A Chinese spying trial collapsed last month after the UK government would not label Beijing a national security threat, a top prosecutor has said.
Christopher Berry, 33, and former parliamentary researcher Christopher Cash, 30, were accused of espionage for China.
But the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced on 15 September that the charges would be dropped, sparking criticism from Downing Street and MPs.
Berry, of Witney, Oxfordshire, and Cash, from Whitechapel, east London, had denied accusations of providing information prejudicial to the interests of the state in breach of the Official Secrets Act between December 2021 and February 2023.
Image: Director of public prosecutions Stephen Parkinson. Pic: PA
Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions (DPP), told MPs in a letter on Tuesday that the CPS had tried “over many months” to get the evidence it needed to carry out the prosecution, but it had not been forthcoming from the Labour government.
However, Sir Keir Starmer insisted the decision to brand China a threat would have to have been taken under the last Conservative administration.
More on China
Related Topics:
The prime minister said: “You can’t prosecute someone two years later in relation to a designation that wasn’t in place at the time.”
It is understood that the decision to end the case came after a meeting of senior officials which, according to The Sunday Times, included Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, and Sir Oliver Robins, the Foreign Office’s top diplomat.
To prove the case under the Official Secrets Act of 1911, prosecutors would have to show the defendants were acting for an “enemy”.
Both the current Labour government and the previous Conservative governments have not labelled China a risk to national security.
In his letter to the chairs of the Commons home and justice select committees, Mr Parkinson said: “It was considered that further evidence should be obtained.
“Efforts to obtain that evidence were made over many months, but notwithstanding the fact that further witness statements were provided, none of these stated that at the time of the offence China represented a threat to national security, and by late August 2025 it was realised that this evidence would not be forthcoming.
“When this became apparent, the case could not proceed.”
He also pointed out that in a separate case about Russian spying last year, a judge ruled that an “enemy” under the 1911 Act must be a country that represents a threat to national security of the UK “at the time of the offence”.
Image: The prime minister answered reporters’ questions about the collapse of the case while on a flight to Mumbai. Pic: PA
How has the government responded?
Sir Keir has addressed the contents of the letter, which he said he had “read at speed”, while on board a flight to Mumbai, as part of the UK’s largest ever trade mission to India.
The PM said: “What matters is what the designation [of China] was in 2023, because that’s when the offence was committed and that’s when the relevant period was.
“Statements were drawn up at the time according to the then government policy, and they haven’t been changed in relation to it, that was the position then.
“I might just add, nor could the position change, because it was the designation at the time that matters.”
Sir Keir, a former director of public prosecutions, added that he wasn’t “saying that defensively”, but because “as a prosecutor, I know that… it is what the situation at the time that matters”.
He also declined to criticise the CPS or the DPP, as he said “it’s wise not to”.
Since the alleged spying offences took place, the new National Security Act has superseded elements of the 1911 Act.
But Conservatives, including shadow home secretary Chris Philp, insist that Sir Keir has “very serious questions to personally answer”.
A growing rift has emerged in Washington, D.C., between the cryptocurrency industry and labor unions as lawmakers debate whether to ease rules allowing cryptocurrencies in 401(k) retirement accounts.
The dispute centers on proposed market structure legislation that would allow retirement accounts to gain exposure to crypto, a move labor groups say could expose workers to speculative risk. In a letter sent on Wednesday to the US Senate Banking Committee, the American Federation of Teachers argued that cryptocurrencies are too volatile for pension and retirement savings, warning that workers could face significant losses.
The letter drew immediate pushback from crypto investors and industry figures. “The American Federation of Teachers has somehow developed the most logically incoherent, least educated take one could possibly author on the matter of crypto market structure regulation,” a crypto investor said on X.
The AFT letter to Congress opposes regulatory changes that would allow 401(k) retirement accounts to hold alternative assets, including cryptocurrency. Source: CNBC
In response to the letter, Castle Island Ventures partner Sean Judge said the bill would improve oversight and reduce systemic risk, while enabling pension funds to access an asset class that has delivered strong long-term returns.
Consensys attorney Bill Hughes said the AFT’s opposition to the crypto market structure bill was politically motivated, accusing the group of acting as an extension of Democratic lawmakers.
Funds held in US retirement accounts by type of account plan. Source: ICI
Opposition to crypto in retirement and pension funds mounts
Proponents of allowing crypto in retirement portfolios, on the other hand, argue that it democratizes finance, while trade unions have voiced strong opposition to relaxing current regulations, claiming that crypto is too risky for traditional retirement plans.
“Unregulated, risky currencies and investments are not where we should put pensions and retirement savings. The wild, wild west is not what we need, whether it’s crypto, AI, or social media,” AFT president Randi Weingarten said on Thursday.
The AFT represents 1.8 million teachers and educational professionals in the US and is one of the largest teachers’ unions in the country.
According to Better Markets, a nonprofit and nonpartisan advocacy organization, cryptocurrencies are too volatile for traditional retirement portfolios, and their high volatility can create time-horizon mismatches for pension investors seeking a predictable, low-volatility retirement plan.
Bitcoin and Ether volatility compared to other asset classes and stock indexes. Source: US Federal Reserve
In October, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) also wrote to Congress opposing provisions within the crypto market structure regulatory bill.
The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of trade unions in the US, wrote that cryptocurrencies are volatile and pose a systemic risk to pension funds and the broader financial system.
The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has conditionally approved five national bank charter applications for companies tied to the digital assets industry.
In a Friday notice, the OCC said it had conditionally approved BitGo, Fidelity, and Paxos to convert their existing state-level trust companies into federally chartered national trust banks. In the same announcement, the regulator said it had conditionally approved new applications from Circle and Ripple for national trust bank charters.
“New entrants into the federal banking sector are good for consumers, the banking industry and the economy,” said Jonathan Gould, the Comptroller of the Currency, adding: “The OCC will continue to provide a path for both traditional and innovative approaches to financial services to ensure the federal banking system keeps pace with the evolution of finance and supports a modern economy.”
Europe’s crypto regulatory framework is entering a new phase of scrutiny as policymakers weigh whether enforcement of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation should remain with national authorities or be centralized under the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
MiCA, which came largely into force at the beginning of 2025, was designed to create a unified rulebook for crypto-asset service providers across the European Union.
But as implementation progresses, disparities between member states are becoming harder to ignore. Some regulators have approved dozens of licenses, while others have issued only a handful, prompting concerns about inconsistent supervision and regulatory arbitrage.
In this week’s episode of Byte-Sized Insight, Cointelegraph explored what those growing pains mean for Europe’s crypto market with Lewin Boehnke, chief strategy officer at Crypto Finance Group — a Switzerland-based digital asset firm with operations across the EU.
Uneven enforcement fuels calls for oversight
According to Boehnke, the core challenge facing Europe isn’t the MiCA framework itself, but rather how it is being applied differently across jurisdictions.
“There is a very, very uneven application of the regulation,” he said, pointing to stark contrasts between member states. Germany, for example, has already granted around 30 crypto licenses, many to established banks, while Luxembourg has approved just three, all to major, well-known firms.
The ESMA released a peer review of the Malta Financial Services Authority’s authorization of a crypto service provider, finding that the regulator only “partially met expectations.”
Those disparities have helped fuel support among some regulators and policymakers for transferring supervisory powers to ESMA, which would create a more centralized enforcement model similar to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
France, Austria and Italy have all signaled support for such a move, particularly amid criticism of more permissive regimes elsewhere in the bloc.
From Boehnke’s perspective, centralization could be less about control and more about efficiency.
“From just purely the practical point of view, I think it would be a good idea to have a unified… application of the regulation,” he said, adding that direct engagement with the ESMA could reduce delays caused by back-and-forth between national authorities.
MiCA’s design praised, but technical questions remain
Despite criticism from some corners of the crypto industry, Boehnke said MiCA’s overarching structure is sound, particularly its focus on regulating intermediaries rather than peer-to-peer activity.
“I do like MiCA regulation… the overarching approach of regulating not necessarily the assets, not the peer-to-peer use, but the custodians and the ones that offer services… that is the right approach.”
However, he also noted that unresolved technical questions are slowing adoption, especially for banks. One example is MiCA’s requirement that custodians be able to return client assets “immediately,” a phrase that remains open to interpretation.
“Does that mean withdrawal of the crypto? Or is it good enough to sell the crypto and withdraw the fiat immediately?” Boehnke asked, noting that such ambiguities are still being worked through and are awaiting clarity from ESMA.
To hear the complete conversation on Byte-Sized Insight, listen to the full episode on Cointelegraph’s Podcasts page, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And don’t forget to check out Cointelegraph’s full lineup of other shows!