On May 7, the Central Criminal Court in London convicted Bill Yuen Chung-biu, administrative manager of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (HKETO) in London, and others on charges of “assisting a foreign intelligence service”. The verdict, however, does not withstand scrutiny. Far from reflecting the impartial application of law, it exposes a troubling pattern of double standards and political manipulation by the British authorities.

The day after the verdict, Chinese Ambassador to the UK Zheng Zeguang met with officials from the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, rejecting the unwarranted accusations and urging the UK to correct its mistakes, stop anti-China political manipulation, cease the arbitrary arrest and prosecution of Chinese citizens in the UK, and stop emboldening those who seek to destabilize Hong Kong.

The prosecution’s case is riddled with loopholes. During the trial, the judge specifically instructed the jury that actions involving individuals described as “targets of surveillance”, including Nathan Law Kwun-chung, occurred before the law came into effect and could only be treated as “background information”, not as a basis for conviction. That instruction alone reveals a strained and legally precarious application of the statute.

The “assisting a foreign intelligence service” offense under the UK’s National Security Act 2023 is defined in exceedingly broad and vague terms, leaving ample room for political manipulation. Further undermining the case’s integrity, the third defendant, Matthew Trickett, died before the trial began. The prosecution submitted his notes and mobile phone messages without cross-examination, and the judge cautioned the jury to treat such hearsay with care, stating it could not alone secure a conviction.

The Chinese embassy in the UK has accused the British side of arresting and prosecuting Chinese citizens on “trumped-up” charges and manipulating judicial procedures — a quintessential political farce. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said the UK’s real aim is “to stand up for anti-China disruptors in Hong Kong and to make unwarranted accusations and smears against China.” That assessment is grounded in a clear pattern: The British authorities have repeatedly provided public shelter to Hong Kong fugitives, and by using judicial means to suppress Hong Kong’s official office in London, they are fabricating a false narrative of “Hong Kong having lost its autonomy” — creating excuses to interfere in Hong Kong affairs and China’s internal matters.

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government has repeatedly stressed that the allegations in this case are entirely unrelated to the HKSAR government or the HKETO in London, and it firmly rejects all such accusations.

The National Security Act 2023 is itself a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It fails to define the core concept of “national security”, giving its provisions an elasticity that invites abuse. Critics in Britain have noted that the definition of espionage is “extremely broad”, resulting in cases where innocent people are wrongly investigated, and that there is a “significant risk that national security legislation will lead to over-enforcement and real harm” to legitimate activities including journalism and academic research.

Western governments ... have steadily tightened their own national security frameworks, insisting such measures are a practical necessity. Yet these same governments slander the rule of law in the HKSAR. Such malicious intent exposes their ugly hypocrisy and double standards

One core tenet of the rule of law is that laws must be sufficiently clear for citizens to foresee the legal consequences of their actions. The National Security Act violates this fundamental principle — and has drawn significant domestic opposition in Britain itself.

Western governments, led by the United States, have steadily tightened their own national security frameworks, insisting such measures are a practical necessity. Yet these same governments slander the rule of law in the HKSAR. Such malicious intent exposes their ugly hypocrisy and double standards.

The National Security Act 2023 authorizes detention of suspects for up to five years and restricts communication rights based solely on intelligence assessments. Had a comparable provision appeared on Hong Kong’s statute books, Western condemnation would have been immediate and deafening.

The UK has deployed a law barely 3 years old, invoking extraterritorial provisions to target Hong Kong’s official office in London. This is no different in principle from the United States’ “long-arm jurisdiction” — a practice the same Western governments routinely criticize when applied by others. The double standard is not rooted in legal principle but in political convenience.

The HKETO London case is a political charade dressed in judicial garb. The British authorities should abandon their anti-China ideological bias, stop providing cover for those who seek to destabilize Hong Kong, and allow justice and commerce to function on their own merits. Only by doing so can the fundamental interests of the peoples of both countries be genuinely served. Political manipulation, in the end, has a habit of backfiring — and it will be the UK’s own standing that pays the price.

The author is a law professor, director of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, and vice-president of the Hong Kong Basic Law Education Association.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.