Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper defended the government, blaming the previous Conservative administration for the case’s collapse and denying ministerial involvement in evidence decisions.

This decision has sparked political scrutiny, with opposition figures demanding transparency and questioning the government’s role, especially since internal documents from 2021-2023 could have supported the case but were allegedly withheld.

Sir Keir Starmer clarified that the evidence was based on the situation at the time of the alleged offenses and emphasized that no ministers were involved in the decision to withhold evidence or drop the case.

Legal changes introduced in 2023 by the previous Conservative government require that a country must be a threat at the time of the offense to be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, influencing the CPS's ability to pursue the case.

Conservative ministers claimed that relevant internal documents from 2021-2023 could have been shared with the CPS to proceed but were deliberately withheld, hindering the prosecution.

Reports suggest that government evidence was based on the national security strategy, and a minister was reportedly told the case was collapsing due to influence from Powell and the Treasury.

Cabinet minister Bridget Phillipson confirmed that Sir Keir Starmer’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, had no involvement in the case’s substance or evidence, and the decision to drop charges was solely made by the CPS.

The UK government asserts that Powell played no role in the case's collapse and retains full confidence in him, dismissing claims of political interference.

The case involved two young men, Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, arrested in March 2023 for allegedly collecting harmful national security information from late 2021 to early 2023.

Starmer argued that the evidence should have been based on the last government’s policies, which described China as a challenge rather than an outright threat, emphasizing the legal basis for prosecution.

Some former officials, including Lord Sedwill, questioned the interpretation of the Official Secrets Act, suggesting the legislation was meant to clarify legal ambiguities.

The Director of Public Prosecutions stated that the CPS attempted for months to gather necessary evidence from the government but was unsuccessful due to lack of cooperation.

Stephen Parkinson revealed that despite repeated requests, the government did not provide evidence demonstrating China’s threat to UK security, which was crucial for prosecution.

Former cabinet secretary Lord Sedwill expressed difficulty understanding Starmer’s position and emphasized the ongoing threat China poses through espionage and regional aggression.

Former Home Secretary Priti Patel criticized the government’s stance, asserting that China was considered a threat during her tenure.

Prime Minister Starmer’s explanation centered on the lack of formal evidence designating China as a threat, a point challenged by former officials who believe evidence could have been supplied.

The incident has ignited political debate, with critics accusing the government of deliberately sabotaging the case to avoid antagonizing China.

Some analysts suggest the government’s failure to provide evidence was motivated by a desire not to provoke China, fueling broader concerns about the UK’s approach to Chinese espionage.

This controversy has intensified debates over the UK’s stance on China, with accusations of political interference and questions about the country’s willingness to confront Chinese espionage openly.

The case involved two men, Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, accused of spying under the Official Secrets Act 1911, charges they both denied, with the prosecution initiated in April of the previous year.

Overall, the incident underscores concerns over the transparency and effectiveness of UK security and intelligence operations regarding foreign espionage threats.

The collapse of a high-profile espionage case against two alleged Chinese spies has raised serious concerns from the White House and UK officials, with critics questioning why charges were dropped despite longstanding warnings about China's threat to UK security.

The prosecution was dropped because the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) could not obtain sufficient evidence linking China to a national security threat based on the government's own evidence, which was rooted in a 2023 national security strategy that did not explicitly label Beijing as an enemy.