🔗 Share this article

According to a top UK development lawyer, approving a China's super-embassy in east London could violate judicial standards if government officials provided Chinese authorities with advance assurances about the development.

Possible Legal Violations

If Prime Minister Keir Starmer or his team made commitments to the government of China, it could constitute "real or apparent prejudgment" of the development proposal, according to the expert analysis by Lord Banner.

This opinion was commissioned by a group of local inhabitants against the proposed Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has generated fierce opposition due to safety, civil liberties and development concerns.

Ministerial Scrutiny

Government officials now face pressure to clarify whether they confidentially assured Chinese officials they would advance the proposal after it had halted under the previous Tory government.

China submitted a new application for planning permission weeks after Labour came into government last year, and Leader Xi Jinping raised the matter directly with Starmer during their initial call in August 2024.

Diplomatic Exchanges

Starmer reportedly told the Chinese president during the G20 summit in November 2024: "Your government raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone. We have since acted by calling in that application."

Critics of the proposed complex, which would cover 20,000 square metres to become the largest embassy in Europe, are preparing to seek a judicial review if the approval is granted.

Mark Nygate, financial officer of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, confirmed they were gathering funds to contest the decision.

Judicial Obligations

The case is semi-judicial, meaning the minister responsible – currently the housing secretary – must make his decision objectively under the law and with an open mind.

In his opinion, Banner emphasized that "currently there has been no revelation or official evidence as to whether any 'promises' have been given" or what the content of such commitments might be.

Potential Consequences

However, he wrote that if the prime minister had made a commitment to Beijing, that "would appear by the reasonable and knowledgeable observer to generate a genuine risk that the secretary of state had a predetermined position."

He said it was of "vital importance" that any relevant documentary evidence, including any records indicating that assurances were given, must be preserved by the government, which would be required to disclose them if a judicial review occurs.

International Tensions

Last week, China expressed "grave concern and strong dissatisfaction" after ministers delayed their ruling on the embassy until 10 December.

A representative for the Chinese foreign ministry claimed China had acted with "the utmost sincerity and patience" over the issue and the UK should "promptly fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments, otherwise the British side shall bear all consequences."

Government Statements

Downing Street stated it did not "accept any claims of commitments or assurances" over the embassy application.

Luke de Pulford, executive director of the International Parliamentary Alliance on China, remarked: "Lord Banner has laid down a marker. If the allegations are proven true and illegal assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a catastrophic judicial review."

Related Developments

On Sunday, the government absolutely denied any political interference in the decision to drop charges against two men, including a former parliamentary researcher, alleged of spying for China.

A government representative declared "there had been absolutely no political interference with the evidence provided in this case" and rejected reports that the official who drafted the evidence privately acknowledged it was influenced by political considerations.

News outlets indicated that one of the two men charged with espionage was carrying £4,000 in cash when detained by police under terrorism laws after arriving at Heathrow from China in February 2023. Both accused individuals deny any wrongdoing.

A police representative commented at the time: "A man in his 30s was subject to a stop at Heathrow airport under Schedule 3 of the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. He was not arrested and enquiries continued."