🔗 Share this article

Per a prominent UK development lawyer, approving a China's mega-embassy in east London could violate judicial standards if ministers provided Beijing with advance assurances about the development.

Potential Legal Breaches

Should PM Keir Starmer or his team made commitments to the government of China, it could represent "real or seeming prejudgment" of the planning application, according to the legal opinion by Lord Banner.

This opinion was commissioned by a coalition 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 Pressure

Government officials now face pressure to clarify whether they privately assured Chinese officials they would advance the proposal after it had stalled under the former Conservative government.

China submitted a new application for development approval weeks after Labour took power last year, and President Xi Jinping raised the matter directly with Starmer during their initial call in August 2024.

International Exchanges

Starmer allegedly 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 referring 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 decision is authorized.

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

Legal Obligations

The matter is quasi-judicial, meaning the minister responsible – currently the housing secretary – must make his decision objectively under the law and with an unbiased perspective.

In his analysis, Banner emphasized that "currently there has been no revelation or formal evidence as to whether any 'promises' have been given" or what the nature of such assurances might be.

Possible Consequences

However, he wrote that if the prime minister had made a promise to Beijing, that "would appear by the fair-minded and knowledgeable observer to create a real possibility that the secretary of state had a predetermined position."

He declared it was of "vital importance" that any relevant written evidence, including any documents indicating that promises were given, must be preserved by the government, which would be obliged to reveal them if a judicial review occurs.

Diplomatic Disagreements

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

A spokesperson 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 Responses

The Prime Minister's office stated it did not "recognise 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 unlawful assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a catastrophic judicial review."

Related Developments

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

A government representative stated "there had been absolutely no political interference with the evidence provided in this case" and denied reports that the official 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 stopped by police under terrorism laws after arriving at Heathrow from China in February 2023. Both defendants deny any wrongdoing.

A police representative 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."