Christopher Cash, Christopher Berry: Bombshell China spying charges that rocked UK Parliament dropped

Bombshell allegations of Chinese espionage involving a former parliamentary staffer inside the British Houses of Parliament have been dropped, sparking a furious backlash led by the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle.

Christopher Cash, 30, and Christopher Berry, 33, had denied breaching the Official Secrets Act.

Mr Cash worked as a parliamentary aide heading a China Research Group and had access to Conservative MPs Tom Tugenhadt and Alicia Kearns who respectively served as Security Minister and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the time of the pair’s arrest.

In a video promoting Hangzhou’s West Lake uploaded to YouTube in January 2022, Mr Berry said he was from Oxford and had been teaching economics in China for about three years.

Mr Cash and Mr Berry taught together in Hangzhou and were featured in the same promotional material on the Chinese website Sohu.com.

The bombshell announcement that the charges against the duo would be dropped was made at their court hearing in the Old Bailey on Monday. Prosecutors gave no reason.

Speaker Lindsay Hoyle told the Chamber: “I do not think that is good.”

“Given the very important issues raised by this case, I ask officials to consider whether any further steps should be taken—operational, strategic or legal—to ensure that all those who work in this Parliament are able to undertake their activities securely and without interference,” Sir Lindsay said.

“I am a very unhappy Speaker with what has happened.

“The fact that it has taken two years, until today, for somebody to withdraw this case is not good enough.”

Home Office Minister Dan Jarvis said the Government was disappointed that the October trial would not go ahead.

He suggested that the charges were dropped because they relied on outdated legislation, including the definition of an “enemy” state and what constitutes espionage.

“The Official Secrets Act was passed to counter the threat from German spies before the First World War,” he said.

“It referred to espionage as obtaining ‘any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, or information’ that ‘might be…useful to an enemy’.

“Clearly, that language—drafted well over 100 years ago—does not reflect the types of espionage or state threats we face in the modern day, nor the breadth of states that engage directly in that activity.

“The National Security Act is state agnostic, removing the unhelpful ‘enemy’ language from the Official Secrets Act and focusing on the malign activity we are all concerned about.

“While we are extremely disappointed with the outcome in this case, the legislation it relied on has already been changed.”

Chris Philp, the opposition’s Home Affairs spokesman, used parliamentary privilege to cite a Crown Prosecution Service briefing.

“That briefing states that one of the subjects was commissioned over a period exceeding a year, between December 2021 and February 2023, by a Chinese intelligence asset,” he said.

“There are 34 reports on what this note describes as ‘very specific topics’, some of which relate directly and personally to Members of Parliament.

“One of the deputy national security advisers told the Crown Prosecution Service that he assessed this information to be ‘directly or indirectly, useful’ to the Chinese state, and said that it was ‘prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.’

“Given the gravity of that assessment, it is astonishing that these charges have now been withdrawn.”

Amongst the strongest criticisms was that made by Alicia Kearns — it was her office that Mr Cash worked for in order to obtain his parliamentary pass.

She said the intelligence agency heads had told her colleague Tom Tugenhadt that the “evidence was overwhelming and the case beyond doubt.”

“It remains unclear to me why Chris Cash and Christopher Berry cannot be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act,” she said.

“The evidence shows a clear line between those two, the United Front Work Department and the Politburo — the very top of the Chinese Communist Party.

“If officials, the security services and the police agree that the case was a slam dunk, why has the Crown Prosecution Service not been able to get it over the line?

“If the CPS was not confident, why, given the compelling evidence, did it not put it to a jury and test it?

“Whoever is responsible for this decision—whether the Director of Public Prosecutions, an official in his own Department or the Attorney General—they have weakened the defence of our country today and I am desperately sorry to see it.”

Luke De Pulford from the Inter-Parliametary Alliance for China told The Nightly that he doubted the case was over.

“It is pretty remarkable to have the CPS accuse defendants of producing 34 reports for Beijing and then for charges to be dropped,” Mr De Pulford said.

“Everyone seems to be pointing the finger at the Official Secrets Act.

“They’ve got a point.

“How can you assist an ‘enemy’ state which the UK is begging for trade and investment? Hardly gives ‘enemy’ vibes.

“Between the lines in the Security Minister’s brief yesterday was an admission that we don’t reduce our relationship with China to ‘one word’.

“We need to know if the government told the CPS it didn’t see China as an ‘enemy’, because if that is the reason for the failure of this case, we haven’t heard the end of it yet.”