Legal Opinion Suggests UK Embassy Approval Could Be Unlawful If Government Officials Gave Prior Promises
Per a top UK development lawyer, approving a Chinese super-embassy in east London could violate judicial requirements if government officials provided Chinese authorities with advance commitments about the development.
Possible Judicial Violations
If Prime Minister Keir Starmer or his team made promises to the government of China, it could constitute "actual or apparent predetermination" of the development proposal, according to the legal opinion by Lord Banner.
The opinion was requested by a group of residents against the proposed Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has attracted fierce opposition due to security, human rights and planning issues.
Ministerial Pressure
Government officials now face pressure to clarify whether they privately promised Chinese officials they would advance the application after it had halted under the former Conservative government.
The Chinese government reapplied for development approval weeks after Labour took power last year, and Leader Xi Jinping raised the issue personally with Starmer during their initial call in August 2024.
International Communications
Starmer reportedly 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 acted 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 preparing to seek a legal challenge if the approval is granted.
Mark Nygate, financial officer of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, confirmed they were gathering funds to contest the approval.
Judicial Requirements
The case is quasi-judicial, meaning the secretary responsible – currently the housing secretary – must make his decision impartially 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 'assurances' have been given" or what the content of such assurances might be.
Possible Consequences
Nevertheless, he wrote that if the PM had made a commitment to Beijing, that "would appear by the fair-minded and knowledgeable observer to generate a genuine risk that the secretary of state had a predetermined position."
He declared it was of "vital importance" that any relevant documentary evidence, including any documents indicating that promises were given, must be preserved by the government, which would be obliged to reveal them if a legal challenge occurs.
International Disagreements
Recently, China voiced "grave concern and deep displeasure" after ministers postponed their ruling on the embassy until 10 December.
A spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry claimed China had acted with "the greatest sincerity and patience" over the issue and the UK should "immediately fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments, otherwise the British side shall bear all consequences."
Official 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 allegations are proven true and unlawful assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a devastating judicial review."
Related Events
Recently, the government categorically denied any political interference in the decision to drop charges against two men, including a ex parliamentary researcher, alleged of spying for China.
A government representative stated "there was 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.
Media reports indicated that one of the two men charged with espionage was carrying ÂŁ4,000 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 stated 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."