UK Extradition Law Change Sparks Fears Among Hong Kong

Published: 15 October 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Exiled Hong Kong dissidents have warned that recent UK plans to restart some extraditions with the city could place them in danger, saying Hong Kong authorities are likely to exploit any legal loophole to pursue political opponents abroad.

The concern follows an amendment to UK extradition laws passed on Tuesday, more than five years after the UK and several other countries suspended extradition treaties with Hong Kong in response to the government crackdown on pro-democracy activists and the imposition of Beijing’s national security law. At the time, the suspension reflected concerns that Hong Kong’s legal system could no longer guarantee fair treatment or independence from political influence.

According to the UK Home Office, the suspension of the treaty had effectively rendered all extraditions with Hong Kong impossible, even where there were “strong operational grounds,” because Hong Kong was still legally listed as a treaty state. The new amendment reclassifies Hong Kong as a non-treaty state, bringing it in line with other countries, including China, where extraditions are assessed individually on a case-by-case basis.

Security Minister Dan Jarvis emphasised that the UK will “never allow” extraditions for political purposes, stressing that all requests will be rigorously assessed by courts and that individuals have the right to appeal decisions.

A Home Office spokesperson said, “This government is uncompromising in its commitment to human rights, the rule of law, and the protection of all individuals who reside in the United Kingdom, including the many Hongkongers who have chosen to make their lives here.”

Despite these assurances, exiled dissidents and advocates remain deeply concerned that Hong Kong authorities could exploit the discretionary, case-by-case process to target political figures. Since the 2019 pro-democracy protests, Hong Kong has issued arrest warrants and bounties against activists overseas, with at least 38 targeted for alleged crimes, many of which are widely regarded as politically motivated.

About 220,000 Hongkongers holding British national overseas status have fled to the UK, seeking safety and residency, while others have resettled in the US, Australia, Canada, and beyond. Yet the city’s government has signalled that it intends to pursue overseas activists “to the end.” Chloe Cheung of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation warned, “Even if the current government does not intend to hand us over, we need binding commitments that this will never happen under any future government.”

Carmen Law, a former Hong Kong politician now living in London, echoed these fears, noting that UK assurances that extradition requests must be “non-political” could be easily circumvented. “When you are the subject of an international arrest warrant and a bounty—a clear act of hostile state behaviour on UK soil—a statement of commitment is simply not enough,” she said.

The concerns are not unfounded. Chinese and Hong Kong authorities have a documented history of using ostensibly non-political charges to prosecute dissidents, only to later alter the allegations. Media tycoon Jimmy Lai, a leading pro-democracy activist, faced convictions on lease fraud charges widely regarded as politically motivated, while he simultaneously faces national security trials. Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith criticised the amendment, saying, “The idea, after watching the Jimmy Lai show trial, that we should be sending anybody back to China is an absurdity.”

Luke de Pulford, cofounder of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, called on the UK government to implement a “dedicated and concrete appeal mechanism to ensure nothing slips through the cracks,” arguing that ad hoc assessments alone are insufficient to protect vulnerable individuals.

Dissidents have expressed wariness even before the amendment’s passage. Feng Chongyi, a Hong Kong academic now living in Australia and wanted in Hong Kong for alleged support of a “subversive” organisation, said he would avoid the UK if the law were amended. “Making such amendments is a clear indication that the UK government is willing to compromise and cooperate with Beijing,” he stated.

The timing of the law’s revision has drawn further scrutiny, coming amid ongoing efforts by the UK to negotiate a trade deal with China and a perceived softer approach by the British government towards Beijing. Critics argue that such political and economic considerations risk undermining the UK’s historic stance on human rights.

Emily Lau, a veteran pro-democracy politician and former Hong Kong legislator, stressed that the UK must not sacrifice the rights of the Hong Kong people for commercial gains. “I have no problem with countries doing business, but the UK must not sacrifice the rights of the Hong Kong people,” she said.

The Home Office maintains that extraditions are governed by strict legal safeguards and operate independently of trade negotiations or economic considerations. Nevertheless, concerns remain that the amendment could inadvertently expose exiled dissidents to the very risks that led to the original treaty suspensions.

This development marks a significant shift in UK-Hong Kong relations. In 2020, then opposition leader Keir Starmer praised Boris Johnson’s suspension of the extradition treaty as a “step in the right direction.” Today, however, dissidents fear that past safeguards may be eroded, leaving them vulnerable in a complex and increasingly uncertain international legal landscape.

The debate highlights the tension between legal formalities, political realities, and human rights protections. While the UK asserts its commitment to the rule of law, many exiled Hongkongers view the amendment as a potential vulnerability, fearing that even non-political extraditions could be manipulated in ways that threaten their safety.

As discussions continue, the amendment’s implications will likely be closely scrutinised by human rights groups, legal experts, and the global community, with the safety of thousands of exiled Hongkongers hanging in the balance.