Commons open to espionage after China spying charges dropped, speaker says

Speaker of the Commons Sir Lindsay Hoyle said the decision to drop charges against two men accused of spying for China could leave Parliament vulnerable to espionage. The men, identified as Christopher Berry, a teacher from Witney in Oxfordshire, and Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, were charged under the Official Secrets Act over alleged information gathering between 28 December 2021 and 3 February 2023, according to authorities familiar with the case.

Berry and Cash were arrested in March 2023 as part of a counter-terror police investigation and were charged in April 2024. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the charges would be dropped early last week after reviewing the evidential threshold, which it said had not been met. In a letter to shadow home secretary Chris Philp, CPS director Stephen Parkinson said there had been consideration of “alternative offences,” but none were found suitable. The CPS stressed that there had been no outside pressure influencing the decision.

The two men were originally due to appear at Woolwich Crown Court from 6 October. Cash, who was reported to have had access to several Conservative MPs, including former security minister Tom Tugendhat and then-foreign affairs committee chairwoman Alicia Kearns, said he was relieved that justice had been served after the charges were dropped. Berry’s background as a teacher from Witney contrasted with Cash’s described role as a former parliamentary researcher, highlighting the mix of profiles prosecutors pursued in the case.

The decision prompted a swift response from Beijing. A Chinese embassy spokesperson had previously dismissed the allegations as “completely fabricated” and urged the UK to stop anti-China political manipulation and refrain from turning the case into a political farce. Hoyle told The Times that he took the security of the House “incredibly seriously” and said he was considering launching a private action against the pair as a possible remedy for the breach of trust and security concerns raised by the case.

The events sit at the intersection of Britain’s ongoing concerns about espionage and the integrity of its parliamentary institutions. The CPS emphasized that the decision to discontinue charges reflected the evidential threshold rather than any external influence, underscoring the cautious approach prosecutors take in sensitive cases involving national security and intelligence access. The incident has raised questions about how Parliament screens and monitors access to information that could be of use to foreign powers, and it has already prompted discussions among lawmakers about strengthening internal safeguards to protect sensitive materials and contacts within committees.

In the aftermath, Parliament’s security posture is under renewed scrutiny, even as officials emphasized that the overwhelming majority of parliamentary staff and researchers operate within strict legal and ethical boundaries. The drop in charges also leaves unresolved the broader debate about cybersecurity, counter-espionage capabilities, and the risk calculus surrounding personnel with access to sensitive information. While today’s headlines center on the two individuals and the CPS decision, the implications extend to ongoing parliamentary reviews of security protocols and oversight mechanisms that aim to prevent similar vulnerabilities in the future.