🔗 Share this article

An unexpected announcement by the Director of Public Prosecutions has sparked a public debate over the abrupt termination of a high-profile spy trial.

What Prompted the Case Dismissal?

Prosecutors revealed that the case against two British nationals charged with spying for China was discontinued after failing to obtain a crucial testimony from the UK administration affirming that China currently poses a threat to national security.

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

Why Did Defining China as an Enemy Necessary?

The defendants were prosecuted under the former 1911 Official Secrets Act, which required that the prosecution prove they were sharing details useful to an enemy.

Although the UK is not at war with China, legal precedents had broadened the interpretation of adversary to include potential adversaries. However, a recent ruling in another case clarified that the term must refer to a country that poses a current threat to national security.

Legal experts suggested that this change in case law reduced the threshold for prosecution, but the lack of a formal statement from the authorities meant the case could not continue.

Is China a Threat to UK National Security?

The UK's strategy toward China has aimed to reconcile apprehensions about its political system with cooperation on economic and environmental issues.

Official documents have referred to China as a “systemic competitor” or “strategic rival”. Yet, regarding spying, security officials have issued clearer warnings.

Former agency leaders have stated that China constitutes a “priority” for security services, with accounts of extensive corporate spying and covert activities targeting the UK.

What About the Defendants?

The claims suggested that one of the defendants, a parliamentary researcher, passed on knowledge about the workings of the UK parliament with a associate based in China.

This information was reportedly used in reports written for a Chinese intelligence officer. The accused rejected the charges and assert their non-involvement.

Legal arguments indicated that the defendants believed they were exchanging open-source data or helping with commercial interests, not engaging in espionage.

Where Does the Blame Lie for the Case Failure?

Some legal experts wondered whether the CPS was “over-fussy” in requesting a court declaration that could have been embarrassing to national relations.

Opposition leaders pointed to the timing of the incidents, which took place under the former administration, while the refusal to provide the required evidence happened under the current one.

Ultimately, the failure to obtain the required statement from the government resulted in the case being dropped.