🔗 Share this article

An unexpected disclosure by the Director of Public Prosecutions has ignited a political dispute over the abrupt termination of a prominent espionage case.

What Prompted the Case Dismissal?

Prosecutors revealed that the proceedings against two British nationals accused with working on behalf of China was discontinued after being unable to secure a key witness statement from the government confirming that China currently poses a threat to national security.

Lacking this evidence, the trial could not proceed, according to the legal team. Efforts had been undertaken over several months, but none of the testimonies provided defined China as a national security threat at the time of the alleged offenses.

Why Did Defining China as an Enemy Necessary?

The defendants were prosecuted under the now repealed 1911 Official Secrets Act, which mandated that prosecutors demonstrate they were passing information beneficial for an hostile state.

Although the UK is not in conflict with China, court rulings had expanded the interpretation of adversary to include potential adversaries. However, a new legal decision in another case specified that the term must refer to a nation that poses a present danger to national security.

Legal experts argued that this change in case law reduced the bar for bringing charges, but the absence of a formal statement from the government meant the case had to be dropped.

Is China a Threat to UK National Security?

The UK's policy toward China has aimed to reconcile concerns about its political system with engagement on economic and climate issues.

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

Former intelligence heads have emphasized that China represents a “significant focus” for intelligence agencies, with reports of extensive corporate spying and covert activities targeting the UK.

What About the Defendants?

The allegations suggested that one of the individuals, a political aide, passed on knowledge about the operations of the UK parliament with a friend based in China.

This information was reportedly used in reports written for a Chinese intelligence officer. The accused rejected the allegations and maintain their innocence.

Legal arguments suggested that the accused believed they were exchanging open-source information or assisting with commercial ventures, not engaging in espionage.

Who Was Responsible for the Trial's Collapse?

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

Opposition leaders pointed to the period of the incidents, which took place under the former government, while the refusal to supply the necessary statement occurred under the present one.

In the end, the inability to obtain the required statement from the authorities resulted in the trial being dropped.