INTERNATIONAL
Torture of British HK Consulate Employee Simon Cheng: A Legal Response
I
t has recently been announced that former British Hong Kong Consulate staff member Simon Cheng, who reported being tortured on his return from a trip to mainland China in August 2019, has been granted political asylum in the United Kingdom. Mr Cheng has revealed that he was subject to physical and psychological torture by Chinese officers, aimed at procuring a false admission that the UK was behind the democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong. Mr Cheng bravely detailed the actions of those who tortured him, despite the obvious risks to himself. Mr. Cheng was employed at the British consulate as a trade and investment officer. On 8 August 2019, on his return from a business trip to the Chinese mainland, Mr. Cheng was intercepted by security officers at West Kowloon rail station and taken into police custody where he was detained for 15 days. During his detention, Mr. Cheng was repeatedly interrogated while restrained in a ‘tiger chair’ designed to prevent movement, by as many as 15 men, and for up to 48 hours at a time. He was also denied sleep, shackled in a spread eagle position causing acute joint pain, made to squat for prolonged periods of time and beaten if he moved, shackled, blindfolded, and hooded and intimidated psychologically, including by being played a song featuring lyrics describing permanent separation from family members. During this ordeal, the questioning of Mr Cheng focused on his role in the democracy protests and he reports seeing other Hong Kong protesters during his time in custody. He was eventually forced to plead guilty to soliciting prostitution – a charge which experts note is commonly employed by Chinese authorities to try to humiliate detainees and prevent public support.
Mr Cheng explained that he decided to speak out about his torture in order to highlight the grave extent of the impact of Chinese rule on Hong Kong citizens’ freedoms – the impetus behind the protests. British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab expressed support for Mr. Cheng as well as outrage at the “disgraceful” treatment he underwent. Additionally, Mr. Raab has summoned the Chinese ambassador, and outlined his desire for those responsible to be held to account. Whilst the detention and torture of Mr Cheng was clearly a political outrage it was also a breach of international law. The prohibition against torture is well established under customary international law as a jus cogens prohibition, allowing for no exceptions. This prohibition has been set out in a number of international treaties including the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ratified by China in 1988. Despite this, China has repeatedly failed to stop torturing Government critics or ‘shown any willingness to adopt the independent experts’ recommendations to eradicate torture and ill-treatment in detention.’1 As well as being contrary to the highest principles of international law, the conduct that Mr Cheng reported is also unlawful in English law. Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that ‘A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties.’ As can be seen, s134 provides for universal jurisdiction for this offence meaning that no matter where torture takes place, the English Courts have jurisdiction. This offence is likely to cover all those who took part in the treatment of Mr Cheng in detention, including those who initially detained and transferred him and those with responsibility over the detention centre where he was held. Continued on next page
CENTRAL LONDON LAWYER | 25
