Former intelligence chiefs and senior legal figures are demanding answers after the collapse of an espionage trial exposed what critics say is a serious contradiction in Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s account of events.
The prime minister said on Tuesday that the case against Christopher Berry and Chris Cash had to be abandoned because, during the period in question, China was not designated a threat to the United Kingdom.
He argued that prosecutors therefore had no legal basis under the Official Secrets Act to continue. However, public statements made at the time by MI5, MI6 and government ministers appear to contradict that explanation, prompting accusations that the prime minister misled the public.
Intelligence chiefs had already warned of China’s threat
Between December 2021 and February 2023, the period when Berry and Cash were accused of passing information to Beijing, both MI5 and MI6 had publicly warned of the risks posed by China to Britain’s national security.
In 2021, the government’s Integrated Review identified China as “the biggest state based threat to the UK’s economic security.” A later review stated that the Chinese Communist Party’s actions posed “a national security threat to the UK.”
At the time, the head of MI6, Richard Moore, described China as the most significant of the “big four” threats, saying that “adapting to a world affected by the rise of China is the single greatest priority for MI6.” MI5’s director, Ken McCallum, also said that the activities of the Chinese Communist Party represented “the most game changing strategic challenge to the UK.”
These statements have come under renewed scrutiny, as they appear to contradict Starmer’s claim that no official threat status was in place when the alleged offences occurred.
The DPP’s letter
Central to the dispute is a letter from Stephen Parkinson, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who said that prosecutors had sought, over many months, to obtain witness statements confirming that China was regarded as a threat during the relevant period.
He wrote, “None of these stated that at the time of the offence China represented a threat to national security. By late August 2025 it was realised that this evidence would not be forthcoming. When this became apparent, the case could not proceed.”
Opponents now accuse the government of deliberately withholding cooperation and evidence, effectively ensuring the case collapsed.
Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said, “Keir Starmer said that the last government did not categorise China as a threat. That is a direct and easily disprovable lie. The Starmer government has prioritised appeasing China for economic reasons above national security.”
Calls for the case to be reopened
Several former intelligence figures have called the collapse “unthinkable” and urged that the case be reopened. Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6, told Times Radio the affair should be re examined. Lord Case, the former Cabinet Secretary, pointed to years of warnings from security chiefs about Beijing’s conduct.
Lord Macdonald, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, said, “You simply cannot have a serious national security case collapsing without some proper explanation being given to the public. The Attorney General has to attend Parliament to explain what has happened here.”
Sir Max Hill, another former DPP, said that it was unsurprising the case faltered once the CPS lacked a clear government position on China, but added that prosecutors should have understood the evidential threshold before bringing charges.
Starmer’s defence and internal divisions
Starmer has insisted that the trial was bound by the legal and political context in place under the previous Conservative government. He denied any interference or pressure from his administration.
A government source said, “This was not a decision to be taken either by the prime minister, any other minister, or the national security adviser, Jonathan Powell.”
However, reports suggest divisions within government. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the national security adviser’s office, were said to have resisted formally designating China an enemy, fearing diplomatic repercussions. The Home Office, by contrast, had pushed for a firmer line.
Political fallout and national security questions
The collapse of the trial has triggered strong criticism from Conservative MPs, who argue that Labour has failed to protect the country from foreign interference. Sir Iain Duncan Smith said the government’s explanation “does not hold water,” while Alicia Kearns, the former chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, demanded that ministers “come clean” about who blocked the prosecution.
Legal experts have also questioned the government’s position, noting that public and ministerial statements already described China as a national security threat at the time of the alleged offences.
The two defendants, Berry and Cash, who denied any wrongdoing, were formally acquitted last month when the case was dropped.
Charles Parton, a former diplomat who worked extensively on China and Hong Kong, warned that the collapse risked encouraging Beijing. “This says to the Chinese, ‘yes, we can bully the British, they will crumble if we play hard ball,’” he told the Financial Times.
The episode has raised serious concerns about the government’s handling of national security and its approach to China. With Parliament due to return from recess, pressure is growing on the attorney general to give a full and transparent account of how one of Britain’s most significant espionage trials came to an abrupt end.
