The recent judgment by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (‘SIAC’) granting the media partial access to information in the case of H6 vs Secretary of State for the Home Department (SC/205/2023) has reignited debate about open justice and press scrutiny. The application to access the court documents is the latest in a series of challenges faced by the media when reporting on this contentious case.
On 12 December 2024, SIAC delivered its judgment in the underlying claim, upholding the decision to cancel the residency rights of ‘H6’, promoting widespread online speculation as to his identity. In reporting the case, the media was in a difficult position – expected to comply with an anonymity order and reporting restrictions that were not accessible to them. The identity of ‘H6’ was ultimately revealed on 16 December 2024 when the Divisional Court discharged the anonymity order, identifying Yang Tengbo as the alleged Chinese spy linked to Prince Andrew. Mr Yang had himself requested the lifting of the anonymity order, citing extensive media speculation and misreporting. The four days of interim media coverage provide a compelling case study of the need for greater transparency around reporting restrictions.
At the heart of this case lies a fundamental question: how can the press be expected to uphold reporting restrictions – and avoid contempt of court – when they are not given timely access to them?
Background to Yang Tengbo’s Case
Mr Yang Tengbo is a Chinese national and businessman who moved to the UK in 2002 to study in London and at the University of York. According to his evidence, he subsequently perceived an opportunity to bridge the gap between China and the UK. In 2005, he founded the consultancy firm Hampton Group International, one of five companies in the UK where he has been publicly listed as a director, advising UK businesses on Chinese affairs. On 21 May 2013, he was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
On 6 November 2021, Mr Yang was subject to a port stop under Schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and surrendered his digital devices. He later lodged a challenge against the retention of data from those devices to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. During this litigation, Mr Yang learned he was under investigation for his alleged association with the United Front Work Department, an arm of the Chinese State.
On 6 February 2023, Mr Yang was removed from a flight from Beijing to London and informed that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was in the process of deciding whether to exclude him from the UK. On 15 March 2023, then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman directed that Mr Yang be excluded from the UK on the grounds that his exclusion would be conducive to the public good, citing national security concerns under Part 9.2.1 of the Immigration Rules (HC 395). Mr Yang applied to SIAC for review under section 2C of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, but on 12 December 2024, SIAC upheld the decision to cancel Mr Yang’s residency rights.
The ‘H6’ Anonymity Orders
Throughout most of SIAC proceedings, Mr Yang was anonymised as ‘H6’. On 15 May 2023, the Chairman of SIAC granted an order that Mr Yang be anonymised (‘the original Anonymity Order’).
On 27 November 2024, SIAC ordered that the original Anonymity Order be lifted upon the handing down of their judgment in the underlying claim, with effect from 12 December 2024. SIAC reasoned that it was “not satisfied that the principle of open justice is outweighed by the Article 8 interests of the applicant and the other factors relied upon by the applicant in his submissions”. Mr Yang sought judicial review of SIAC’s decision, arguing that the original Anonymity Order should be maintained pending an application for permission to appeal.
On 11 December 2024, Sharp P and Chamberlain J granted interim relief to Mr Yang in relation to SIAC’s order of 27 November 2024 (‘the 11 December Anonymity Order’), ordering that his anonymity, and existing reporting restrictions, must be maintained until either (i) the date of any rolled-up hearing before the Divisional Court, or (ii) the resolution of any application to, or appeal to, the Court of Appeal.
SIAC delivered its judgment on 12 December 2024, upholding the decision to withdraw Mr Yang’s indefinite leave to remain. The case, involving allegations of espionage and links to British royalty and senior politicians, received widespread media coverage and online speculation. Yet, the 11 December Anonymity Order was not circulated with the press or published on the Judiciary website until 17 December – after the Divisional Court had already lifted the anonymity order on 16 December and identified ‘H6’ as Mr Yang.
The failure to communicate the anonymity order to media organisations between the publication of SIAC’s judgment on 12 December and Mr Yang’s identification on 16 December created a vacuum of legal certainty. This not only risked inadvertent contempt of court but also placed the media in a difficult position when covering a case of significant public interest.
The Legal Framework for Commission Anonymity Orders
Rule 39(5)(h) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Procedure Rules 2003 (1034/2003) enables SIAC to make provisions to “secure the anonymity of the appellant or a witness”.
Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides that:
“In any case where a court (having power to do so) allows a name or other matter to be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court, the court may give such directions prohibiting the publication of that name or matter in connection with the proceedings as appear to the court to be necessary for the purpose for which it was so withheld.”
Under section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, a breach of an anonymity order by a member of the press could result in a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.
Open Justice and Contempt of Court
The Yang Tengbo case illustrates how the press may be unable to comply with reporting restrictions that are not clearly or promptly communicated. The failure to publish the 11 December Anonymity Order until 17 December – after Mr Yang had already been named – created potential liability for contempt of court, undermining reporting on a matter of public interest.
Anonymity orders must be considered in the light of the fundamental common law principle of open justice: that justice is administered in public and judicial decisions are pronounced publicly. The ‘open justice’ principle is both integral to protecting the rights of the parties and essential for the maintenance of public confidence in the administration of justice. As Lord Atkinson observed in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417:
“Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity.” (477)
In Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2017] 3 WLR 35, the Supreme Court recognised that the importance of open justice has
“if anything increased in an age which attaches growing importance to the public accountability of public officers and institutions and to the availability of information about the performance of their functions” (per Lord Sumption, at [13]).
In Guardian News and Media Ltd v Incedal [2016] EWCA Crim 11, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the burden is on the party seeking to limit open justice “to make a very clear case,” and it is for the court to decide:
“[W]hether the detailed reasons that have been put forward in the particular circumstances for departing from the general principle of open justice as regards particular matters or evidence in the course of proceedings necessitate a departure from the fundamental principle of open justice.” ([49]-[50])
The heavy burden to justify an interference with open justice reflects the significance of Article 10 ECHR and ensuring a free press, which “weighs heavily in the balance in deciding whether any curtailment of this freedom bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose of the curtailment.” (Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127, at 200)
A court order that restricts Article 10 ECHR must be “prescribed by law”; namely, it must be accessible, clear and foreseeable. In the case of The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (App. No. 6538/74), the applicants to the European Court of Human Rights argued that the law of contempt of court was so vague and uncertain that the restraint imposed could not be regarded as “prescribed by law”. ([46]) The Strasbourg Court held that, for a restriction of Article 10 ECHR to be “prescribed by law”, “the law must be adequately accessible” and sufficiently precise to “enable the citizen to regulate his conduct,” by being able to foresee the “consequences which any given action may entail”. ([49])
In Mr Yang’s case, the 11 December Anonymity Order was neither accessible nor, as a result, clearly foreseeable, hindering the media’s ability to regulate their conduct appropriately. Publicly available photographs of Mr Yang at functions with senior politicians, including former Prime Ministers David Cameron and Theresa May, and at a Pitch@Palace China event with Prince Andrew had to be carefully anonymised. The inconsistent approaches to anonymisation taken by various outlets heightened the potential for “jigsaw identification,” where piecemeal details published across various outlets can lead to an inadvertent identification of anonymised individuals. This phenomenon undermines the effectiveness of anonymity orders in the digital age and risks a “chilling effect” on the press, as outlets may over-correct by unduly limiting their reporting to avoid breaching the anonymity order and incurring contempt of court.
Access to reporting restrictions
Per the HMCTS’ own Jurisdictional guidance, last updated on 11 March 2025, the “HMCTS is under a duty to ensure any reporting restrictions are accurately recorded and displayed.”
The guidance recognises the importance of access by the press to reporting restrictions:
“Any reporting restriction imposes potential criminal liability on any media organisation that breaches it and it is therefore essential that the restriction(s) imposed is written up as soon as possible in clear and precise terms, and drawn up as a court order as soon as practicable.”
While local practice may vary, the guidance affirms that court staff are responsible for producing and displaying reporting restrictions promptly and clearly, with copies available for verification. Significantly, it states:
“The media should be able to find out if there are reporting restrictions on a particular case in a timely fashion”.
Despite this obligation, the summary of responses to the Ministry of Justice’s May 2023 Call for Evidence – Open Justice, The Way Forward identified ongoing inconsistencies in how reporting restrictions are communicated. Respondents to the call, including media representatives, referred to a “common issue”: the “need for greater consistency in how reporting restrictions were communicated”.
Respondents described their experiences of delays and difficulty in accessing reporting restrictions from court staff in a timely manner:
“A number of media representatives gave examples of situations in which they spent a disproportionate amount of time trying to confirm the existence of reporting restrictions on a given case, with one respondent citing a 12 day wait for confirmation of a reporting restriction.”
Recognising the need for reform in how reporting restrictions are communicated, respondents proposed the creation of a centralised database of reporting restrictions to enhance efficiency and prevent inadvertent breaches:
“Several respondent groups, including legal associations, civil society groups and media representatives, expressed the desire for a centralised database of reporting restrictions. They felt that the main benefit would be to increase efficiency as many of them currently spend a lot of their time finding out what restrictions are in place for a particular case. They also noted that having easy access to the existence and scope of any restrictions would also help to avoid possible breaches.”
Conclusion
Ultimately, in the case of Yang Tengbo, media speculation prompted him to request the lifting of the anonymity order that he had sought to maintain – underscoring how reporting restrictions can prove ill-suited to high-profile cases in the digital age.
The evolution of Mr Yang’s case, from anonymous appellant to public identified figure, highlights the difficulty of abiding by reporting restrictions that are not clearly or promptly communicated to the press. The failure to publish the 11 December Anonymity Order in a timely and accessible manner not only created legal uncertainty but also risked infringing the Article 10 rights of the press and producing a chilling effect on public interest journalism.
This case serves as a cautionary reminder that even necessary reporting restrictions, if poorly implemented, can stifle legitimate reporting and undermine the principle of open justice. To maintain public confidence in the courts and protect press freedom, reporting restrictions must be not only justified and proportionate, but also readily accessible to those expected to comply with them. Anything less threatens to turn a safeguard into a source of confusion—and a deterrent to democratic scrutiny.
Cordelia Drew is a Paralegal at Simons Muirhead Burton LLP
Leave a Reply