🔗 Share this article

An unexpected disclosure from the chief prosecutor has ignited a political dispute over the sudden halt of a high-profile spy trial.

What Prompted the Case Dismissal?

Legal authorities revealed that the case against two UK citizens accused with spying for China was dropped after failing to secure a key witness statement from the government confirming that China represents a threat to national security.

Without this statement, the court case had to be abandoned, as explained by the prosecution. Attempts were made over several months, but none of the testimonies submitted defined China as a danger to the country at the period in question.

Why Did Defining China as an Adversary Necessary?

The accused individuals were prosecuted under the now repealed 1911 Official Secrets Act, which required that the prosecution demonstrate they were sharing details beneficial for an hostile state.

While the UK is not in conflict with China, court rulings had expanded the interpretation of enemy to include potential adversaries. However, a recent ruling in another case specified that the term must refer to a nation that represents a current threat to the UK's safety.

Analysts suggested that this change in case law actually lowered the bar for prosecution, but the lack of a official declaration from the government meant the trial had to be dropped.

Does China Represent a Risk to Britain's Safety?

The UK's strategy toward China has long sought to balance apprehensions about its political system with engagement on trade and climate issues.

Government reviews have referred to China as a “systemic competitor” or “strategic rival”. Yet, regarding spying, security officials have given clearer alerts.

Former agency leaders have stated that China constitutes a “priority” for intelligence agencies, with accounts of widespread corporate spying and secret operations targeting the UK.

What About the Defendants?

The allegations suggested that one of the individuals, a parliamentary researcher, passed on information about the workings of the UK parliament with a friend based in China.

This information was reportedly used in reports prepared for a Chinese intelligence officer. Both defendants denied the charges and assert their innocence.

Legal arguments indicated that the defendants believed they were exchanging open-source information or assisting with business interests, not engaging in spying.

Where Does Responsible for the Trial's Collapse?

Some commentators wondered whether the CPS was “over-fussy” in requesting a court declaration that could have been damaging to UK interests.

Opposition leaders pointed to the timing of the alleged offenses, which occurred under the former government, while the decision to provide the necessary statement occurred under the current one.

In the end, the inability to secure the required testimony from the authorities resulted in the case being dropped.