On Oct 16, a bizarre exchange occurred in the United Kingdom’s Parliament. During the weekly questions to the prime minister in the House of Commons, the leader of the opposition Conservative Party (and former prime minister), Rishi Sunak, asked Sir Keir Starmer about the situation of former media magnate Jimmy Lai Chee-ying.

Lai is currently undergoing trial before a three-judge panel of the High Court and will open the defense case on Nov 20. The charges he faces are grave, and he allegedly colluded with foreign forces to endanger national security and conspired to publish seditious material. The prosecution alleges that Lai requested foreign countries, notably the United States, to engage in hostile activities against Hong Kong SAR and China, intending to harm them both. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Throughout the common law world, of which both the UK and Hong Kong are part, it is a fundamental principle that politicians do not attempt to interfere in ongoing criminal trials. If they do, it is offensive to the rule of law and may also amount to an attempt to pervert the course of public justice, a serious crime everywhere. It was, therefore, extraordinary, on its face, that when Sunak laid a trap for him, Starmer fell headlong into it.

Sunak asked if Lai was facing “a politically motivated prosecution” and if his detention was a breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. Instead of treating the questions with the contempt they deserve, Starmer played along. He agreed with Sunak’s questions (of which he would have received advance notice), and said that securing Lai’s release was a priority for his government, which would continue to raise the case with China.

As the UK, for reasons best known to itself, gave Lai a British passport, Starmer added, “We do call on the Hong Kong authorities to release immediately our British national.” This was shocking, coming as it did from somebody who is not only a barrister-at-law but also a King’s Counsel. He, of all people, must have appreciated that any calls for Lai’s release at this time are worthless and impossible to fulfill.

In January, while still prime minister, Sunak told the former governor, Lord (Chris) Patten, hopefully against his better judgment, that Lai’s trial was “politically motivated”. He also vowed to keep raising the case with Beijing, as a “priority”. Having been pressured to adopt these stances by Lai’s parliamentary backers and the likes of Hong Kong Watch, the anti-China hate machine (of which Patten is a patron), he was obviously keen, on their behalf, to take Starmer down the same path.

However, instead of agreeing that Lai’s detention breached the Joint Declaration, Starmer should have explained that it had nothing to do with it. He should have known that the reason Lai is detained is because he was convicted, on Dec 10, 2022, of two fraud offenses, for which he was imprisoned for five years and nine months. He is currently serving out that sentence in the same way as any other convicted fraudster. (If the UK’s consul general in Hong Kong, Brian Davidson, has not already explained this to his superiors, he will hopefully do so now, before Starmer again puts his foot in it.)

As a lawyer (unlike Sunak), Starmer must also have appreciated that attempts to interfere with trials in other common law jurisdictions are repugnant, and that it was simply not open to the judges to suddenly release Lai in the middle of his trial (even if they were so minded). However, in saying what he did, Starmer attracted some cheap plaudits, as he must have intended. He was even thanked by Lai’s son, Sebastien, who urged him to take “decisive action” (whatever that meant; perhaps he envisaged the dispatching of a gunboat).

Starmer is no fool, and his heart cannot be in the gibberish he spouted in Parliament. He must have appreciated his comments about Lai were impractical, and would cut no ice in either Hong Kong or Beijing

If Starmer had been aware of the evidence adduced against Lai (and his officials should have briefed him), he would have known that the prosecution had sought to convince the judges that Lai had tried to destabilize China through collaboration with foreign powers. If the judges believe the evidence, the prosecution will have been entirely appropriate. Indeed, if the behavior alleged against Lai had occurred in the UK, it would be prosecutable under its National Security Act 2023. It is inconceivable that Starmer, who previously served as the director of public prosecutions of England and Wales, was unaware of this, which made his protestations all the more hypocritical. However, there may have been some method in his madness.

His foreign secretary, David Lammy, is going to Beijing on a goodwill trip, and to satisfy the critics, he will have little choice but to raise Lai’s case with his hosts. They will undoubtedly give him short shrift, which should not surprise him, as he is also a lawyer and knows the score. His visit has attracted inflammatory criticism from the rabid right, which Starmer hopes to deflect by playing ball with Sunak.

This, however, will not be easy, as the fanatics are rarely satisfied when it comes to China. For example, the leader of Lai’s “international legal team,” Caoilfhionn Gallager KC, has criticized the way in which the UK government has handled his case. She is unhappy over its failure to engage with Sebastien Lai and her, despite numerous requests for meetings. She condemned “a disappointing and flawed approach that stymies crucial efforts to free Jimmy Lai”, hoping to up the ante.

However cynical, it is clear that Starmer, while developing closer UK ties with China, wants to keep the anti-China brigade at bay. He probably feels he has to do what he can to pacify them, even if it sometimes means throwing them “red meat”. Although it makes him appear ludicrous, he has presumably concluded it is a price worth paying.

After all, Starmer is no fool, and his heart cannot be in the gibberish he spouted in Parliament. He must have appreciated his comments about Lai were impractical, and would cut no ice in either Hong Kong or Beijing. He knows how criminal justice systems work, and understands that Hong Kong’s vibrant legal system will never buckle to Western pressure. It can, therefore, only be assumed that he has calculated that his ill-judged remarks about Lai will buy him time with his critics, which will enable him to concentrate on the bigger picture. For the UK’s sake, it must be hoped he is right.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.