🔗 Share this article

An unexpected disclosure by the chief prosecutor has ignited a political dispute over the abrupt termination of a prominent spy trial.

What Led to the Case Dismissal?

Prosecutors revealed that the case against two British nationals accused with working on behalf of China was discontinued after failing to obtain a key witness statement from the UK administration confirming that China currently poses a risk to the UK's safety.

Without this statement, the trial had to be abandoned, as explained by the prosecution. Efforts were made over several months, but none of the testimonies submitted described China as a danger to the country at the time of the alleged offenses.

What Made Defining China as an Adversary Essential?

The defendants were charged under the former 1911 Official Secrets Act, which mandated that the prosecution demonstrate they were passing information beneficial for an hostile state.

While the UK is not in conflict with China, legal precedents had expanded the definition of adversary to include countries that might become hostile. However, a recent ruling in a separate spy trial specified that the term must refer to a country that poses a present danger to national security.

Legal experts suggested that this change in case law reduced the bar for prosecution, but the absence of a official declaration from the authorities meant the trial had to be dropped.

Is China a Threat to UK National Security?

The UK's policy toward China has long sought to reconcile apprehensions about its political system with cooperation on trade and climate issues.

Government reviews have described China as a “epoch-defining challenge” or “strategic rival”. However, regarding spying, security officials have given more direct alerts.

Previous agency leaders have emphasized that China represents a “priority” for intelligence agencies, with reports of widespread corporate spying and secret operations targeting the UK.

What About the Accused Individuals?

The allegations suggested that one of the defendants, 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 agent from China. Both defendants rejected the allegations and assert their non-involvement.

Defense claims indicated that the defendants thought they were exchanging open-source information or assisting with commercial interests, not engaging in espionage.

Where Does Responsible for the Case Failure?

Several commentators wondered whether the CPS was “excessively cautious” in requesting a court declaration that could have been embarrassing to national relations.

Opposition leaders highlighted the timing of the incidents, which occurred under the former government, while the decision to supply the required evidence occurred under the current one.

Ultimately, the failure to secure the necessary statement from the government resulted in the case being abandoned.