1. When Secrecy Ends: Why These Judgments Were Finally Published

For over two years, the legal battle between Roman Abramovich and the Jersey authorities unfolded largely in private. Publication of key judgments was restricted, and the public saw little beyond headlines about “$7bn frozen assets.” That changed in late 2025, when Jersey’s courts lifted confidentiality orders and released a series of detailed decisions.

Central to this shift is the Court of Appeal’s Publication Judgment, [2025] JCA 293. Despite Abramovich’s wealth, profile, and ongoing investigation, the court found that the public interest in open justice outweighed his claims to privacy. For high-profile individuals and their advisers, this judgment is essential reading.

2. The Publication Fight in Outline

After the Royal Court dismissed Abramovich’s attempts to stop the investigation and discharge the saisie ([2024] JRC 190), it faced a further question: should those judgments be published, and if so, when and on what terms?

Abramovich argued for delay—at least until a final decision on whether to charge him—claiming that revealing he was under a money laundering investigation would seriously interfere with his Article 8 rights (private life and reputation) and risk prejudicing any future trial.

The Royal Court rejected this, finding his reasonable expectation of privacy was “significantly reduced but not extinguished,” and that the public interest in publication was strong. Abramovich appealed.

3. The Court of Appeal’s Approach to Open Justice

In [2025] JCA 293, the Court of Appeal started from first principles, drawing on leading authorities. Open justice has two core elements:

• Hearings should take place in public.

• Judges should give public, reasoned decisions.

These requirements are not about curiosity—they underpin public confidence in the courts and the rule of law. Judgments like those in the Abramovich litigation, which address complex questions about sanctions, money laundering, and prosecutorial independence, help develop the law.

Open justice is not absolute. In some cases, it is legitimate to sit in private, redact sensitive material, or withhold a judgment. But any derogation must be:

• Strictly necessary to protect a sufficiently compelling right or interest; and

• No more than is required to protect that right.
  
  
  

4. How the Court Balanced Privacy and Transparency

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Royal Court that Abramovich’s expectation of privacy was reduced:

• Being the target of an historic investigation does attract a presumption of privacy, but his business history, the 2012 English judgment, and extensive media coverage of Sibneft and “krysha” were already public.
  
  
  

• Abramovich is widely known as an oligarch whose wealth was acquired during a controversial period of Russian privatisation. Publishing the fact that Jersey was investigating possible money laundering based on those same historic materials would not radically alter public perception.
  
  
  

• There was no affidavit evidence from Abramovich himself of concrete harm (such as specific lost deals or banking facilities) that publication would cause. The court did not rule out such harms, but would not assume them without evidence.

Against this, the court set a strong public interest in publishing judgments that:

• Explain whether it is lawful to prevent a prosecutor from even investigating a politically sensitive figure; and

• Clarify how Jersey applies sanctions and anti-money laundering laws to large trust structures.

The court also rejected the idea of postponing publication until a charging decision. Investigations of this complexity can take years, and a “temporary” stay could become a lengthy or even permanent derogation from open justice. If charges were later brought, arguments would likely arise about prejudice to a fair trial; if no charges were brought, it could be argued that publication was unfair. The court preferred transparency, with anonymisation and redaction as needed.

5. What This Means for High-Profile Individuals Under Investigation

If you are a public figure or control substantial wealth, Abramovich’s experience in Jersey carries several implications:

• Confidentiality orders are not forever. Even if early stages of a dispute proceed anonymously or in private, courts may later decide that judgments should be published—sometimes years after the events.

• Existing publicity matters. Where your business history and controversies are already well-documented, courts may see less incremental harm in revealing that you are under investigation.

• Concrete evidence of harm is essential. General claims about reputational damage are unlikely to succeed without specific, persuasive evidence of impact.

• Expect anonymisation, not secrecy. The Jersey court’s approach was to use anonymisation and limited redactions, rather than wholesale suppression, to manage privacy and fairness concerns.

Practical steps:

• Prepare for the possibility that detailed judicial reasoning about your affairs may become public.

• Work with advisers to review all public and semi-public information about your business and legal history.

• Document any specific evidence of harm that publication might cause, as this will be critical if you seek to resist publication.

• Develop a clear public narrative and plan for reputational management in advance.

Tools like Caira can help you and your advisers map timelines, document your side of the story, and prepare for the legal and reputational impact of publication.

Key Takeaway:
Open justice is a core legal principle. For high-profile individuals, privacy rights are not absolute—especially where controversy is already public. Courts will favour transparency, using anonymisation and redaction where needed, and will require concrete evidence of harm to justify any delay or suppression. Proactive planning is essential.