Documents related to a challenge against a decision to exclude Yang Tengbo from the UK can now be disclosed
The witness statement written by a royal aide for an alleged Chinese spy described as a “close confidant” of Prince Andrew is to be made public, a tribunal has ruled.
Documents related to a challenge against a decision to exclude Yang Tengbo from the UK can now be disclosed. The Chinese national, who has previously said he had “done nothing wrong or unlawful”, was excluded from the UK on national security grounds by then-home secretary Suella Braverman in March 2023. Mr Yang unsuccessfully challenged the decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) last year. Judges had found the businessman to be a “close confidant” of Andrew and had “won a significant degree, one could say an unusual degree, of trust” from the duke.
At a hearing in February, several media organisations asked for the disclosure of documents from the SIAC challenge, including a witness statement from Dominic Hampshire, a senior aide to Andrew. The specialist tribunal heard Mr Hampshire was in contact with the intelligence services about Mr Yang – known as H6 during his legal battle – in 2022 before the decision to exclude him had been made.
The royal aide said he was not warned of the possibility of his previous evidence being made public, stating he “would never have agreed to submit a witness statement” had he known. In a ruling today, three judges said the statement could be disclosed, finding it was “drafted explicitly to be used in support of representations” by Mr Yang.
In a 25-page judgment, Mr Justice Bourne, sitting with Judge Stephen Smith and Sir Stewart Eldon, said: “Substantial parts of the witness statement contain material which cannot possibly be said to be confidential.” He continued: “There are also comments about Mr Hampshire’s work with the duke which might seem embarrassing or indiscreet, but they are not such as to give rise to the inference that a legal duty of confidentiality attaches to them.”
He added: “Where access is sought for proper journalistic purposes, the case for disclosure is particularly strong. “That principle outweighs the fact, which we readily accept, that in Mr Hampshire’s dealings with the royal family, there is an expectation of discretion, although he has not referred the commission to any documentary evidence of any contractual obligations in that regard and we have not received any representations from or on behalf of any member of the royal family.”
Documents previously released in the case show Mr Hampshire had thanked Mr Yang for standing by Andrew following the Newsnight interview over his relationship with late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “We have dealt with the aftermath of a hugely ill-advised and unsuccessful television interview,” Mr Hampshire told Mr Yang in a letter on Buckingham Palace stationery in March 2020.
The letter from Mr Hampshire, which also referenced that Mr Yang had been invited to Andrew’s birthday party that year, was discovered on the Chinese national’s devices when he was stopped at a port in November 2021. The letter also said: “I also hope that it is clear to you where you sit with my principal and indeed his family. “You should never underestimate the strength of that relationship … Outside of his closest internal confidants, you sit at the very top of a tree that many, many people would like to be on.”
Mr Hampshire said an invitation extended to Mr Yang to the duke’s birthday “was not an engagement or an exclusive dinner” but was “strictly his and his family’s personal life that very, very few people have the privilege to ever be a part of”. At the February hearing in London, it was told that Mr Hampshire had provided the witness statement with assurances from Mr Yang’s legal team that it would remain confidential.
Adam Wolanski KC, for the media organisations, said it was “bewildering” that Mr Hampshire did not seek his own legal advice about the likelihood of his evidence becoming public. He later said Mr Yang relied on Mr Hampshire’s evidence, which “informed the commission’s decision” and is repeatedly referred to in the judgment.
For Mr Hampshire, Jonathan Price said his client “has not tried to hide his involvement in the underlying facts of this case” and “is now living with the significant adverse consequences of press intrusion”. He also said the witness statement had been withdrawn before the SIAC challenge began in public and was not referred to in open court.
In a witness statement for the February hearing, Mr Hampshire said: “If there was any question of this being available in the public domain, I was not warned of it and, if I had been, I would never have agreed to submit a witness statement, much less go into the level of confidential detail which I did in my statement.”
The tribunal also ruled that “almost all” commercial information related to Mr Yang, as requested by the media, could be disclosed, but that personal information related to him should remain confidential, as there was “a substantial risk of disclosure causing serious harm”.
Mr Justice Bourne said: “It may be that some business dealings were conducted with a shared expectation that information about them would not be made public, but in our judgment, the open justice principle… substantially outweighs either any public interest in expectations of confidentiality being upheld or the private interests of Mr Yang or his business associates.”
He continued: “We consider that there is a substantial public interest in reporting of international trading activity involving UK companies and in any involvement of any member of the royal family in that activity.”
