🔗 Share this article

An unexpected announcement by the chief prosecutor has sparked a political dispute over the abrupt termination of a high-profile espionage case.

What Prompted the Prosecution's Withdrawal?

Prosecutors stated that the proceedings against two British nationals charged with working on behalf of China was discontinued after being unable to secure a crucial testimony from the UK administration affirming that China currently poses a threat to national security.

Without this statement, the court case had to be abandoned, according to the legal team. Efforts were made over several months, but none of the testimonies submitted defined China as a national security threat at the time of the alleged offenses.

What Made Defining China as an Adversary Necessary?

The defendants were charged under the now repealed 1911 Official Secrets Act, which mandated that the prosecution prove they were passing information beneficial for an hostile state.

While the UK is not in conflict with China, legal precedents had broadened the definition of enemy to include potential adversaries. However, a recent ruling in a separate spy trial clarified that the term must refer to a country that represents a current threat to the UK's safety.

Legal experts suggested that this adjustment in case law reduced the threshold for bringing charges, but the lack of a official declaration from the authorities meant the case had to be dropped.

Is China a Threat to UK National Security?

The UK's policy toward China has long sought to reconcile concerns about its political system with engagement on trade and environmental issues.

Government reviews have referred to China as a “systemic competitor” or “geo-strategic challenge”. Yet, regarding espionage, security officials have given clearer alerts.

Former intelligence heads have emphasized that China represents a “significant focus” for security services, with accounts of widespread corporate spying and secret operations targeting the UK.

What About the Accused Individuals?

The allegations suggested that one of the defendants, a political aide, passed on knowledge about the workings of Westminster with a friend based in China.

This information was reportedly used in reports prepared for a agent from China. Both defendants denied the allegations and maintain their non-involvement.

Legal arguments indicated that the accused thought they were sharing open-source information or helping with commercial ventures, not engaging in espionage.

Where Does the Blame Lie for the Case Failure?

Several commentators questioned whether the CPS was “over-fussy” in demanding a public statement that could have been damaging to UK interests.

Political figures highlighted the timing of the alleged offenses, which took place under the former administration, while the decision to provide the necessary statement happened under the current one.

In the end, the failure to obtain the required testimony from the authorities resulted in the case being dropped.