaration of their innocence, and therefore, “private prosecution is absolutely prohibited”.
In general, the principle of double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution of the same individual for the same offense twice.