🔗 Share this article

According to a prominent UK development lawyer, authorizing a Chinese large diplomatic compound in London's eastern district could violate legal standards if ministers provided Chinese authorities with advance assurances about the development.

Possible Judicial Breaches

Should PM Keir Starmer or his administration made commitments to the Chinese government, it could constitute "actual or apparent prejudgment" of the development proposal, according to the legal opinion by Lord Banner.

The opinion was commissioned by a group of residents against the proposed Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has attracted strong opposition due to safety, civil liberties and planning issues.

Government Pressure

Government officials now are under pressure to explain whether they confidentially promised Chinese officials they would progress the application after it had halted under the former Conservative government.

The Chinese government submitted a new application for development approval weeks after Labour came into government last year, and President Xi Jinping mentioned the matter personally with Starmer during their first call in August 2024.

International 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 taken action by calling in that application."

Critics of the planned complex, which would span 20,000 square metres to become the biggest embassy in Europe, are getting ready to seek a judicial review if the decision is authorized.

Mark Nygate, treasurer of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, confirmed they were gathering funds to challenge 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 stressed that "for now there has been no disclosure or official evidence as to whether any 'promises' have been given" or what the nature of such commitments might be.

Potential Ramifications

Nevertheless, he stated that if the PM had made a promise to Beijing, that "would appear by the reasonable and informed observer to create a real possibility that the secretary of state had a closed mind."

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

International Disagreements

Recently, China voiced "serious worry and deep displeasure" after ministers postponed their decision 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 "promptly fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments, otherwise the British side shall bear all consequences."

Official Statements

The Prime Minister's office 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, remarked: "Lord Banner has established a marker. If the allegations are demonstrated true and unlawful assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a devastating judicial review."

Additional Developments

On Sunday, the government absolutely 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 declared "there was absolutely no political interference with the evidence provided in this case" and rejected reports that the civil servant who drafted the evidence confidentially 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 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."