Per a prominent UK development lawyer, authorizing a China's mega-embassy in London's eastern district could violate judicial standards if ministers provided Beijing with advance assurances about the development.
Possible Judicial Violations
Should PM Keir Starmer or his administration made commitments to the government of China, it could constitute "actual or apparent prejudgment" of the planning application, according to the expert analysis by Lord Banner.
This opinion was requested by a coalition of local inhabitants against the planned Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has generated fierce opposition due to security, human rights and development issues.
Ministerial Pressure
Ministers now face demands to explain whether they privately assured Chinese officials they would advance the proposal after it had halted under the previous Conservative government.
The Chinese government reapplied for planning permission a short time after Labour came into government last year, and President Xi Jinping raised the matter directly with Starmer during their first call in August 2024.
International Exchanges
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 taken action by referring that application."
Opponents of the planned complex, which would cover 20,000 square metres to become the largest 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 gathering funds to challenge the decision.
Legal Requirements
The matter is quasi-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 stressed that "for now there has been no revelation or official evidence as to whether any 'promises' have been given" or what the nature of such commitments might be.
Possible Ramifications
However, he stated that if the prime minister had made a promise to Beijing, that "would be seen by the fair-minded and knowledgeable observer to generate a real possibility that the secretary of state had a closed mind."
He declared it was of "vital importance" that any relevant documentary evidence, including any documents indicating that assurances were given, must be preserved by the government, which would be required to reveal them if a judicial review occurs.
Diplomatic Disagreements
Recently, China expressed "grave concern and deep displeasure" after ministers postponed their decision 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
The Prime Minister's office 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 established a marker. If the rumours are proven true and illegal assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a catastrophic judicial review."
Related Events
On Sunday, the government categorically denied any government influence in the ruling to withdraw charges against two men, including a former parliamentary researcher, alleged of spying for China.
A government spokesperson stated "there was absolutely no political interference with the evidence provided in this case" and rejected reports that the civil servant 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 stopped by police under terrorism laws after arriving at Heathrow from China in February 2023. Both accused individuals 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."
