A parliamentary inquiry has found that the trial of two men accused of spying for China collapsed due to a series of failings by the UK government and its intelligence agencies. The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) criticized MI5 and Whitehall for errors in the case involving Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, which was halted in September.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped the charges, stating it could not obtain evidence from the government to support classifying China as a "national security threat." This led to accusations of a cover-up, particularly after Deputy National Security Adviser Matt Collins was deemed an unsuitable witness.
According to the ISC chairman Lord Beamish, it was an "wrong decision" to have Collins testify, as he indicated he would not counter government policy at the time of the men's arrest. The committee stated that if Collins could not label China a threat, MI5 should have intervened to secure a witness who could have allowed the case to proceed to trial. The probe also highlighted a lack of strategic coordination within the government's approach, which potentially overlooked "obvious gaps" in the evidence.
Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Berry, who both deny any wrongdoing, were accused of passing secrets to Beijing between 2021 and 2023. A separate report in December by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS) also criticized the government and CPS for a process marred by "confusion and misaligned expectations," but found no evidence of deliberate attempts to block the prosecution.
Attention had focused on Collins's statement, with prosecutors arguing his refusal to describe Beijing as a generic threat meant the case could not continue. Collins had informed the JCNSS that he had provided evidence of "a range of threats" from China but had not used the term "generic threat" because it did not reflect the then-Conservative government's official position.
The ISC questioned why a second witness, who could have provided the critical element of China being a security risk alongside economic opportunities, was not offered. The committee was unconvinced by the arguments from the intelligence community and CPS that a second witness would have undermined the Deputy National Security Adviser's original statement.
Berry stated in September that he was being "unfairly subjected to a trial by media" and that his reports for a Chinese company could not be considered prejudicial to state safety or interests. Cash maintained his "complete innocence" and that he had been placed in an "impossible position" without the ability to prove it in a public trial.
The ISC, which identified China as a strategic threat in 2013, also pointed out that the prosecution was brought under "antiquated legislation." The charges were filed under the Official Secrets Act 1911, which the committee had previously urged be reformed as an "urgent matter." Delays in updating this legislation were cited as a "substantial reason" for the government's inability to bring the case to trial. While new legislation has been enacted, the committee noted that the outdated Official Secrets Act 1989 remains in place and requires reform. Lord Beamish added that the failure to incorporate these reforms into the National Security Act 2023 means that the requirement to prove damage for certain unauthorized disclosures and the insufficient two-year maximum sentence persist.
He emphasized that successive governments have shown no intention to reform this legislation and that the committee will continue to urge the government to act and introduce vital reforms. Beamish stated, "If any lesson is to be learned from the frustration at the failure of this case, it is this – we must have the legislative tools to fight those who wish to cause this country harm."
The committee also expressed disappointment that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office declined its request for further evidence related to the events leading up to the decision not to prosecute Cash and Berry.