Suspension No More? Hong Kong Extradition Shift Under Fire

In 2019, Hong Kong’s proposed extradition bill sparked months of mass protests and marked the beginning of a profound shift in the city’s political landscape. A year later, Beijing’s imposition of the National Security Law was widely viewed in London as a breach of the Sino–British Joint Declaration, which had guaranteed Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy.

In response, the Johnson government launched a series of measures designed to support Hongkongers and signal concern over the erosion of freedoms. The most significant was the British National (Overseas) Visa Scheme, introduced in 2021, which created a pathway to settlement in the UK. Since then, more than 150,000 people from Hong Kong have moved to the UK. By 2024, estimated 285,000 have settled in the UK, according to the Home Office.

At the same time, the UK government also suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in July 2020, concerning the city’s judicial independence could no longer be guaranteed under Beijing’s influence. This left no legal pathway for extradition between the UK and Hong Kong, a position that has remained in place for the past five years.

The suspension lasted until recently, when the government put forward an amendment concerning extradition with Hong Kong. The proposal does not restore the original treaty but would instead allow extradition requests from Hong Kong to be considered on a “case-by-case” basis. The  announcement quickly drew criticism and unease, with campaigners and politicians warning of risks for Hongkongers in the UK. 

How does Extradition works in the UK?

Extradition is both a legal and diplomatic process. The UK follows a dualist approach to international law, meaning that even if it signs treaties with other countries. Those agreements only take effect once written into domestic law. For extradition, that law is the Extradition Act 2003.

The Act sets out the framework for how people can be transferred between jurisdictions to face trial or sentencing. It also places clear limits: extradition must not violate human rights, and requests based on political, racial, or religious grounds can be refused.

Under the system, extradition partners fall into three main categories:

• Category 1: European countries, originally under the European Arrest Warrant, now under the post-Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA)
• Category 2: States with which the UK has bilateral treaties or agreements through conventions. Such as the US, Canada, Australia, and Hong Kong (before the suspension)
• Others: For countries outside these frameworks, the UK can still consider requests on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis

Each Category 2 relationship is governed by its own treaty, meaning the details of the arrangements vary. Like the UK- US’s agreement differs from the UK- Hong Kong’s . In all cases, the Home Secretary first checks whether a request meets the requirements of the Act. If so, a certificate is issued and the case moves to the courts, where judges assess the evidence, dual criminality, and any human rights implications.

Hong Kong originally fell under Category 2, reflecting the trust the UK placed in its legal system after the 1997 handover. Hong Kong was not required to provide prima facie evidence (basic evidence that a case exists), because its judiciary was regarded as reliable and closely aligned with British standards. Trust was further reinforced by the presence of UK judges serving as overseas non-permanent judges on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal.

What are the changes and why does the government want them?

Back in July 2020, then Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab announced the UK would “suspend our extradition treaty with Hong Kong indefinitely” in response to Beijing’s imposition of the National Security Law. Since then, there has been no legal pathway for extradition between the UK and Hong Kong.

While the recent government’s draft does not reinstate the old treaty with Hong Kong. It removes Hong Kong from the UK’s list of designated territories under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. This matters because, under the Act, “case-by-case” extradition arrangements cannot be used while a place remains designated. By de-designating Hong Kong, the government creates the option of handling any requests through ad hoc agreements rather than a standing treaty. Security Minister Dan Jarvis rebutted that this change is about safety and legal clarity. 

The safety and security of our citizens is our top priority. Ensuring that territories are correctly designated under the Act will ensure that the UK can accept extradition requests in a lawful and timely way to ensure the public is not put at risk.

Officials also stress that any future extradition request would still face judicial scrutiny and human rights safeguards. The change, in their words, is about giving the UK flexibility. Ensuring it does not become a safe haven for fugitives while still retaining the power to block politically motivated or unsafe requests.

A comparison of the process of Extradition under the current (suspended) and proposed UK-Hong Kong Extradition Treaty. Source: Gov.UK.

Why are there concerns about the proposal?

Critics of the government’s plan argue that any move towards reopening extradition arrangement with Hong Kong risks undermining the very principles that led to the suspension in 2020. The core worry consits in that Hong Kong’s judicial independence has been steadily eroded since the imposition of the National Security Law. Raising doubts about whether fair trials can be guaranteed.

For example, Jimmy Lai, a 77-year-old British citizen and founder of media Apple Daily, has been detained under national security charges for alleged “foreign collusion” linked to the 2019 protests. Concerns deepened on the very day the government tabled its proposal in Parliament, Hong Kong authorities announced new arrest warrants for overseas activists, including several now based in the UK. 

Opponents also stress that Beijing often frames politically sensitive cases under the guise of non-political crimes such as fraud or financial offences. This creates unease about whether UK can reliably distinguish between legitimate criminal allegations and politically driven charges. As shadow National Security and Safeguarding Minister Alicia Kearns slams:

This move risks legitimizing a regime that imprisons critics, silences democracy activists, and uses extradition as a tool of persecution

For Hong Kong activists in Britain, the question is whether the government can put in place strong enough safeguards to ensure that no critic of the CCP, Hong Kong exile, or human rights defender would ever be at risk of extradition under the new arrangement.

How has the government responded?

Ministers have pushed back strongly against claims that government’s proposal amounts to reviving extradition with Hong Kong. Security minister insisted it was “entirely incorrect to say the UK has restored extradition co-operation,”. Arguing that the instrument is designed to give legal effect to the suspension.

Some legal professionals have also downplayed activist fears. They argue that extradition can only apply to non-political criminal cases, and UK judges retain the power to block requests that appeared abusive. One senior barrister noted that “case-by-case” arrangements may even provide stronger protection for Hongkongers in Britain, as each request would be subject to individual scrutiny rather than a standing treaty framework.

Beyond official statements, it remains unclear why the government wants to reinstate—or modify—the extradition arrangement. Observers suggest a more practical motivation may also be at play: With reports of financial crime linked to Hong Kong increasing in recent years, the lack of a functioning legal route could risk allowing serious offenders to evade accountability.

The Shadow of Distrust

Still, scepticism persists. Critics argue that trust has been badly damaged — not only by Beijing’s tightening grip on Hong Kong but also by domestic political controversies. The timing of the announcement, coupled with the ongoing Royal Mint Court development, fear of changes to the current BNO visa scheme. Raising questions about the UK’s financial ties with Chinese entities, has fuelled suspicion that government is attempting to smooth relations with Beijing. For many, the very act of reopening debate over extradition resonates as if it were a step back toward cooperation.

The government insists that the move is a technical adjustment, not a political concession. The measure does not revive the suspended treaty. It merely shifts Hong Kong into the ad hoc category, where each request would be considered on its own merits. Yet in the shadow of Hong Kong’s shrinking freedoms and Britain’s own uneasy relationship with Beijing, the symbolism is hard to ignore. Whether the case-by-case system will ever be tested remains to be seen. But for many Hongkongers in the UK the concern is less about the letter of the law and more about whether whether the government itself can be trusted to keep its word.

This raise deeper questions……

• Can legal safeguards really shield activists and dissidents from political risk, especially when trust in Beijing’s system is so low?
• When, if ever, is it appropriate to cooperate on extradition with states whose legal systems are under political influence?
• What lessons can be drawn from past politically sensitive extradition cases internationally for ensuring fairness and integrity in UK decisions?

To Learn More:

• “UK condemns Hong Kong cash offer for help in arresting activists of pro-democracy activists living in Britain”, Helen Sullivan, BBC, 26 July 2025.
• ” Extradition: the UK perspective”, Edward Grange, Danielle Reece Greenhalgh & Anna Rothwell, Global Investigations Review, 13 November, 2024
• “Question/ China: Extradition: Question for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office”, questioned by MP Fleur Anderson, British- Taiwanese APPG, 22 February 2002
• “UK extradition laws: Key cases”, Dominic Casciani & Vanessa Barford, BBC, 24 February 2012