Court grants release of documents to media in alleged Chinese spy case

On 21 March 2025, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (‘SIAC’) granted the release to the media of certain information regarding H6 v Secretary of State for the Home Department.  In this case, the SIAC ruled that the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) was entitled to exclude Yang Tengbo from the UK on the basis that he was a risk to national security.

Mr Yang had previously been referred to as “H6” pursuant to an anonymity order, but this was lifted in December 2024 at Mr Yang’s request, making his name public.

In this article we summarise the SIAC’s decision on whether to grant disclosure of information it held about the proceedings to various media organisations.

Information sought by the media

There were three ‘contentious’ categories of information sought by the media and considered by the SIAC.  These were:-

1. information provided by Mr Yang on which the SIAC had heard submissions in private during the first day of the hearing in July 2024 (the “personal information“);
2. information which Mr Yang alleged was imparted to him in confidence and/or was commercially sensitive (the “commercial information“). This information was included in witness statements of Mr Yang (and accompanying exhibits); and
3. a witness statement written by Dominic Hampshire (a senior advisor to Prince Andrew) in support of Mr Yang’s review of his exclusion from the UK, which Mr Yang did not rely on at the hearing (the “witness statement”).

Decision

The SIAC considered each category of information sought in turn, and undertook a balancing exercise between the principle of open justice (which favours disclosure) and the harm that disclosure may cause to Mr Yang’s and others’ legitimate private rights (which favours withholding the information).

The SIAC ruled the following in respect of the three categories of information:-

1. Personal information – the SIAC determined that this should not be disclosed to the media, because it did not relate to matters in the public interest (i.e. the debate over whether Mr Yang was rightfully excluded from the UK) and disclosure substantially risked causing serious harm to Mr Yang and would be contrary to SIAC’s duty of fairness to him (as a party to proceedings). In the SIAC’s view, “the balance between public interest and private rights clearly comes down in favour of non-disclosure”.
2. Commercial information – disclosure of almost all of this information was granted (two specific pieces of information required redactions). The SIAC held that the information was not subject to a contractual or inferred obligation of confidentiality.  It noted that the facts of the business relationships referred to in the information are already in the public domain.  The SIAC also considered there to be a substantial public interest in reporting information relating to international trading activity involving UK companies and a member of the Royal Family.
3. Witness statement – the SIAC permitted the release of the statement and other evidence reflecting its contents (save for the redaction of two words). This was on the basis that much of the contents were not confidential (such as information about Mr Hampshire’s background and how he came to know Mr Yang) and the statement was drafted explicitly to be used in support of Mr Yang’s review of his exclusion from the UK (and was considered by the SSHD when making its December judgment).  In these circumstances, the case for disclosure is “particularly strong” (the SIAC referred to Toulson LJ’s observation in R (Guardian News and Media Limited) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420 that: “In a case where documents have been placed before a judge and referred to in the course of proceedings, in my judgment the default position should be that access should be permitted on the open justice principle; and where access is sought for a proper journalistic purpose, the case for allowing it will be particularly strong.”)

Whilst the SIAC noted that the statement contained comments about Mr Hampshire’s work with Prince Andrew which “might seem embarrassing or indiscreet”, these did not give rise to the inference of a legal duty of confidentiality.  In SIAC’s view, the open justice principle outweighed any non-contractual expectation of discretion in Mr Hampshire’s dealings with the Royal Family.

Comment

The judgment highlights the fact-specific balancing exercise required in cases involving access to court documents.  On the one hand, disclosure of information and press reporting of proceedings serves the open justice principle, which enables public scrutiny of the judicial process.  On the other hand, disclosure of information can risk harm to individuals’ legitimate rights and interests.  In this particular case, it was a win for open justice and the media organisations.

Previous article

Non-qualifying curfews and credit against sentences of imprisonment

Next article

Analogue data breach in a digital world