China's London mega-embassy could be scrapped amid claims ministers rigged decision in secret deal
A senior Tory says ministers privately gave Beijing the nod before the official process began - raising fears the final call is now 'unlawful' and could be thrown out in court.
4
4
Shadow Housing Secretary Kevin Hollinrake has written to the Cabinet Secretary demanding the controversial application be halted and restarted from scratch.
His explosive letter, seen by The Sun, points to a string of evasive answers to parliamentary questions, a 'call-in' of the decision from local council control, and Chinese media crowing that the UK quietly 'greenlit' the plan just 48 hours after a Government trade mission to Beijing.
He warned ministers may have 'fettered' the legal independence of Deputy PM Angela Rayner - who must decide the case fairly in a quasi-judicial role - by sending political signals before any evidence was reviewed.
Mr Hollinrake wrote: 'There is a clear case that the Government codes and guidance have been breached, and Government Ministers have acted unlawfully.
"In turn, that opens the Government up to a judicial review.
"This will be expensive and reputationally damaging to the UK Government.
"I would therefore ask that the planning process is halted and started afresh from scratch."
China wants to turn the five-acre Royal Mint Court site near the Tower of London - next to sensitive data cables and Whitehall offices - into its biggest embassy in Europe.
The plans have been bogged down in a national security row for years, with Tower Hamlets Council rejecting them in 2022.
But Chinese officials revived their bid only weeks after Labour took power.
A former Foreign Office official told The Sun Chinese diplomats made it clear before the election they wouldn't come back unless the UK gave them quiet guarantees it would be approved.
The ex-official said: 'They wouldn't have come back unless the UK signalled it would be waved through."
Chinese state-linked media reports from Baidu also show how Beijing interpreted a visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves as a breakthrough in the row back in January.
One article reads: "After six years of diplomatic deadlock, within merely 48 hours a monumental change has taken place: the English/British government has clearly expressed support for China to build a new embassy in London."
The reports came as Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper also sent letters to the Planning Inspectorate backing the plan.
Top barrister Richard Harwood KC told The Sun the process could now be challenged in court if ministers gave the impression it was a done deal.
He said: 'If the judge thinks that the government have given impression that they just want to approve it for political, in terms of international political reasons, rather than the planning merits and we were signalling that to the Chinese government in advance, then there's clearly a strong chance that the court would find that is unlawful."
On the Government's move to take over the decision from Tower Hamlets, he added: "It's relatively unusual to get an application called in before the council decided what it was going to do about it."
The Shadow Housing Secretary also revealed how the Cabinet Office has refused to release records of key meetings, calls and emails between Chinese diplomats, ministers, No10 and the Foreign Office - despite admitting they exist.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick, who has campaigned against China's bid for the embassy, blasted: "This whole process is a fiasco.
"Starmer, Lammy and Cooper are more interested in bending backwards for a hostile state than defending the security of British people."
And Luke de Pulford, head of cross-party group IPAC, added: "If assurances over the mega-embassy have been given to Beijing, the whole process should be aborted and a public inquiry announced.
"Beijing said themselves they would not apply again unless given the green light by government, and those of us opposing the plan have often felt like planning law was just window dressing for a done deal.
"Time to drag this murky embassy business into the light.'
The row comes as the US and Dutch governments have both raised alarm over the embassy's location at Royal Mint Court, near critical data infrastructure in the capital.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government said: "Planning casework decisions are at a matter for MHCLG.
"Ministers hold a quasi-judicial role in the planning process and adhere to the published propriety guidance when taking decisions.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What will happen to people arrested on Palestine Action demonstration?
The consequences of being arrested for expressing support for Palestine Action could be 'life-changing', one of those detained during Saturday's protests, Sir Jonathon Porritt, has admitted. While the former government adviser said that he had carefully deliberated over a decision to take part, the road ahead for the more than 500 people arrested on Saturday involves possible criminal charges, court cases and convictions. Ultimately, custodial sentences of as much as 14 years could be imposed. Those whose details could be confirmed were released on bail to appear at a police station at a future date. The police will be sending case files to the Crown Prosecution Service, as it has already done in the case of at least 26 others who were arrested at previous protests in support of Palestine Action. All those arrested have now been released under police bail, with the main condition being not to attend any future demonstrations aiming to overwhelm the criminal justice system in protest at the proscription of Palestine Action by the British government. They will be asked how they plead and if it is not guilty they can elect for a trial before a magistrate or, more likely, a district judge. The majority of the 522 people arrested in Parliament Square – in most cases after displaying pieces of cardboard saying 'I opposed genocide, I support Palestine Action' – were detained under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 'lower level' part of the act, which means those who are charged will be tried in a magistrates court rather than a crown court. Some have been charged under the more serious section 12, which means they could seek to have their case heard in front of a jury of their peers at a crown court. The prosecution could also seek to have the trial heard there. Defend Our Juries, the organising group behind the protest, has said it won't be recommending what people do, as they have already participated 'at huge personal cost' but it will be 'providing the information'. There is a scenario in which court trials do not happen, if the co-founder of Palestine Action is successful in a legal challenge against the home secretary's decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws. Given that most those arrested on Saturday will be investigated under section 13 of the terrorism act, they could well walk free from court. They face a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to £5,000 or both, while magistrates will also take into account factors such as good character. More than half of those arrested on Saturday were also aged 60 or over. Those arrested under the more serious section 12 of the Terrorism Act face a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison if convicted. However, such individuals could end up being tried before a jury in a crown court. In recent cases under section 13, people charged with supporting Hamas, including displaying pictures of hang gliders such as those used in the 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, were given absolute or conditional discharges. Will a jury drawn from their peers be more likely to sympathise with those arrested on Saturday? Those involved in organising the protest are confident that the British public is on the same page as them. The impact of such a conviction would be felt in everything from employment to travel. Many of those arrested are retired and, while they do not have a job to lose, the possibility of being unable to get a visa to go abroad might weigh. However, the consequences are starker for others arrested on Saturday including health workers and doctors. There was an organised 'health block' of 13 medical professionals – including an obstetrician and gynaecologist, three other working doctors, a number of nurses, and retired doctors. Alice Clack, a senior obstetrician and gynaecologist in the NHS, said: 'If doctors are charged with a crime we have to self-report to the GMC [General Medical Council], who then have a look at the crime in question and decide whether to refer it to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. 'Then, someone could expect to be suspended or they could be erased from the register. That is the possibility.' As for seeking future employment, recent legislation largely reduced the period of time during which those convicted of most crimes must declare a conviction. However, while it reduced the period of time during which an individual must declare a conviction, it does not apply to terrorist offences – which never become spent.
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Palestine Action co-founder accuses ministers of making defamatory claims
The co-founder of Palestine Action has accused ministers of making false and defamatory allegations about the banned group and contradicting their own intelligence assessments in an attempt to justify the arrest of more than 500 people. The government has come under pressure to justify the detention of 532 people arrested over the weekend under the Terrorism Act – half of whom were 60 or older – on suspicion of showing support for Palestine Action. The number of people arrested for peaceful protests, together with the images of older people being led away and the demands placed on the criminal justice system have led many to call into question the criminalisation of so many people. On Monday, a Downing Street spokesperson responded by saying that Palestine Action, which last month became the first direct action protest group to be banned, was 'a violent organisation that has committed violence, significant injury, extensive criminal damage'. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, told the BBC that Palestine Action 'is not a non-violent organisation' and claimed that court restrictions meant people 'don't know the full nature of this organisation'. But Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, said: 'Yvette Cooper and No 10's claim that Palestine Action is a violent organisation is false and defamatory and even disproven by the government's own intelligence assessment of Palestine Action's activities … 'It was revealed in court during my ongoing legal challenge to the ban that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre's (JTAC'S) assessment acknowledges that 'Palestine Action does not advocate for violence against persons' and that the 'majority' of its activities 'would not be classified as terrorism'. 'Spraying red paint on war planes is not terrorism. Disrupting Israel's largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, by trespassing on their sites in Britain is not terrorism. It is the Israeli Defense Forces and all those who arm and enable their war crimes who are the terrorists.' JTAC, a government body based within MI5, produced a secret report on 7 March which was disclosed in the high court. While recommending banning Palestine Action, JTAC said the group 'primarily uses direct action tactics', which typically resulted in minor damage to property. 'Common tactics include graffiti, petty vandalism, occupation and lock-ons,' it added. Defend Our Juries, which has organised multiple demonstrations, including Saturday's, in support of Palestine Action, also highlighted Whitehall officials' description – again in documents revealed in court – of a ban as 'relatively novel' as 'there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed on the basis that it was concerned in terrorism mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property'. A Defend Our Juries spokesperson said: 'It is despicable that under political pressure, Yvette Cooper is now actively misleading the British public about the nature of Palestine Action, knowing that if people come to their defence to counter her disinformation, she can have them jailed for 14 years [because they could be deemed to supporting a proscribed group].' The group said many hundreds of people had already committed to the next protest, which is likely to take place in early September and will be on an even larger scale. Uncertainty remains over the status of charges and prosecutions. Tom Franklin, chief executive of the Magistrates' Association, said: 'Based on the information that we currently have, and the statement put out by the Metropolitan Police yesterday, it could take days and possibly weeks for decisions to be made on whether or not to charge any of those arrested over the weekend. Many of these cases may also be heard in the crown courts, rather than magistrates courts.' Magistrates courts hear less serious cases although some charges under section 13 of the Terrorism Act are 'either way', meaning the defendant can choose whether to be tried before magistrates or a jury in the crown court. The Defend Our Juries spokesperson said: 'Personally I would go to the crown court because I know where the British public is, both on the genocide in Gaza and secondly on the British government's support for it, and thirdly on people not being allowed to express their opinions.' However, they added that they expected most charges to be laid under section 13, which are all heard in the magistrates courts, as the criminal justice system would not be able to cope with so many jury trials.
Reuters
20 minutes ago
- Reuters
American Bar Association adopts resolution against Trump's law firm crackdown
Aug 11 (Reuters) - The American Bar Association's policymaking body on Monday adopted a resolution opposing government efforts to punish 'lawyers, law firms, or other organizations for representing or having represented any particular client or cause disfavored by the government.' The resolution, opens new tab is the latest in an escalating conflict between the Trump administration and the ABA, which is the nation's largest voluntary lawyer organization with about 170,000 dues-paying members. In recent months, the ABA has publicly clashed with the administration over officials' attacks on judges and law firms, while government officials have dismissed the ABA as a 'snooty' organization of 'leftist lawyers' and alleged that some of its diversity efforts are illegal. The U.S. Department of Justice has barred its attorneys from participating in ABA events and curtailed the organization's ability to vet new federal judicial nominations. Trump in April threatened to revoke the ABA's status as the federally recognized accreditor of law schools. The rule of law 'will not long survive if lawyers and law firms are threatened and punished for doing their jobs and if judges are threatened with punishment for doing their jobs,' the ABA's new resolution said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the resolution. The ABA has brought multiple lawsuits against the Trump administration, including a pending case filed in July that seeks an order barring the White House from pursuing what the ABA called a campaign of intimidation against major law firms. The ABA said Trump's actions, including executive orders targeting specific firms, have chilled the ability of some public-interest organizations to find lawyers for new matters. Reuters in a special report last month described how some firms were retreating from public interest legal work in the wake of Trump's pressure campaign. The Justice Department on Friday asked, opens new tab a federal judge in Washington D.C., to dismiss the ABA's case, arguing that there's no certainty that Trump will target the business operations of another firm, and that the claims could only be brought by individual plaintiffs, and not the "monolithic" ABA. The DOJ also said the ABA hadn't shown Trump's actions had dissuaded lawyers from taking certain cases. The ABA's House of Delegates is meeting Monday and Tuesday in Toronto to consider a slew of resolutions, many of which relate to the federal government and the rule of law. The resolution opposing attacks on lawyers and law firms also opposes threats to impeach judges 'based solely on disagreement with the merits of the rulings made by those judges.' Since returning to the White House, Trump has issued a series of executive orders targeting law firms over their past clients and lawyers they hired. Nine law firms have struck deals with the president, pledging nearly $1 billion in free legal services on mutually agreed legal issues with the White House in order to stave off similar executive orders. Four law firms successfully sued the administration to block the orders against them, which stripped their lawyers of security clearances and restricted their access to government officials and federal contracting work. Read more: How Trump's crackdown on law firms is undermining legal defenses for the vulnerable What Republican, Democratic judges said about Trump's law firm orders ABA ramps up defense of judges as White House dismisses 'snooty' lawyers American Bar Association sues to block Trump's attacks on law firms
