International

UK government faces scrutiny over collapsed China espionage prosecution and political interference allegations

Friday, 24 October 2025 4:04AM UTC

In Westminster, ministers are under fire amid questions over the collapse of a high-profile spy case involving China, raising concerns over political influence and national security transparency.

Almost daily in Westminster, a fresh minister is hauled from relative obscurity to face urgent questions in the Commons over the increasingly fraught China 'spies' scandal. The latest casualty was Solicitor General Ellie Reeves, who was tasked with defending the government’s handling of the failed prosecution of two men accused of spying for China. Ms Reeves, representing the Attorney General’s Office for Lord Hermer who sits in the House of Lords and cannot answer in the Commons, displayed visible irritation and frustration as Conservative MPs fired relentless inquiries at her during a mid-morning session. Her responses were terse, often evasive, marked by a defiant pout, and characterised by frequent repetitions of a single line—that Lord Hermer would appear before a parliamentary committee the following week to answer questions himself. Her performance was widely viewed as weak and unconvincing by many observers and parliamentarians alike. Tory MPs accused her of dodging the issues, while only one Labour MP offered tentative support amid the sparse attendance from her party, signalling internal discomfort over the scandal and its implications for ministers’ reputations.

The core controversy revolves around why the prosecution of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, charged under the Official Secrets Act, was abruptly dropped. The Associated Press reported that the case collapsed largely because the UK government had not formally designated China a national security threat at the relevant time, meaning prosecutors lacked the necessary government testimony to proceed. This lack of an official threat designation has caused political uproar, with critics alleging that maintaining diplomatic relations with Beijing was placed above the UK’s national security interests. Prime Minister Keir Starmer defended his administration by pointing out that the offences in question dated back to the previous Conservative government’s tenure, which had not made the threat designation either. Meanwhile, MI5 continues to publicly rank China among the UK’s top espionage threats. The Chinese Embassy dismissed the spy allegations as slander, adding an international diplomatic dimension to the controversy. Calls for greater transparency and a thorough investigation into potential political interference have gained momentum, underscoring the case’s wider implications for national security policy and public trust.

In the Commons on 23 October 2025, Ms Reeves sought to reaffirm the constitutional principle that prosecutions must be free from political influence. According to official parliamentary records, she stressed that prosecutors, not politicians, decide which cases to prosecute and when to discontinue them. She clarified that the Attorney General had given consent to proceed with the charges on 3 April 2024, but no law officer intervened in the case thereafter. Both the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel reportedly confirmed that the decision to offer no evidence in court was taken independently, without political pressure. Reeves also expressed concern that ongoing speculation and disinformation about the case detracted from the urgent task of strengthening cross-party cooperation and law enforcement efforts to counter espionage and interference by China.

Supporting these assertions, government officials and statements published by outlets such as the Evening Standard and Inkl reiterated that the Attorney General was not involved in the case following the charge. They emphasised the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and dismissed accusations of political meddling as unfounded. Nonetheless, the case continues to fuel criticism and suspicion, with some opposition MPs and commentators questioning whether political considerations influenced prosecutorial decisions, particularly given the reported close ties between Lord Hermer and Prime Minister Starmer.

Amid parliamentary scrutiny, several select committees—namely the Home Affairs Committee, Justice Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, along with the Intelligence and Security Committee—have convened to examine the circumstances behind the collapsed prosecution. Their constructive meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions in October 2025 suggest a serious intent to investigate further and determine any procedural or political failures. Observers anticipate more detailed findings and potential recommendations for safeguarding the integrity of future espionage cases.

The scandal’s toll extends beyond Ms Reeves. Other ministers such as Dan Jarvis, the security minister, appear visibly weary and less forthcoming, having once been regarded as straightforward and trusted. Newly appointed Cabinet Office minister Chris Ward also stumbled in his parliamentary debut due to the case’s fallout, raising questions about the political costs borne by relatively junior government figures caught in the crossfire. As the crisis deepens, party tensions escalate, and questions about the government’s transparency and commitment to national security become increasingly acute, Starmer’s political stock is perceived to be in decline, amid widespread accusations that protecting privileged insiders has overridden justice and proper accountability.

The government’s effort to downplay involvement contrasts with the growing calls for clarity and comprehensive inquiry, particularly as the CPS’s handling of evidence and prosecutorial decisions come under intense scrutiny. Sky News has reported clashes between senior MPs and CPS lawyers, highlighting that despite the government releasing key evidence documents, significant questions remain unanswered, sustaining political and public pressure for further investigation.

The China 'spies' case, therefore, remains a contentious and evolving issue, pitting national security concerns against diplomatic strategy, legal independence against political responsibility, and testing the government’s ability to maintain trust amid allegations of obfuscation and mismanagement.

📌 Reference Map:

Paragraph 1 – ^[1] (Daily Mail)
Paragraph 2 – ^[2] (Associated Press)
Paragraph 3 – ^[3] (Hansard)
Paragraph 4 – ^[4] (Evening Standard), ^[6] (Inkl)
Paragraph 5 – ^[5] (UK Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee)
Paragraph 6 – ^[1] (Daily Mail)
Paragraph 7 – ^[7] (Sky News)

Source: Noah Wire Services

More on this

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-15221823/QUENTIN-LETTS-mulish-cast-eye-pout-Cheesed-Ellie-glowers-China-grilling.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490 - Please view link - unable to able to access data
https://apnews.com/article/abcc48604051c7d6d5a105a7fead7f8e - The Associated Press reports that the trial of two British men accused of spying for China collapsed because the UK government refused to officially designate China as a national security threat. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, stated that without government testimony affirming China's threat status at the time of the alleged offenses, the case could not proceed. This has led to political scrutiny, with critics accusing the government of prioritising diplomatic relations over national security. Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated his administration could not provide retrospective evidence for incidents under the previous Conservative government, which had not officially designated China a threat. The Chinese Embassy rejected the allegations as slander, while MI5 continues to cite China among the top threats to UK security. The case's failure has raised concerns about political interference and calls for greater transparency from the government.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/html/commons/2025-10-23/CommonsChamber - The UK Parliament's Hansard records the Commons Chamber proceedings on 23 October 2025, where Solicitor General Ellie Reeves addressed an urgent question regarding the role of the Attorney General’s Office in the decision to drop the China spy prosecution. Ms Reeves emphasised the constitutional principle that prosecutions are free from political influence, stating that it is prosecutors, not politicians, who decide which cases to prosecute and when to drop them. She clarified that the Attorney General's consent was given on 3 April 2024, and after that date, no law officer intervened in the case. She also mentioned that the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel confirmed that the decision to offer no evidence was made without any political influence. Ms Reeves highlighted that the ongoing disinformation around the collapse of the case was distracting from the more important issue of how the government can work across parties and with the UK law enforcement community to prevent Chinese espionage and interference in the UK.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ellie-reeves-government-robert-jenrick-china-attorney-general-b1254510.html - The Evening Standard reports that the UK government has stated that the Attorney General was not involved in the collapsed China spy case. Solicitor General Ellie Reeves clarified that no law officer was involved in the case after charges were brought against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry on 3 April 2024. She emphasised the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service from government interference, stating that it would have been 'wholly inappropriate' for the Attorney General to have had a role. The government responded to accusations of political interference by highlighting the constitutional principle that prosecutions are free from political influence, with decisions made by prosecutors, not politicians.
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/78/foreign-affairs-committee/news/209634/update-on-select-committee-work-relating-to-china-spy-case/ - The UK Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee provides an update on select committee work related to the China spy case. The Chairs of the Home Affairs Committee, Justice Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, and the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee met with the Director of Public Prosecutions and his team on 15 October 2025. They had a constructive discussion about the reasons for the recent dropping of charges against two individuals under the Official Secrets Act. The committees will now consider what further action to take and will provide further updates once they have decided on the appropriate work.
https://www.inkl.com/news/government-says-attorney-general-was-not-involved-in-collapsed-china-spy-case - Inkl reports that the UK government has stated that the Attorney General was not involved in the collapsed China spy case. Solicitor General Ellie Reeves clarified that no law officer was involved in the case after charges were brought against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry on 3 April 2024. She emphasised the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service from government interference, stating that it would have been 'wholly inappropriate' for the Attorney General to have had a role. The government responded to accusations of political interference by highlighting the constitutional principle that prosecutions are free from political influence, with decisions made by prosecutors, not politicians.
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-live-reeves-spring-statement-welfare-defence-cuts-starmer-economy-reform-farage-12593360?postid=6071136 - Sky News provides live updates on the China spy case, including a row between a senior MP and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyers. Three key pieces of evidence crucial to the case have been published by the government, but the release has done little to end discussions about the case, with the Prime Minister warned of 'more unanswered questions'. The report details a bitter clash between senior MPs and CPS lawyers over the collapse of the trial, highlighting tensions and the need for further scrutiny.

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score: 8

Notes: The narrative appears to be original, with no evidence of prior publication. The Daily Mail article was published on 24 October 2025, and no substantially similar content was found in recent searches. The report includes updated information on Solicitor General Ellie Reeves' performance in Parliament regarding the China 'spies' affair, suggesting a high freshness score.

Quotes check

Score: 9

Notes: The direct quotes attributed to Solicitor General Ellie Reeves and other MPs are consistent with statements reported in other reputable outlets, such as The Standard and The Irish News. No significant discrepancies or variations in wording were found, indicating the quotes are accurately reported.

Source reliability

Score: 6

Notes: The narrative originates from The Daily Mail, a widely read UK newspaper. While it is a reputable source, it is advisable to cross-reference with other outlets for a more comprehensive understanding.

Plausability check

Score: 8

Notes: The claims regarding Solicitor General Ellie Reeves' performance in Parliament align with reports from other reputable outlets, such as The Standard and The Irish News. The narrative provides specific details, including dates and direct quotes, enhancing its credibility.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH

Summary: The narrative is original and fresh, with no evidence of prior publication. The quotes are consistent with statements from other reputable outlets, and the source is generally reliable. The claims are plausible and supported by specific details, leading to a high confidence in the overall assessment.

UK Politics
China espionage
Legal independence