.
Here’s a breakdown of why the prosecution in the UK “China spy case” collapsed, centring on the issue of senior security advisers refusing to testify that China is an “enemy” — which turned out to be a legally critical term under the legislation used.
The case & what happened
-
Two men, Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, were charged in 2024 under the Official Secrets Act 1911 with passing politically sensitive information to Chinese intelligence.
-
The case was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in September 2025, just before trial, on the grounds of an “evidential failure” – that is, the evidence was no longer thought strong enough to meet the standard required for conviction.
Legal requirement: “enemy” under the Official Secrets Act
-
Under the Official Secrets Act 1911, for certain offences (such as communicating information “useful to the enemy”), there is a requirement that the state in question be defined as an “enemy.
-
The authority of a key witness (Matthew Collins, Deputy National Security Adviser) to give evidence that “China is an enemy” was vital, because that testimony would help satisfy that part of the legal requirement.
What changed / What went wrong
-
Senior security advisers and officials allegedly refused or were prevented from testifying that China is an “enemy” in this case.
-
One reason cited for this is that the government’s National Security Strategy (published June 2025) describes China as a “challenge,” not an “enemy.” This meant the government might have legal or diplomatic reasons to resist calling it otherwise in court. Financial Times+2LBC+2
-
Because the government’s official documents and strategy did not back the designation “enemy,” the CPS concluded that they could not rely on testimony (from security advisers) to establish that element of the statute. Without that, a conviction under the Official Secrets Act would likely fail – the evidential standard could not be met.
Implications & other factors
-
After the collapse, there has been political controversy. Critics argue that diplomatic or trade considerations (i.e. not wanting to offend Beijing) may have influenced the choice not to affirm China as an “enemy.
-
The government has denied that ministers interfered, saying the decision was independent and based on legal advice and evidential concerns.
-
Note also: since then, the National Security Act 2023 has come into force, which provides broader powers and may not require the same “enemy”-designation as the 1911 Act. Thus, future prosecutions might not face the same legal hurdle.