🔗 Share this article

An unexpected disclosure by the chief prosecutor has sparked a political dispute over the sudden halt of a prominent espionage case.

What Prompted the Prosecution's Withdrawal?

Prosecutors stated that the proceedings against two UK citizens accused with spying for China was dropped after being unable to obtain a crucial testimony from the UK administration confirming that China currently poses a threat to national security.

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

What Made Defining China as an Adversary Necessary?

The accused individuals were charged under the former 1911 Official Secrets Act, which mandated that prosecutors demonstrate they were passing information useful to an enemy.

While the UK is not at war with China, court rulings had broadened the interpretation of adversary to include potential adversaries. Yet, a new legal decision in a separate spy trial clarified that the term must refer to a country that poses a present danger to national security.

Legal experts suggested that this adjustment in case law reduced the threshold for bringing charges, but the absence of a formal statement from the government resulted in the trial had to be dropped.

Is China a Threat to UK National Security?

The UK's policy toward China has long sought to balance apprehensions about its authoritarian regime with engagement on trade and climate issues.

Official documents have referred to China as a “epoch-defining challenge” or “strategic rival”. Yet, regarding spying, intelligence chiefs have issued clearer alerts.

Former agency leaders have stated that China constitutes a “significant focus” for security services, with reports of widespread industrial espionage and covert activities targeting the UK.

What About the Defendants?

The allegations suggested that one of the defendants, a political aide, passed on information about the workings of the UK parliament with a friend based in China.

This material was reportedly used in reports written for a agent from China. The accused rejected the allegations and maintain their non-involvement.

Legal arguments indicated that the accused believed they were sharing open-source information or helping with business ventures, not involved with espionage.

Who Was Responsible for the Case Failure?

Several commentators questioned whether the CPS was “over-fussy” in requesting a public statement that could have been damaging to UK interests.

Opposition leaders highlighted the timing of the alleged offenses, which occurred under the previous administration, while the decision to supply the necessary statement occurred under the current one.

Ultimately, the failure to obtain the required statement from the authorities resulted in the case being abandoned.