A shocking collapse of a high-profile spy case has left the UK public demanding answers—and now, MPs are turning up the heat on the chief prosecutor. But here's where it gets controversial: Was the case truly dropped due to insufficient evidence, or is there more to the story? Let’s dive in.
Just weeks ago, the case against two men accused of spying for China—parliamentary researcher Christopher Cash, 30, and academic Christopher Berry, 33—was abruptly dropped. Both men deny the allegations, but the decision has sparked a firestorm of questions. MPs are now demanding that Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions, provide a fuller explanation for why charges were abandoned. And this is the part most people miss: The collapse allegedly hinged on the government’s failure to provide enough evidence proving China posed a threat to UK national security. Really? In 2024?
Here’s the twist: Just days after the case fell apart, the government released witness statements explicitly outlining the threat Beijing poses. So, what gives? The chairs of four parliamentary committees have given Parkinson until next Friday to answer a series of pointed questions. He’s also likely to face MPs directly, as a joint national security committee launches its own formal inquiry. Labour MP Matt Western, who chairs one of these committees, insists there are many questions yet to be answered—both by Parkinson and the government.
But it doesn’t stop there. Another parliamentary group, the intelligence and security committee, has launched a separate probe into how classified material was handled during the case. The men were charged under the 1911 Official Secrets Act, accused of gathering and sharing information harmful to UK interests between December 2021 and February 2023. The law requires prosecutors to prove the material could benefit an enemy—in this case, China. Parkinson claims the government’s evidence fell 5% short of what was needed for a conviction. Yet, some MPs are skeptical, questioning why the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) didn’t push harder.
Here’s where it gets even more intriguing: Parkinson, appointed in September 2023 under the previous Conservative government, now finds himself at the center of an unusually public row with ministers. What’s more, he’s a successor to none other than Sir Keir Starmer, who led the CPS from 2013 to 2018 before becoming prime minister. Starmer has expressed deep disappointment over the case’s collapse and took the rare step of publishing government witness statements. These documents, penned by deputy national security adviser Matthew Collins, explicitly state that China is engaged in large-scale espionage against the UK—hardly a minor threat.
Parkinson’s background adds another layer to this saga. A former senior partner at law firm Kingsley Napley, he initially trained as a barrister before switching to become a solicitor in 2005. In a recent interview, he revealed he once worked as a dustman, on a kibbutz, and even as a ballpoint pen salesman in South Africa before pursuing law. Yet, he’s been openly critical of Starmer’s tenure as DPP, calling him an average DPP and claiming he lacked prosecutorial experience.
So, what’s really going on here? Is this a genuine failure of evidence, a bureaucratic misstep, or something more politically charged? And why did the government wait until after the case collapsed to release damning witness statements? These questions are fueling a heated debate—one that’s far from over. What do you think? Is Parkinson being unfairly targeted, or is there a deeper issue at play? Let’s discuss in the comments!
