Inside the mystery of the collapsed Chinese spy trial

0:00This is The Guardian.

0:09Today, the mysterious case of the alleged British spies who worked for China.

0:24It had all the makings of a pulpy political thriller, a high-stakes spy scandal that seemed poised to shake Westminster to its core. For years, British intelligence had been warning about the growing threat of Chinese influence, from political interference to suspected espionage. And in 2023 came something explosive. It's the allegation shaking Westminster, a Chinese spy working in the heart of Whitehall with access to MPs and senior officials at the levers of power.

1:05Two young British men, two friends, were arrested, accused of spying for China. Christopher Cash worked as a parliamentary researcher, Christopher Berry as a teacher in Hangzhou. They were charged under the Official Secrets Act and due to appear in court this month. The headlines were dramatic. The political implications, huge. And yet, just days before the trial was set to begin, the entire case collapsed. Dan Sabah, the Guardian's defence and security editor, was stunned. Well, it came through quite late in the day, something like 6.30. I was just absolutely gobsmacked by what I read. Because what the director of prosecutions were saying was that we wanted these extra reassurances from the government to clarify that China was an enemy and specifically that it was a current threat to UK national security.

2:01And without that, we felt we couldn't proceed. I was amazed that the DPP was saying it all hinged on this technicality. Questions are mounting and a blame game is underway.

2:20Suggestions that the government concealed evidence, withdrew witnesses or restricted the ability of witnesses are all untrue. But the trial has collapsed because for months and months, the government has been refusing to give the CPS vital information. So why did prosecutors walk away from one of the most significant spy trials in decades? From The Guardian, I'm Nusheen Iqbal. Today in Focus, the collapse of the China spy case. and what it reveals about the government's stance on Beijing.

2:58Dan Sabah, you're The Guardian's defence and security editor, and you've been following this story very closely. The facts are emerging every day, but can you take us back to March 2023, when Christopher Cash and his friend Christopher Berry were first arrested? What do we know about who these two men are? So these two men were arrested on suspicion of spying for China. And one thing that's particularly interesting, though, there was no press coverage at the time, because it was sort of kept low-key and hushed up. And in fact, we didn't know that anyone had been arrested until September. And what added an extra spice was that one of the two, Christopher Cash, was at the time he was arrested a parliamentary aide.

3:39He was a researcher working for an influential backbench Conservative MP, Alicia Kearns. At the time, Alicia was the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. And Cash was the secretary of, I think, the China Research Group. A China sceptic group, until a few days before his arrest, Cairns thought he was a model employee. Let's start with Christopher Cash. So he worked on, let's say, China projects, which would suggest a link to China. But you said it was the China sceptic committee that he was part of. So what would that have entailed and what did his working life look like? Well, Cash worked as a researcher for Cairns.

4:11Most of the time he was actually not based within Parliament. But Alicia Cairns did get him a parliamentary pass. and that allows you to sort of walk around the kind of sprawling Westminster estate without having to go through security and be escorted. But also only so much goes on in Parliament. So you shouldn't think necessarily that having access to that place gives you access per se to any classified information or anything like that. But he worked at Westminster like many, many other researchers. But his focus was on China-related matters. And Kearns is very, very interested in China policy and in particular in toughening it up in all sorts of ways.

4:46She wants to keep her tabs on China's activity in the UK and was trying to introduce amendments to all sorts of legislation to make it harder for Chinese companies to take over British ones. And Cash was helping her as a researcher. And what do we know about his friend Christopher Berry? Cash and Berry were friends. They were teachers together in China a few years earlier in Hangzhou. And why did Cash and Berry initially arouse suspicion? Actually, it starts not with cash, but with Christopher Berry. And Berry is based in China. But he comes back to the UK, on a holiday. And as he came through the UK, he was subject to what's called a port stop.

5:22In other words, he was arrested, his digital devices were confiscated, and they were searched. Basically, the reason that they were arrested and the case that got going was that they were engaged in espionage activities on behalf of China. Information about the UK political system, about things going on in the UK, seemed to be working their way up, actually, as far as the Chinese Politburo. And investigators were trying to work out how that happened. And we don't quite know how, but they delighted on Christopher Berry. They'd stopped him at the airport. they got hold of his computer and then Berry in turn led them to Christopher Cash.

6:01The two were close and they were frequently in contact.

6:12So what exactly were these two men accused of? Well in simplest terms they were accused of spying for China and of course those allegations are denied and these two men assert their innocence But what is alleged is that Christopher Berry was in touch with a Chinese intelligence agent. And Berry was engaged in writing and commissioning a number of reports, some 34 in all, about the politics of the UK, about the workings of the political system in the UK, about Westminster. For this individual, Berry says he understood it to be corporate client, somebody wanting to break into the UK in business terms.

6:45But the prosecutors say the person was a Chinese spy. Subsequent reporting by The Guardian has been able to illuminate that the individual in question is China's fifth most powerful man, Tsai Qi. Who's he? Well, he's a member of the China's ruling Politburo. He's the fifth ranking member of what's a seven-man committee, so clearly one of the most powerful men in China. But not only that, he's a director of the Chinese Communist Party's general office, so he's effectively a chief of staff and a protege to President Xi himself. So British intelligence officers had established that Christopher Berry, a teacher, had written 34 reports about the inner workings of Parliament.

7:20And whoever Berry says he thought he was working for, those documents ended up with a Chinese spy and into the hands of this incredibly powerful man. What can you tell me about Christopher Cash's role in this and how he knows Berry? Cash and Berry are friends. Cash got a job in Westminster and Berry asks Cash for information about the workings of Westminster, about how Parliament works and also some sort of uncomplicated analyses, you know, his judgment on who might win the next election. Is that particularly, should be unknowable to another country, another state? We're almost certainly not talking about classified information and for some people that's one definition of the Official Secrets Act.

8:00but they were charged under the 1911 Official Secrets Act. One of the issues there is actually all you have to do is act in a way that is prejudicial to the safety or interest of the state. It's very open and it's not necessarily about classified documents. And the reality is that the most that any researcher would have picked up would be perhaps some gossip and some tittle-tattle, but not anything about government policy or any important state secrets. what you might have learned about given Cairns' interest in China policy is perhaps a little bit of the thinking around some of the issues about China policy that the government had.

8:39But you do have to remember that what people who know cash say was that the kind of information was shared was much more basic public domain, open source material, stuff you could perhaps get from reading The Guardian and hiring a lobbying firm.

9:00Dan, I've got to say, this idea of catching spies and very publicly emassing them in the heart of Westminster, it does sound like a schlocky ITV drama. Now, what does spying in 2025 look like? Mostly spying in 2025 is actually conducted electronically, like everything else, done through sophisticated hacking. However, the role of human intelligence has never gone away and one of the things that we know China has done over the last few years is it's constantly trying to extract information from people in the UK. One of the classic ways, in fact, is to pose as a fake recruiter on LinkedIn. The recruiter might even claim they're working for a Chinese company or perhaps some company in East Asia, and I'm so impressed that you're an engineer at Rolls-Royce or BAE or some company like this.

9:50Would you be at all interested in talking about a job and gradually extracting as much information in that process and then suddenly disappearing. This is why I'm not on LinkedIn, guys. So that's what modern espionage can look like, but there's always a desire to have human sources and obtain information, and it's how great spy agencies in the world still operate. Well-placed insiders are valued because they can provide context and understanding of what's going on and help interpret some of the other data that you're receiving. So the idea that China might want to recruit people or that might want to use human intelligence isn't surprising.

10:24But this allegation was surprising because if it were true, it would represent a stepping up of Chinese intelligence activity in the UK. And it's worth saying no one's ever been found guilty of spying for China.

10:45So these two were charged under the 1911 Official Secrets Act, which says it is a crime to communicate any documents that might be useful to, quote, an enemy. Dan, what happened next after they're charged? They're charged in April 24, and eventually a trial date is set. A trial was due to happen around about now, in October. But suddenly, and to everyone's surprise, the Crown Prosecution Service announces at the Old Bailey, the trial is over, we are abandoning the prosecution, that is the end of the matter. were charged with spying for Beijing, which they deny, until that case suddenly collapsed.

11:24They just say the evidential standard was no longer met. So the evidence that we thought we had that allowed us to make a charge in April 24, it didn't apply anymore. We don't think we can win this case. Now, that is obviously extraordinary because for the CPS to mount a case, it actually takes quite a lot. So presumably they'd had their ducks in a row. But now, as you say, suddenly collapses. Yes, there was not a lot more explanation. Everyone seemed to be extraordinarily annoyed. Downing Street said he was disappointed. There was a debate in the House of Commons. Not a disappointment, but I'm very angry.

12:01There were lots of very unhappy Conservative members. Alicia Kearns, who would have been one of the most important witnesses in the case, she was completely baffled and said, well, if you had the evidence, why not let this case come to court? I want the government to end this wall of silence. Tell us what really happened. The moment the government is sending a message that there'll be no repercussions for espionage in the UK. And that is something that they need to stop immediately if they want to prove that that is not the case. And what made it all the more surprising was how fast it had happened because even a week before, police were still making arrangements for the trial to go ahead.

12:35So all that prep had been done? All that was going on. The cops were heartbroken. They were obviously told only at the last minute, this is SO15. It's the same guys who do counter-terror cases. They also do state threats. And one of the things that the police were saying to various witnesses was the decision to do this came from the top. The question was, what did they mean? You know, could the top have just been the director of public prosecutions or could it have been somebody else? Just extraordinary. But the dramatic collapse of the trial of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry has left questions for the government over whether it intervened to protect our economic interests with China.

13:19Well, Dan, have you spoken to the defence lawyers at all? And do you know anything about what case they were preparing to mount? We know bits and pieces. And of course, formally, the Crown doesn't really have to say why it's dropping a case. But certainly what allies of Kashra have been indicating is that he didn't receive any money. It wasn't a subject of blackmail, that the information he was supplying, it could be shown to be in the public domain. And therefore, the argument would be that prosecutors overreached themselves. The Crown had overstated its case, misunderstood what was going on.

13:49The state was being too excitable. And did all this come as a massive relief for Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry? And have we heard anything from them? Christopher Cash made a few comments shortly after the prosecution was abandoned. He complained about an utterly unrestrained storm of media attention in which my character was attacked. Berry's legal team have said a little on record and made it clear that as far as they were concerned that their client thought he was working for a corporate wanting to break into the UK and had been being misled. And both just continue to assert their innocence.

14:22However, we haven't heard a lot more since then. And perhaps that's created a bit of a gap for more speculation to follow. Right. And I guess in the midst of all of that, you've got two people whose lives ostensibly have been put somewhat on hold. I mean, what were the last couple of years have looked like for Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry? Well, you can't work. You're preparing for a trial. You've got your whole life in the balance and you're in a very difficult position. There's this sort of fundamental mystery, which is because there was no trial, because the CPS walked away, what the allegations were in detail.

14:52We don't quite know how strong they were. Different people say different things, but ultimately that's very difficult to judge. And just to be clear, the CPS dropping a case like this, it's very unusual, not just because of the nature of a case on spying, but just to get this far in the process. What on earth happened? Why did they walk away? Cases do fall apart. But for a very high profile case like this, which would have put on show, put under pressure, put in the spotlight the UK's already delicate relationship with China. For a case like this to start and then to fall apart is incredibly embarrassing.

15:32It's embarrassing for the CPS. It's embarrassing for the British state. But it wasn't just case closed, was it? It became pretty clear, pretty quickly, including to the CPS, that that was never going to hold as an answer. They couldn't just say, hey, you know, we dropped it for reasons. Thank you. Good night. Drop the mic and leave the room. Just not going to work. Politicians start writing to them. The Speaker of the House of Commons makes it clear how frustrated he is. Even talks about maybe trying to launch a private prosecution, although I think that's pretty unrealistic. And then the Shadow Home Secretary writes to the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Stephen Parkinson, and said, were you put under any external political pressure?

16:08Did somebody in government tell you to drop this prosecution because it might be embarrassing to UK-China relations? and Parkinson sends a letter back and he says, honest, we were not put under any outside pressure to make the decision we did and that we made the decision ourselves. But why was it? Why did you drop the case? And what everyone was struggling with was why was it okay to charge these two men in April 24 and then not okay in September 2025? What happened? Maybe the defense was better than anticipated. And so there was quite a bit of confusion. Suddenly a sort of fresh storm of rumours started to spread, suggesting that the government had withdrawn or restricted a key bit of testimony in the case.

16:59And it's worth mentioning that there has, of course, been a change of government since the guys were arrested. That's right. We now have a Labour government. The allegation began to swirl that Labour, now in office, had somehow withdrawn or was restricting critical witness testimony that the government was going to give as part of the espionage case. And what happens in espionage cases, and is a particular requirement of the 1911 Official Secrets Act, is that a senior government official sets out what harm was caused by the alleged spying and something of the geopolitical context. You know, is somebody engaged in any purpose prejudicial to the safety of interest of the state, passing on information intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy?

17:49And here, this boiled down to a critical question. Is China an enemy of the UK? And what is meant indeed by the word enemy in the context of legislation? And the burden of demonstrating this was to fall on this witness statement or statements. Matthew Collins is the UK's Deputy National Security Advisor, so he's a civil servant. Really, his role is a corporate one acting as a government spokesperson, putting the government's case. Collins ultimately supplied three witness statements. And the suggestion was, initially, that some of these statements were withdrawn. That's been denied by Downing Street.

18:30Let's just get this straight. Dan, it was on the government to provide credible witness statements to the court explaining the harm done by Cash and Berries' alleged spying for China. And what, they didn't? The impression had been given in a Whitehall meeting that pressure had been applied by a man called Jonathan Powell, the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the veteran of the Tony Blair years, now back in government, a very, very influential and important figure, that he had, again, given the impression that whatever evidence, it would be in line with broad brush government strategies about China.

19:06These are strategies that cover the whole gamut of UK-China relations. So it's much bigger than just one bucket, one subject area. And these four well shorts are describing China as an enemy. It's all much more nuanced. So what you're telling me is that it hinged on this word, describing China as an enemy. To have a trial on which China would repeatedly have been referred to as an enemy. Does that seem quite an uncomfortable place for the British government to be? What was interesting was, as the initial reports emerged that this was the problem, there was quite a bit of pushback from Downing Street.

19:40And also, people were still a bit confused because the enemy wording has been seen to be problematic for a very long time. And actually, this particular legislation, the 1911 Official Secrets Act, has now been replaced by a thing called the National Security Act. And the National Security Act has a lower threshold. It uses the phrase, foreign power. So it gets rid of this idea of enemy. So this problem shouldn't recur. And then the baffling thing was, well, why was it okay for the CPS to charge them then, but then not okay? What had happened in between? And finally, we get an explanation. And that comes from Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions.

20:19And what he says is, in between times, there had been another spying case. And there was a relevant bit of case law that came out of it. Six Bulgarians, all of whom were accused, found guilty and sent to jail ultimately of spying for Russia. In that judgment, there was an expansion of the definition of what it means to be an enemy. It became expanded under case law to be a country that the UK might be at war with one day or some day or another. Now, when this judgment occurred, it was June 2024, The CPS looked at it and thought, oh, this is a bit, this is, we need to get this clarified. And so they asked the government for a new witness statement and said, can you please say that China is a country that represents a current threat to the national security of the UK?

21:08And what seems to have happened is there were months of back and forth on this point. And it gradually became clear to them that even though more witness statements were forthcoming, this point was not being squarely addressed. And perhaps in frustration, the CPS concluded that without this assurance on the specific point, the case could not go forward. That was why they abandoned the case, because the government wouldn't provide this assurance. And then the question becomes why, which has not been properly or clearly explained. And I think here there's probably a bit of an intersection of the law with Realpolitik.

21:50but certainly it raises the question that the reason that the government did want to do this was because to say that China was a current threat to the national security of the UK would have been politically very difficult at a time when the UK is trying to warm its relations with China. So really this case or the lack of a case it's become about Britain's relationship with China and from what we can gather there's been a real reluctance to brand China as an enemy in a British court of law. One of the things actually that Jonathan Powell is closely involved with, Keir Starmer hopes to go to China next year.

22:26Would have been very awkward, wouldn't it? Well, that's certainly the accusation, but it's not one that's immediately accepted by Labour. And Keir Starmer, no stranger to the law himself, of course, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, has tried to focus the argument on the Tories and say, well, alleged offences took place between late 21 and early 23. the Conservatives in charge, you have to judge things on the basis of what the Conservatives were doing then. The position is very clear that the trial would have had to take place on the basis of the situation as it was at the time under the previous Tory government.

23:03So whatever their position was, was the only position that could be presented at trial. So it wasn't as well this government's position, it was the Tory government before's position. OK, but the reality is that the failure to get this additional evidence that the CPS thought it wanted came under Labour.