Restriction and Repression of Human Rights by the British Authorities Observe through FOI Requests and the IOPC Process

Over the past eight years, relied on Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, I have sent letters requesting the Home Office, Foreign Office and Prime Minister's Office, amongst others, to disclose information about the pressure put on the British police by British and Chinese government departments to suppress the right to peaceful demonstration during Xi Jinping's visit to the UK in 2015, which included detaining peaceful protesters, raiding their homes and prosecuting them. The charges against those arrested protestors were later dropped after a series of protests and House of Commons debate. The Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister's Office, among others, responded to the FOI requests mainly through exemptions, refusals or other excuses such as “the detriment of British-Chinese relations and the public interest”, or have delayed substantive replies to the present day.

If courting proceeding is used to request the UK authorities to release the relevant information, the costs are enormous. Due to the massive cuts in legal aid by the UK government, I am unable to obtain such legal aid, and crowdfunding is nowhere near the basic costs required for courting proceeding at this time of generally declining incomes for most civilians.

The British government's avoidance of the freedom of information requests is in fact damaging to the public interest. The Government's way of this response renders the Freedom of Information Act a waste of paper, denies citizens the right to know, covers up the abuse of Chinese labour and other rights by British politicians, businessmen and other elites in their dealings with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and undermines the right to protest peacefully and other related rights.

We started Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) complaint in December in 2015 and civil claim process in July 2019. Through the IOPC final report and relevant process, we found more evidence of pressure on the police by the CCP regime and 10 Downing Street to restrict the right to peaceful protest. For example, the CCP delegates even demanded that the UK suspend the Human Rights Act during Xi Jinping’s visit and remove peaceful protesters from a distance of five miles from Xi Jinping. In addition, the police in the UK interpreted "threat" in exactly the same way as the CCP, in effect amending the interpretation of "threat" in section 5 of the Public Order Act.

We are now on the eve of the UK General Election. Recalling the use of the Freedom of Information Act and process of IOPC and civil claim, it helps to observe the trend of shrinking civil rights, and It is hoped that voters who value human rights and the media, which have the function of independently monitoring the Government, would raise relevant questions of all candidates standing in constituencies. After the election, it is hoped that newly elected and re-elected MPs will be urged to set up or authorise the establishment of an independent commission for an full independent investigation into involvement of Home Office, Foreign Office, Prime Minster Office, police and other UK authorities during Chinese state visit in 2015 as well as inquiry to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the co-operation and profit-making of British politicians, businessmen and other elites with the Chinese Communist Party over the last 50 decades. This investigation would include, but not be limited to, the following matters: 1. which individuals or groups have profited, etc., and how they have affected civil rights and the public interest in the UK; 2. whether these dealings have helped the CCP to intensify its repression of people fighting for democracy and human rights in P R China, and what kind of damage has been done to the rights of Chinese, Tibetans, Uyghurs, Hong Kongers, Mongols and women etc.; 3. Whether it reinforces the international expansion of the Chinese Communist empire, leading to a further shrinking of the rule of law and academic freedom in the UK; 4. whether the UK has breached further international law and humanitarian obligations; 5. whether it has made the current system of representative government and governance in the UK less democratic, less transparent and less open; 6. Please publish the full, unabridged report when the invesigation is complete.

The investigative process should be open and transparent so that the public can know the political, economic, diplomatic, and civil rights and representative democracy implications of the CCP empire and other empires & authoritarianism in the UK. Otherwise, the environment of hostility to peaceful protest in the UK will continue, labour and other rights will continue to decline, there will be an even greater lack of democracy in the public interest sector, the gap between rich and poor will continue to widen, poverty will continue to increase, minorities and vulnerable groups will have less protection of their rights, and the UK will be likely to step fully into development model of the CCP or the development model of the British Empire— the denial of human rights, the rejection of democracy, and an autocracy dominated by profit, privileges, and the chauvinistic imperialist empire, or a part of it.

Below is a copy of the FOI requests I sent to the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office on 22 June 2024, for the reference.

Information Rights Unit
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Room WH2.177
King Charles Street
London
SW1A 2AH
United Kingdom

Protests during Xi Jinping’s UK visit and related questions

Dear FOI Officer and Mr David Cameron

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I sent a FOI request on 11 April and received your apology for not finishing your response in 20 working day on 11 May. 

My key FOI questions were sent in November 2020, but as of today these questions have not been substantively answered. How long will it take you to address these important issues of public interest?

Based on the questions sent on 10 April 2024, three additional questions have been added this time. 

According to Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation, Prior to the dictator’s visit in October 2015, a number of meetings took place between Foreign Office, Home Office, Royal House and representatives from the delegation in the P R China. The IOPC told us that there was definitely evidence of pressure from the Chinese on the way of policing and operation as well as on imposing restrictions on where people could protest and how they could protest.

At Lancaster house in the morning of 21 October 2015, the Chinese delegation walked out on Met police Gold Commander Lucy D’Orsi, threatening to call off the trip. According to a leaked conversation at Queen’s summer party in 2016, Commander D’Orsi was ‘seriously, seriously undermined by the Chinese’.

The IOPC’s final report shows that the police were placed under political pressure from both the Chinese and UK governments to make sure that Xi Jinping was not “embarrassed” by protesters during his stay. In addition, the autocrat’s delegation made “a series of requests” regarding the “management of protesters” to the UK government and had tried to apply pressure directly to the police in the UK. The investigation says that the UK government also made “unusual requests” to the police about managing protests during Chinese state visit, which according to one senior police officer was “unprecedented”. 

1. Please give names of attendees for the preparation meetings prior to and during Xi Jinping visit in October 2015.

2. Who wrote the meeting minutes? Who fielded the meeting minutes?

3. How did the Prime Minister's Office make sure that Xi Jinping was not “embarrassed” by protesters during his stay?

4. What did Prime Minister's Office make “unusual requests” to the police about managing protests during the Chinese state visit? For example, did Mr Cameron discuss the instruction from Xi Jinping's subordinates with officers from of Prime Minister’s office? Did an officer at Prime Minister’s office directly call a senior MPS officer, demanding that protesters not "embarrass" Xi Jinping during his stay or ensure that demonstrators stay away from Xi Jinping?  Did Mr Cameron appoint the officer as a new peer?

5. Any policy or guidance devised and/ or implemented in relation to the policing of demonstrations in the UK, during and related to the October 2015 visit of the Chinese dictator. This should include any arrangements classified as ‘security’ that might impact upon the right to demonstrate, for instance restricting any protestors from being visible or audible to the dictator; or relating to the arrest of those who might demonstrate or be expected to demonstrate during the period of the visit.

6. Details of any budget/ resources allocated for the purposes of policing and/ or security for the October 2015 visit of the Chinese tyrant.

7. Details of the numbers of individuals who entered the UK around the time of the visit of the despot for the purposes of presenting as “pro-PR China” demonstrators.

8. Based on relevant news reports, please disclose the annual profit and profit distribution of Mr Cameron’s involvement in a new UK-China investment fund since 2017. Please provide a list of the names of those involved in the UK-China investment fund contacts with Chinese companies/organizations, as well as with Chinese and British officials/officers.

9. Please disclose, based on relevant news reports, whether the Tory Party and its party branches organised pro-PR China greeters to occupy the close proximity of Xi Jinping's arrival at the request of the Chinese delegation or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and to isolate the protesters from Xi Jinping's sight and hearing.

10. Regarding the judgment which handed down in the Global Legal Action Network and World Uyghur Congress' case against the UK government. Please make public the relevant records of communication between the British Government and the court. Has the British Government had any relevant communication with the CCP on this issue, and if so, please release the relevant records. If not, did the British Government request the court to make such a judgement.

11. Please give names of attendees and minutes for 1^st- 12th China-UK Leadership Forum and other platforms between state of parties at Westminster, and the Chinese Communist Party/ “National People’s Congress” or “People's Political Consultative Conference” since 1970.

Please include copies of material which you hold in the form of paper and electronic records including emails and minutes. I would be grateful if you would supply this information by sending me photocopies by post and by email. If I can help to clarify these requests, please contact me by email.

Based on the details revealed in the proceeding of IOPC proceedings and civil claim, FCDO and Mr Cameron are related to the above questions. 

There is a genuine public interest in disclosing the names of officials/officers involved in discussions with the Chinese Communist Party officers/officials about restricting the right to protest and other FOI requests above-- whether Mr Cameron and his affiliated officers were suspected of exchanging their power for money, and of using their power to suppress the right to protest with their power, and making profits and regaining new power through power-business dealings. 

Yours sincerely
Dr SHAO Jiang

 

Summary of IPCC (IOPC) Complaint re My Arrest during Xi Jinping's UK Visit on 10 December 2015

 I was arrested on 21 October 2015 outside Mansion House when protesting peacefully during the visit of the Chinese President Xi Jinping. I stood still holding aloft two A4-sized placards, reading ‘End Autocracy’ and ‘Democracy Now’, when four or five police officers forcibly took hold of me and pushed me for a long distance until I was out of sight of the cavalcade of the Chinese President.

I was arrested and detained by the City of London Police to prevent a breach of the peace. While in police custody, I was further arrested by the Metropolitan Police for conspiracy to commit a section 5 Public Order Act offence. My home was searched later that night and a number of electronic devices belonging to me and my partner were seized.

I was released on bail on the following day, after nearly 24 hours’ detention. The three conditions attached to my bail were all connected with the Chinese President and for reasons “[t]o prevent further offences and to prevent further harassment of the victim”. I was advised on 28 October that no further action was being taken against me.

In the early hours of 29 October I received a message from Google saying “Warning: We believe that attackers backed by certain states may be attempting to compromise your account or computer” (Google has since confirmed that this message is genuine). My computers were returned to me by the police a few hours later that same day.

I have submitted a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), alleging unlawful police conducts in nine major areas: 1) arrests; 2) detention; 3) denial of telephone call; 4) search of premises and seizure of property; 5) accessing electronic equipment/sharing of the contents; 6) taking of photograph, DNA and fingerprints; 7) bail conditions; 8) use of force; and 9) planning/policy.

The unlawful arrests, first by the City of London Police and further by the Metropolitan Police, effectively violated my right to protest. Lawrence Barker, my lawyer of Bindmans solicitors, pointed out in a Guardian interview, “While my client’s initial arrest and detention for breach of the peace effectively prevented him from lawfully protesting further that day, it provided the police with no powers to stop him from doing so during the remainder of the Chinese president’s visit,” and “[h]is arrest later that night for conspiracy to commit a public order offence – for which there was seemingly never any evidence – appears to have been carried out precisely to stop him protesting any further.”

As a widespread crackdown on human rights lawyers and campaigners is being carried out in China, I am particularly concerned about the seizure of my computers and phones. The Metropolitan Police has admitted taking a copy of contacts on my phone but denied accessing my computers. My computer equipment was seized for the purpose of investigating the allegations against me, but the investigation was discontinued due to “lack of evidence”, despite, as the police asserted, no attempts having been made to secure that evidence by way of examination of the computers. However, it was during the time that my electronic equipment was being held by the Metropolitan Police that Google issued its warning. The evidence suggests that either the Metropolitan Police were attempting to access my computer, contrary to what they have stated; or alternatively, that around that time information had been supplied by the Metropolitan Police to some other state body such that they might do so.

There is strong evidence that lawful protest is being restricted not only by way of operational decisions taken on any given day, but by way of prior police planning – seemingly in effect as a prerequisite of a visit by the Chinese President. The actions of any senior officer in drawing up and implementing such plans for that purpose would plainly be unlawful.

Statement on the IOPC’s Final Report 关于英国监警会报告的声明

Statement on the IOPC’s Final Report

30 June 2019

On 26 June the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) published its findings and decision in response to the complaints that my wife and I filed following my unlawful arrests during the Chinese state visit in October 2015. After three and a half years of waiting for this report, we have been left completely disappointed by the IOPC’s decision to let off the police officers responsible for my arrests, detention, home raid and seizure of computer equipment.

We have learnt that after a long investigation the IOPC found a case to answer for gross misconduct against two senior police officers. However, after criticism from the Metropolitan Police Service, the IOPC reversed their decision and dropped its findings. We find this both morally wrong and procedurally incorrect. 

The IOPC’s report shows what we already suspected; that the police were placed under political pressure from both the Chinese and UK governments to make sure that the Chinese president was not “embarrassed” by protesters during his stay. We now know that the Chinese delegation made “a series of requests” regarding the “management of protesters” to the UK government and had tried to apply pressure directly to the police. The investigation says that the UK government also made “unusual requests” to the police about managing protests during the Chinese state visit, which according to one senior police officer was “unprecedented”. Frustratingly, the actual details describing conversations and requests, which amounted to pressure on the police, have all been redacted from the published report on the grounds of “public interest”.

It has emerged that police officers were briefed to make sure that the state visit ran smoothly without “embarrassments” to the Chinese and that “nothing was to go wrong”. The report includes comments by one of the senior officers involved in policing the event that “protest near the Chinese president is almost never tolerated, especially in a foreign country”.

The IOPC originally found that the evidence suggested that political pressure did influence the decision to arrest me, which we strongly believe to be the case. It is incredibly disappointing to learn that the IOPC have now dropped this, after written representations from the Metropolitan Police Service.

The IOPC holds itself out to be independent of the police and government. Our experience shows this to be false. They have completely failed under opposition from the Metropolitan Police Service to hold one of their senior officers to account. In doing so, they have rendered their entire investigation a wasted endeavour. What we asked for was transparency, accountability and redress. What we have been left with is a lack of trust in the police misconduct process and the IOPC’s ability to conduct an independent investigation.

This report came out at the time when remembering the Tiananmen Massacre is still treated as a crime in China, and when two million Hong Kong people took to the street to fight for judiciary independence. We expected so much more in a democratic country, but we are confronted with the chilling reality that our host country in exile is a place where suppression of peaceful protests and the use of ‘public interest’ test to withhold information from public scrutiny have greatly undermined the fundamental values of its own civil liberty and democracy.

We are not giving up. We would like to thank our lawyers at the Bindmans who have fought with us all the way and who will continue to assist us in further legal actions.

More：

Bindmans: https://www.bindmans.com/news/shao-jiang-releases-statement-on-the-iopc…

Observer: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/30/political-pressure-before-arrest-of-chinese-dissident-london

IOPC Final report：https://policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Dr%20Shao%20Jiang%20-%20Final%20report.pdf

IOPC Summary of determinations and final outcomes：https://policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Dr%20Shao%20Jiang%20-%20Summary%20of%20determinations%20and%20outcomes.pdf

Summary of IPCC Complaint re My Arrest during Xi Jinping's UK Visit：https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/countdown-china/summary-ipcc-complaint-re-my-arrest-during-xi-jinpings-uk-visit#.VmqDumrq5TM.twitter

Amnesty International UK: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/press-release-me-let-me-go/china-shao-jiang-activist-tiananmen-square-arrest-london-president-china

Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-accused-of-doing-chinas-bidding-after-police-raid-home-of-tiananmen-square-survivor-over-peaceful-a6704911.html

TCHRD

http://tchrd.org/tchrd-condemns-detention-and-intimidation-of-peaceful-…

House of Commons Hansard: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-10-26/debates/15102612000003/ArrestsOfChineseProtesters

Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/11/queen-chinese-officials-very-rude-xi-jinping-state-visit

BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-36265224

In Chinese

关于英国监警会报告的声明

2019年6月30日

6月26日，英国监警会发布了针对我和妻子投诉英国警方在2015年习近平访英期间对我进行非法逮捕所做的调查和决定。经过三年半的等待，我们对英国监警会放弃追究伦敦大都市高级警官在对我进行逮捕、拘留、搜家和没收电脑过程中犯有严重不当行为的决定极为失望。

我们获悉监警会在长时间的调查后，认定有两名高级警官犯有严重的不当行为。然而在收到警方的批评后，监警会撤回了自己的决定，放弃了追责。监警会的行为在道德上是错误的，在程序上也不正确。

监警会的报告证实了我们当初的怀疑：英国警方确实受到来自中国和英国政府的双重政治压力，以确保习近平在访英期间不会因面对抗议者而“尴尬”。我们现在知道，中方代表就“管理抗议者”向英国政府提出了“一系列的要求”，并试图直接向英国警方施加压力。监警会的调查显示，在访问期间，英国政府也对警方如何管理抗议提出了“不同寻常的要求”。一名高级警官说，这样的要求是“前所未有”的。令人遗憾的是，凡涉及有关警方受到政治压力的具体对话内容在最后出版的报告中皆以“公共利益”为由涂黑删除。

监警会的调查表明，各级警察在习近平来访前的任务部署中得到指示，要确保访问顺利进行，不要让中方感到“尴尬”，要做到“万无一失”。一名参与管理示威的高级警官说：“中国领导人绝对不能容忍在他们附近出现任何政治抗议，尤其是在外事访问期间。”

监警会的原始证据表明，政治压力确实影响了对我逮捕的决定，我们也坚信这一点。令人极端失望的是，监警会在收到伦敦大都会警察局律师的书面意见后，放弃了这些证据和结论。

英国监警会自称独立于警方和政府。然而，我们的经验表明这种宣称是虚假的。在警方的压力下，监警会完全丧失了自己的独立职责，未能对高级警官进行问责。这种做法使整个调查过程成为一种徒劳的行为。我们当初的要求是透明、问责和赔偿，而在经历了整个投诉程序后，我们现在已经对调查警察不端行为的程序丧失了信任，也不再相信英国监警会具有独立调查警察的能力。

监警会报告发布在2019年的六月，正值天安门屠杀三十周年祭月，在中国大陆境内公开记忆六四屠杀仍然被视为犯罪。这也是200万香港人民走上街头争取司法独立的月份。我们对英国这样一个民主国家曾经有更多的期望，但现在却不得不面对冷酷的现实： 我们流亡栖身的英国，对和平示威的镇压以及以“公共利益”为名拒绝公众监督的种种行为已经极大地破坏了自身民主制度和公民自由的基本价值。

我们不会放弃。我们想在此感谢Bindmans的律师团队，他们自始至终地支持我们，并将继续协助我们进行法律诉讼。

----end--

Links to the earliest publication: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/countdown-china/statement-iopcs-final-report-guanyuyingguojianjinghuibaogaodeshengming

Can the skirted information by the UK government serve “public interest” and protect “national security’?

On 15 January 2016, I sent freedom of information requests on City of London Police, Metropolitan Police and Home Office, regarding the polcing policy during Xi Jinping's UK visit. Below are my FOI questions.

1.    Any communications between the UK and China concerning the policing of protest in the UK, during and related to the October 2015 visit of the Chinese president.

2.    Any published or unpublished response by UK authorities to the comments of the Chinese ambassador to the UK Liu Xiaoming, speaking ahead of the Chinese President’s visit of a “golden era” in the relationship between China and the UK, but warning that President Xi would be “offended” were the issue of China’s record on human rights to come to the fore during his visit.

3.    Any policy or guidance devised and/ or implemented in relation to the policing of demonstrations in the UK, during and related to the October 2015 visit of the Chinese president. This should include any arrangements classified as ‘security’ that might impact upon the right to demonstrate, for instance restricting any individual or groups of individuals from being visible or audible to the president; or relating to the arrest of those who might demonstrate or be expected to demonstrate during the period of the visit.

 4.    Details of any budget/ resources allocated for the purposes of policing and/ or security for the October 2015 visit of the Chinese president.

5.    Details of numbers of arrests linked to the visit of the Chinese president, and the outcome of those arrests (that is, whether any of those arrestees were prosecuted and the outcome of those prosecutions).

6.    Details of the numbers of individuals who entered the UK around the time of the visit of the Chinese president for the purposes of presenting as “pro-China” demonstrators. 

My freedom of information requests to Home Office include all the question 1-6 above, to City of London Police, Metropolitan Police include 1, 3, 4 and 5.

City of London Police, Metropolitan Police and Home Office responded similar exclusion from my FOI requests. City of London Police only answered the question 4 and 5. Home Office provided partly information on 3 and 5. Below are selected responses from Home Office on 26 May 2016.

“The ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the need to enable effective government and to serve the best interests of the public…. there is also a public interest in the Home Office protecting national security… its release would undermine the Governments security procedures, and consequently adversely impact on the UK’s security… The disclosure of information detailing our relationship with the People's Republic of China Government could potentially damage the bilateral relationship between the UK and the People's Republic of China. This would reduce the UK government's ability to protect and promote UK interests through its relations with the People's Republic of China, which would not be in the public interest… we do not believe it is in the interest of the public to provide details on police intelligence, tactical abilities and capabilities that may adversely effect future police operations… However, it is vital that the police are in a position to offer free and frank advice to the Government, confident that this dialogue may not be disclosed. If this confidence is lost, discussions in the future may be affected due to a loss of frankness, which may impair the quality of future decision making.” ( responses from Home Office)

The reply of Home office is similar to the one of Chinese government when Chinese citizen sent freedom of information requests on the responsibility of Chinese authorities in connection with disasters. The UK government assumes that it knows how to serve the best interests of the public. How does the UK government respond to Chinese dictator who killed over hundreds of civil people and made series of disasters which led to death of hundred of people and tens of thousands of people homeless and serious illness within two years in PR China? How does the UK government sever the best interest of the public without transparency? How does the UK government guarantees Hinkley nuclear power station deal and high-speed rail will not influence the  public safety in the UK when China’s nuclear station made potential threats and risks like the 2015 Tianjin blast where soil, air and water may still be contaminated with toxic chemicals? How is the nuclear waste managed? Send them to China or other developing countries? See how the Chinese government cracked down the  peaceful protests when local people opposed the nuclear waste plant. http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/china-protest-08082016125330.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sea1GgUCrA

“What is the bilateral relationship between the UK and China based? After China government demanded, the British government restricted right to protest, arrested peaceful protesters, searched their premises and seize their property and gave release conditions to prevent the protesters from further protesting against the Chinese despot. (see IPCC complaint: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/countdown-china/summary-ipcc-complaint-re-my-arrest-during-xi-jinpings-uk-visit) Does the UK government's ability to protect and promote UK interests based on violation of basic human right in the UK?

Who benefits from keeping out of the relevant information, the UK groups affiliated to Chinese dictator? What matter is the relation with public interest in UK? How much does ordinary people pay for due to the UK maintaining the special relation with PR China regime? Like victims of Tianjin blast or millions of victims during the disasters which the Chinese government made? Can the hidden information protect  “national security”?  Whose “national security” is? 

On the skirted information by the UK government, rule of law in the UK is approaching to rule by law and rule by man in PR China.  Democracy and human right in the UK are eroding.