British prosecutors recently defended their decision to abandon a high-profile espionage case involving two men accused of spying for China, insisting they had done everything within their power to bring the matter before the courts. The withdrawal, however, exposed the fragile balance between legal procedure and political discretion, reigniting debate over how national security laws operate when diplomacy intervenes.
The case centred on Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, both accused under the Official Secrets Act of passing sensitive information to Beijing. Yet, the law’s application depends on whether the alleged recipient state is formally recognised as an “enemy.” Without that classification, prosecutors lacked the legal footing to proceed. Their efforts to secure ministerial confirmation that China met this criterion were met with silence, leaving the Crown Prosecution Service unable to satisfy the evidentiary threshold required for conviction.
This impasse was shaped by a 2024 precedent that tightened the interpretation of the Official Secrets Act, compelling prosecutors to connect charges explicitly to enemy states. When the government refused to make such a designation, the prosecution’s case became untenable. By August 2025, after months of legal assessment, the charges were withdrawn – an outcome that prosecutors described as an act of constitutional restraint rather than failure.
Critics, however, view the decision as politically expedient. Some opposition figures and legal commentators suggest that the government’s reluctance to label China an adversary stemmed from fears of damaging bilateral relations. Prime Minister Keir Starmer countered this criticism by asserting that prosecutions must adhere strictly to the law as it stands, not as politics might wish it to be.
The collapse of the trial underscores a deeper dilemma within British law: when statutes rely on political definitions, the independence of legal enforcement becomes vulnerable to diplomatic calculation. In a world where espionage and international relations are increasingly intertwined, this episode serves as a cautionary reminder that justice can falter when it must wait for politics to speak first.
