Media organisations successfully challenge anonymity order in unexplained wealth order proceedings
In a judgment handed down on 24th April 2026, the Administrative Court has discharged an order for anonymity and reporting restrictions in contested High Court proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”). In doing so, it has confirmed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] AC 1158 does not create a “starting point” in favour of a reasonable expectation of privacy when the Court is tasked with considering derogations from open justice.
The National Crime Agency obtained an unexplained wealth order (“UWO”) and interim freezing order (“IFO”) against the Respondent. She applied to set them aside, but her application was dismissed by Fordham J for reasons given in a public judgment ([2026] EWHC 573 (Admin)). Fordham J granted an interim order for anonymity and reporting restrictions at the hearing of the Respondent’s application, and listed a separate hearing following its dismissal to determine whether the interim order should continue. The BBC, Times Media Limited, Associated Newspapers Limited and Telegraph Media Group Limited intervened to oppose the continuation of the order.
The Judge confirmed that the established starting point for his analysis was the principle of open justice, and that a starting point of a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact and details of a state investigation, on the basis of ZXC, was to put things the wrong way round (at [40]-[41]). He held that whilst ZXC might illuminate the question of whether and to what extent there was an interference with privacy rights under Article 8 ECHR, that interference still needed to be a cogent justification for a necessary derogation from open justice (at [44]).
He also rejected the argument that the point at which the ZXC starting point of a reasonable expectation of privacy fell away (namely the point of charge, where the open justice principle became engaged) was only reached in POCA proceedings when a civil recovery investigation became civil recovery proceedings (at [45]). He referred to the earlier case of R (Javadov) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2022] 1 WLR 1953 as demonstrating that an application in POCA proceedings made at an early investigative stage and on the basis of reasonable grounds for suspicion constituted proceedings where the open justice principle was fundamental to securing public confidence in the administration of justice, and where the ZXC approach therefore fell away (at [46]).
For these and other reasons, the Judge rejected the argument that his analysis should start with a presumption of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Applying instead the starting point of open justice to the facts of this case, he found that the Respondent had failed to demonstrate that the continued derogations from open justice were necessary (at [74]). He granted the Respondent permission to appeal, and the interim order remains in effect pending any appeal.
Claire Overman, instructed by BBC Legal, acted for the media interveners.
