A recent court ruling may clarify whether consular officials have diplomatic immunity when involved in threatening or harming locals. The case stems from a 2019 incident in which Chinese Consular General Xu Jie publicly praised the attack on student activist Drew Pavlou, who was protesting in support of Hong Kong pro-democracy activists at the University of Queensland. Under threat and receiving death threats, Pavlou’s lawyers sought a protection order against Xu, but it was denied in August 2020 because of his diplomatic immunity. In March 2022, Xu was removed from his post and now serves as the Chinese ambassador to the Cape Verde Islands. The two-year timeframe to appeal the immunity decision has since expired, and a District Court judge was recently tasked with deciding whether it should be extended. Judge Bernard Porter denied the application, stating that a protection order would be unnecessary and futile. However, he did note that consular immunity is not absolute, and care must be taken when a consul’s conduct might infringe on civil and political rights. Pavlou’s lawyer, Mark Tarrant, said the decision set a new precedent in diplomatic immunity and clarified that consular officials only have immunity for certain functions. Tarrant stated that this would be the first such case in Australia and a clear statement by the court that consular officials cannot impinge on the free exercise of civil and political rights.
Chinese official faces unprecedented judicial ruling from judge.
