What's the UK got to do with this? The chap in your video is Australian:
As for the article itself, nothing we have not heared before that theory and that set of reported events have been bought up before, aside from potential legal ramifications, however I did note the heavy use of the word "Maybe" in reference to the scholars paper being used as evidence.
If a scholars paper uses the term "Maybe", "Perhaps" or "It could be argued" (my personal term of choice back in the day) in reference to something, it means they don't know, it's their own pocket theory based on their observation of the available info, which could be correct but further research is required, sometimes extensively.
Looking at the sources, the "UK Think Tank" (which appears to be the link to the UK you reference??) is the Henry Jackson Society - the report they base their findings on is their own research based on academic and journal articles and the report itself assessing the culpability and potential legal response:
henryjacksonsociety.org
A case for compensation from China for its failures to uphold international law in its response to the Coronavirus outbreak.
henryjacksonsociety.org
If you recognize the name Henry Jackson it's because he was a US Democrat Senator, it's unclear to me how a society named after a US senator set up in a UK university in 2005 but there will be some reason for that, however it does follow some of his reportedly hawkish traits looking at some of its past articles, and describes itself as "...a think tank and policy-shaping force that fights for the principles and alliances which keep societies free – working across borders and party lines to combat extremism, advance democracy and real human rights, and make a stand in an increasingly uncertain world." however has been cited as being right wing as indicated from the Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Jackson_Society
I recommend reading the full report (the PDF link) and please note the use of ways of saying "I think", "Maybe" and "Probably". No academic would get away with using those terms, but will use terms such as "It could be argued" "It appears" and "It is possible" to say the same things.
In regard to regarding China as "Innocent Until Proven guilty", an academic paper is not something to base innocence or guilt off, it is something to start an investigation and process of peer review from.
All the report seems to say is there are potentially grounds to base a legal penalty on, which is probably not wrong but would have to stand up to cross examination in the court of law (for example the umbrage with the data provided in January would need evidence that a reliable COVID-19 test was available at that point). If one is launched, however, it would set a legal precedence - it doesn't take much imagination to envisage the next time Swine Flu flairs up in Mexico there could suddenly be a lot more US tourism there from ambulance chasers willing to take advantage of the possibility of being able to sue another nation.
www.2gb.com
www.bbc.com
www.nationalreview.com
www.bbc.com
www.npr.org
www.nytimes.com
