Should we really invest in China given their actions below?

Here’s a breakdown of why Deputy National Security Adviser Matt Collins is being blamed for the failure of the China spy case — and what the controversy is about. 

What the case is
Two men, Christopher Cash (a former parliamentary researcher) and Christopher Berry (a teacher), were charged under the 1911 Official Secrets Act in April 2024, accused of passing sensitive information to China.

The case was dropped in September 2025 by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS said the evidence did not meet the legal requirement that at the time of the offences, China was formally recognised as a “threat to national security” or “enemy” for the purposes of the law.

What Matt Collins’ role was

Matt Collins (Deputy National Security Adviser) provided key witness statements to the CPS, in December 2023, February 2025, and August 2025.

These statements were supposed to help demonstrate that China did pose a national security threat — a legal requirement under the interpretation of the Official Secrets Act following a judicial clarification.

Why he’s being blamed

Multiple issues have led to him becoming a focal point:

Threshold for evidence
After a High Court ruling, the law was interpreted such that for a crime under that Official Secrets Act, the government must have already declared in policy that a state is an “enemy” or “threat” for prosecution to go ahead. The CPS said Collins’ statements still did not clearly assert that China was such a threat at the relevant time.

Language in his statements
While Collins did describe China as a major state-based threat (especially economically) and noted “large scale espionage”, his statements also included caveats: commitment to a “positive relationship” with China; language about cooperation, competition, challenge. Some critics argue that this softer language diluted the message required under the law.

Timing
The case needed statements at the right times. The August 2025 statement (just weeks before the trial was due) was expected to finally meet the threshold. But according to the CPS, even by then, the evidence “stated that China represented a threat” was not precisely met. The DPP apparently told MPs that Collins was “not going to provide the additional 5%” of evidence needed.
Civil Service World

Criticism from opposition and others – Thrown under the bus!

Some MPs and commentators say he’s being made a scapegoat — “thrown under the bus.”

Others argue that the problem really stems from outdated legislation (the 1911 Official Secrets Act), previous government policy (how China was classified), and/or how the CPS interpreted the legal threshold.

Counterpoints

The government insists Collins was free to provide evidence “without interference.”

They also say that the case’s legal requirements stemmed from the previous Conservative government’s policy (how China was defined then), and that no ministers or special advisers influenced the content of his statements.

Some argue that while Collins’ statements were strong in parts, they still fell short of what the court required after the legal interpretation changed.