Dropping the China spy case sends a troubling signal
When the Crown Prosecution Service abruptly dropped its case against two Britons accused of spying for China, it closed a courtroom chapter and opened a diplomatic and strategic headache.
For London’s allies, especially Washington, the move was more than perplexing; it was alarming.
Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, gave voice to what many in the intelligence world are thinking: confusion, frustration, and unease. China, he warned, poses “a range of threats” to the UK, from cyber infiltration to political influence. Yet, despite those warnings, Britain appears to have blinked.
Law meets geopolitics
The government’s defence is a legal one: at the time of the alleged offences, between 2021 and 2023, Beijing had not been formally designated a national security threat. On paper, that argument may hold. But in practice, it feels dangerously naive. Intelligence threats do not appear overnight with a change of ministerial phrasing; they evolve, they adapt, and they exploit hesitation.
For the United States – a country that has spent years urging allies to harden their stance on Chinese espionage – the UK’s retreat will look like indecision dressed up as due process. Washington’s unease is understandable. As one senior Trump administration official put it, America is cautious about sharing intelligence with governments “subject to adversarial coercion and influence.” In other words, trust is not automatic.
A test for Starmer’s resolve
This controversy lands squarely at the feet of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and his national security adviser, Jonathan Powell. Both insist the CPS decision was independent, but the optics are uncomfortable. Labour came to power promising a “clear-eyed” China strategy. Instead, it now faces accusations of softness – prioritising trade and economic diplomacy over vigilance.
The government’s reluctance to confront Beijing openly is not new. Ministers have repeatedly talked of “managing risk” rather than “confronting threats.” That language, once seen as pragmatic, now risks looking complacent. The quiet shelving of Labour’s promised “China audit” only reinforces that perception.
Credibility on the line
The broader concern is not legal but psychological. National security depends as much on perception as policy. If allies doubt Britain’s willingness to defend its own institutions from foreign interference, their willingness to share intelligence could wane. That would mark a profound erosion of the UK’s standing in the Five Eyes alliance and beyond.
Britain cannot afford ambiguity here. If the evidence against the accused men truly fell short, transparency is needed to restore confidence. If, however, political calculation crept into a judicial decision, it would be a far graver failure – one that undermines both the rule of law and the nation’s security posture.
In the age of cyber espionage, disinformation and covert influence, mixed messages are weapons in themselves. The UK must decide whether it wants to be seen as a cautious partner or a credible guardian of its own democracy. Right now, to its allies – and perhaps to Beijing – it looks like neither.
