Glencore Energy UK Ltd & Ors v R
[2024] EWCR 6
Javad Marandi, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court
17 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 587 (Admin)
High Court
A man wasn't named in a money laundering case at first to protect his privacy, but a judge later said he should be named because the information was important for the public to know. The higher court agreed, saying there wasn't enough reason to keep him anonymous.
Key Facts
- •Judicial review of Westminster Magistrates' Court decision to lift anonymity order for claimant in NCA forfeiture proceedings.
- •Claimant, Javad Marandi, was a non-party connected to respondents in the forfeiture proceedings.
- •Initial anonymity order granted to protect claimant's Article 8 rights (right to private life).
- •BBC applied to discharge the anonymity order, arguing for open justice.
- •Forfeiture proceedings concerned alleged money laundering, with evidence linking the claimant to shell companies and suspicious transactions.
- •Judge discharged the anonymity order, finding the claimant was not a peripheral figure and insufficient 'clear and cogent' evidence supported continued anonymity.
- •Claimant challenged the decision, arguing errors of law and violation of Article 8 rights.
Legal Principles
Open justice is a fundamental principle; restrictions are exceptional and require necessity, clear and cogent evidence.
R (Rai) v Winchester Crown Court, Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd, ZXC v Bloomberg LP, Del Campo v Spain
Balancing exercise between open justice (Articles 6 and 10 ECHR) and privacy rights (Article 8 ECHR).
In re S (A Child), Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd, ZXC v Bloomberg LP
Person under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that fact and underlying details.
ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] UKSC 5
Anonymity only granted where strictly necessary, with burden of proof on applicant; clear and cogent evidence required.
Master of the Rolls’ Practice Guidance on Interim Non-Disclosure Orders of 2011
Outcomes
Judicial review claim dismissed.
Judge properly applied legal principles, considering the balance between open justice and privacy rights. Claimant failed to provide sufficient clear and cogent evidence to justify continued anonymity.
Anonymity order lifted.
Claimant's role was not peripheral; sufficient evidence linked him to the alleged money laundering scheme; insufficient evidence of harm.
Similar Cases
Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Bluu Solutions Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 500 (KB)
Pump Court Chambers Ltd v Gillian Brown (also known as Gillian Goodfield)
[2024] EWHC 2428 (Ch)
Philip Esper v NHS North West London Integrated Care Board & Anor
[2023] EWCOP 29
Nicole Daedone & Ors v BBC (No 2)
[2023] EWHC 113 (KB)