Starmer Government Accused of Undermining China Spying Investigation to Protect Trade Ties
The UK’s prosecution of alleged Chinese spies operating in Westminster was deliberately undermined by Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government to safeguard commercial and diplomatic relations with Beijing, according to senior officials. Despite warnings that a hostile state had infiltrated the heart of British democracy, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped the case last month following a significant internal dispute.
The decision has ignited a firestorm of criticism, with accusations that economic interests were prioritized over national security. Senior UK officials revealed to the Financial Times that the collapse of the case stemmed from a reluctance among Starmer’s international security advisors and the Foreign Office to antagonize China, a key trading partner for the UK.
The prosecution hinged on whether China could be legally defined as an “enemy” under the Official Secrets Act, the law under which the two men were charged. Crucially, security officials refused to provide testimony affirming this designation, effectively derailing the case. This stance is particularly striking given that, earlier this year, UK prosecutors – supported by testimony from the same security officials – successfully argued in a separate hostile state spying case that an “enemy” encompassed “any country which presents a threat to our national security.”
The UK’s National Security Strategy, published in June, explicitly acknowledged increased Chinese espionage and interference in British affairs, including threats to economic security. However, the document also emphasized the UK’s desire to expand trade with China. The strategy, overseen by National Security Advisor Jonathan Powell and informed by an unpublished “China audit,” also highlighted the need to improve communication with Beijing.
The case centered on Christopher Cash, 30, and Christopher Berry, 33, who were arrested on suspicion of passing information to a Chinese intelligence operative. Cash, a parliamentary researcher affiliated with a hawkish China research group, and Berry both maintained their innocence. Their trial, scheduled to begin this month, was abruptly cancelled when the CPS announced it would not proceed with charges.
Parliamentary committees have already demanded answers. In the past week, the Justice and Home Affairs select committees, led by Labour MP Andy Slaughter and Conservative MP Dame Karen Bradley, respectively, requested a detailed explanation from prosecutors regarding the decision to drop the case.
The core of the dispute reportedly erupted during a September meeting attended by Powell, Deputy National Security Advisor Matthew Collins, Foreign Office Permanent Under-Secretary Olly Robbins, and Home Office officials. According to four officials familiar with the meeting, Collins informed the Home Office that he would be unable to testify that China constituted an “enemy.” Powell, a veteran of the Tony Blair era brought back by Starmer, chaired the session.
This refusal is particularly noteworthy considering Collins’s previous testimony in a case involving Bulgarian nationals spying for Russia. In that instance, he stated that the presence of individuals operating under the direction of Russian intelligence was “inherently prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK,” a key argument in establishing Russia as an enemy state. Six Bulgarian nationals were ultimately convicted of espionage in what authorities described as one of the most significant such cases in decades.
While government officials have attempted to downplay the situation, suggesting the CPS simply re-evaluated the evidence and found it lacking, this explanation has been met with skepticism. Prosecution experts believe the unwillingness to characterize China as an “enemy” left the CPS with no viable path forward.
Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson stated that while sufficient evidence initially existed to pursue charges, an “evidential failure” subsequently emerged. A Cabinet Office spokesperson insisted there had been no “material change in the evidence” and denied any influence from Powell on witness testimony. The government maintains the CPS acted “independently.”
However, MP Alicia Kearns, who was slated to testify, vehemently disagrees. “Starmer had the power to make sure the trial could proceed,” she told the Financial Times. “Either his ministers or most senior advisers acted with his full knowledge, or in contradiction and contempt of his wishes to spike the CPS’s ability to prosecute — which is it?”
The Cabinet Office spokesperson dismissed Kearns’s claims of pressure from Downing Street as “completely false.” The controversy underscores a growing tension within the UK government regarding how to balance economic interests with national security concerns in its relationship with China. The full extent of the decision-making process remains shrouded in secrecy, fueling demands for greater transparency and accountability.
