🔗 Share this article

Per a prominent UK development lawyer, authorizing a Chinese mega-embassy in London's eastern district could violate judicial requirements if government officials provided Chinese authorities with advance assurances about the development.

Potential Judicial Violations

Should Prime Minister Keir Starmer or his team made promises to the government of China, it could represent "real or apparent prejudgment" of the development proposal, according to the legal opinion by Lord Banner.

This opinion was requested by a coalition of residents opposed to the proposed Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has generated strong opposition due to safety, civil liberties and planning concerns.

Ministerial Pressure

Ministers now are under demands to clarify whether they confidentially promised Chinese officials they would progress the proposal after it had halted under the previous Tory government.

The Chinese government reapplied for development approval weeks after Labour came into government last year, and Leader Xi Jinping mentioned the matter directly with Starmer during their first call in August 2024.

International Communications

Starmer allegedly told the Chinese president during the G20 summit in November 2024: "You raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone. We have since taken action by calling in that application."

Opponents of the planned complex, which would span 20,000 square metres to become the biggest embassy in Europe, are getting ready to seek a legal challenge if the approval is authorized.

Mark Nygate, financial officer of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, stated they were gathering funds to challenge the approval.

Judicial Requirements

The case is semi-judicial, meaning the secretary responsible – currently the housing secretary – must make his ruling impartially under the law and with an unbiased perspective.

In his analysis, 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 assurances might be.

Possible Ramifications

However, he wrote that if the PM had made a promise to Beijing, that "would be seen by the fair-minded and informed observer to generate a real possibility that the secretary of state had a closed mind."

He declared it was of "vital importance" that any pertinent written evidence, including any records indicating that assurances were given, must be retained by the government, which would be obliged to disclose them if a judicial review occurs.

International Tensions

Last week, China voiced "serious worry and strong dissatisfaction" after ministers delayed their ruling on the embassy until 10 December.

A spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry stated 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 Responses

Downing Street said 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, commented: "Lord Banner has laid down a marker. If the rumours are proven true and illegal assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a devastating judicial review."

Additional Events

Recently, the government categorically denied any political interference in the decision to drop charges against two men, including a ex parliamentary researcher, accused of spying for China.

A government representative declared "there was absolutely no political interference with the evidence provided in this case" and denied 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 defendants deny any wrongdoing.

A police spokesperson 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."