🔗 Share this article

A surprising announcement by the Director of Public Prosecutions has sparked a political dispute over the abrupt termination of a high-profile spy trial.

What Prompted the Prosecution's Withdrawal?

Prosecutors stated that the case against two UK citizens charged with spying for China was dropped after being unable to secure a key witness statement from the government confirming that China currently poses a risk to the UK's safety.

Without this statement, the trial had to be abandoned, according to the prosecution. Attempts were made over an extended period, but no statement submitted described China as a danger to the country at the time of the alleged offenses.

Why Did Defining China as an Adversary Essential?

The defendants were prosecuted under the now repealed 1911 Official Secrets Act, which required that the prosecution prove they were sharing details beneficial for an hostile state.

While the UK is not at war with China, legal precedents had broadened the definition of adversary to include countries that might become hostile. Yet, a new legal decision in a separate spy trial specified that the term must refer to a country that represents a current threat to the UK's safety.

Legal experts suggested that this change in case law actually lowered the bar for prosecution, but the absence of a formal statement from the government meant the case had to be dropped.

Is China a Risk to Britain's Safety?

The UK's policy toward China has long sought to reconcile concerns about its authoritarian regime with cooperation on trade and climate issues.

Government reviews have referred to China as a “epoch-defining challenge” or “strategic rival”. Yet, regarding spying, security officials have issued more direct alerts.

Previous agency leaders have stated that China constitutes a “priority” for security services, with reports of widespread corporate spying and secret operations targeting the UK.

What About the Defendants?

The claims suggested that one of the defendants, a parliamentary researcher, passed on knowledge about the workings of the UK parliament with a associate based in China.

This information was allegedly used in documents prepared for a agent from China. Both defendants rejected the charges and assert their innocence.

Legal arguments suggested that the defendants believed they were exchanging publicly available data or helping with business interests, not engaging in espionage.

Where Does Responsible for the Case Failure?

Several commentators wondered whether the CPS was “excessively cautious” in demanding a court declaration that could have been embarrassing to UK interests.

Political figures highlighted the period of the incidents, which took place under the previous government, while the decision to supply the necessary statement occurred under the current one.

Ultimately, the inability to secure the required statement from the authorities led to the case being abandoned.