Judicial Opinion Suggests UK Embassy Authorization Could Be Unlawful If Ministers Gave Prior Assurances

As stated by a prominent UK planning lawyer, approving a China's mega-embassy in London's eastern district could breach legal requirements if ministers provided Chinese authorities with prior commitments about the project.

Possible Legal Violations

Should Prime Minister Keir Starmer or his team made commitments to the Chinese government, it could represent "actual or seeming prejudgment" of the development proposal, according to the legal opinion by Lord Banner.

This opinion was commissioned by a coalition of residents opposed to 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 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.

China submitted a new application for development approval a short time after Labour came into government last year, and Leader 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 acted by referring that application."

Opponents of the proposed complex, which would span 20,000 square metres to become the biggest embassy in Europe, are preparing to seek a judicial review if the decision is authorized.

Mark Nygate, treasurer of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, confirmed they were raising funds to contest the decision.

Legal 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 open mind.

In his analysis, Banner emphasized that "for now there has been no disclosure or formal evidence as to whether any 'assurances' have been given" or what the content of such assurances might be.

Possible Ramifications

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

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

Diplomatic Disagreements

Recently, China expressed "grave concern and deep displeasure" after ministers delayed their decision 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 "immediately fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments, otherwise the British side shall bear all consequences."

Government Statements

Downing Street said 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, commented: "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."

Additional Developments

Recently, the government absolutely denied any government influence in the ruling to withdraw charges against two men, including a former parliamentary researcher, accused of spying for China.

A government spokesperson declared "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.

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 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."