UK High Court judge finds ‘striking consensus’ of abuses in Xinjiang

The High Court in London has said there is a “striking consensus” of “clear and widespread abuses” in Xinjiang’s cotton industry, despite refusing a legal challenge from Uyghur rights activists demanding the UK investigate its imports from the Chinese region.

Mr Justice Ian Dove made the comments on Friday as he rejected the challenge against the Home Office, HM Revenue & Customs and the National Crime Agency.

The case had been brought by the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) over alleged failures by the government to investigate cotton imports from Xinjiang.

In his ruling, Dove added that there “may be other tools or measures available to the executive and law enforcement agencies” to help tackle concerns about cotton production in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) and the exploitation of the Uyghur people.

He said: “The outcome of the case does not in any way undermine the striking consensus in the evidence that there are clear and widespread abuses in the cotton industry in the XUAR, involving human rights violations and the exploitation of forced labour.”

Beijing denies such accusations, saying its policy in Xinjiang is aimed at countering terrorism and boosting economic development.

But the ruling is set to put further pressure on the UK government and companies sourcing from the region.

The US last year banned all imports from Xinjiang, and the High Court lawsuit is one of many lodged across Europe with the same aim, taking advantage of recently tightened EU laws on companies’ supply chain liability.

Following the ruling, WUC president Dolkun Isa said it was “encouraging that the judge recognised that the evidence we presented of widespread human rights abuse . . . was clear and undisputed by the government”.

Lawyers for the Uyghur activists had argued that there was already overwhelming evidence of the presence of Xinjiang prison-processed cotton in UK supply chains.

They claimed that the UK government should have been actively investigating, and prohibiting the importation of, cotton goods originating in the XUAR under the Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act 1897.

The lawyers added that the government had failed to launch probes under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 on the basis that cotton goods with their origin in the XUAR could be criminal property and trading in them illegal.

Dearbhla Minogue, from the Global Legal Action Network, who was involved in preparing the case, said Dove’s judgment was “clear that the Proceeds of Crime Act applies in this scenario, and that if more evidence comes to light of specific consignments, there could be prosecutions under the provisions of [the act]”.

Minogue added that the WUC and the GLAN were considering an appeal.

Lawyers for the government had argued that there was insufficient evidence to start a criminal investigation or seize goods.

In his ruling Dove backed the government’s approach. He said that although some material “evidence[d] the significant concerns in relation to the use of prison and forced labour”, the claimants were “unable to point to any specific instance of criminality”.

“The circumstantial evidence of statistical risks of criminality is not a substitute for proof,” he added.

The UK government said it was committed to tackling the issue of Uyghur forced labour in supply chains and was taking “robust action”.

“Over the last year we have introduced new guidance on the risks of doing business in Xinjiang and enhanced export controls. We keep our policy response under constant review and welcome today’s judgment,” it said.