NCA v GKC (No 2): open justice prevails over anonymity in unexplained wealth order proceedings

The High Court has discharged interim anonymity and reporting restrictions in proceedings arising from an unexplained wealth order (UWO) and interim freezing order (IFO) obtained by the National Crime Agency, holding that the open justice principle prevails even where a respondent faces serious reputational harm from disclosure. In National Crime Agency v GKC (No 2) [2026] EWHC 929 (Admin), Mr Justice Fordham conducted a detailed Article 8/Article 10 balancing exercise and concluded that the derogation from open justice was not, in the circumstances, necessary.

The NCA had obtained the UWO and IFO without notice before Bourne J in July 2025, with the application heard in private pursuant to the Civil Recovery Proceedings Practice Direction and the principles established in NCA v Hussain [2020] 1 WLR 2145. The respondent — a 24-year-old student with no public profile — applied to set aside the orders. Fordham J dismissed that application in Judgement No 1, but maintained interim anonymity pending a separate public hearing on whether that protection should continue.

Four media organisations intervened — the BBC, Times Media, Associated Newspapers, and Telegraph Media Group — all supporting discharge. The NCA agreed. The respondent, represented by Tim Owen KC, resisted.

The legal framework

Central to the respondent's case was the Supreme Court's decision in ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] AC 1158, which established that a person under criminal investigation has, prior to charge, a reasonable expectation of privacy in information relating to that investigation. The respondent argued this principle should invert the ordinary starting point: that publication required compelling public interest justification rather than anonymity requiring proof of necessity.

Fordham J firmly rejected that inversion. The starting point remains the constitutional principle of open justice, with derogation justified only where necessity is demonstrated by clear and cogent evidence. ZXC, he held, does not rewrite that framework — it merely illuminates the nature and seriousness of an Article 8 interference once open justice has come into play. The burden lies on the party seeking anonymity, not on those seeking transparency.

The respondent also argued for a principled parallel between the ZXC charging-point horizon and the commencement of Part 5 civil recovery proceedings, such that anonymity should be maintained throughout a Part 8 investigation. The judge found this argument intellectually coherent but legally unsustainable. Javadov [2022] 1 WLR 1953 had confirmed that even suspicion-based, early-stage freezing orders heard on notice engage the open justice principle in full. Nothing in ZXC undermined that analysis.

The balancing exercise

Fordham J accepted that unanonymised reporting would cause serious and significant harm to the respondent's private life, career prospects, and reputation — particularly given her stated ambitions in the financial sector. These considerations weighed heavily. However, several countervailing factors proved decisive.

The underlying subject matter — linked to what has been described as the largest money laundering operation in Singapore's history, resulting in prosecutions, convictions, and asset forfeitures — was already extensively reported in the public domain. The respondent's uncle and father had been publicly named in connection with those proceedings. The domestic UWO proceedings could not properly be understood without that context, and anonymisation produced what Fordham J described as "austere, abstract reporting" that obscured rather than served the public interest in scrutinising the judicial process.

The judge also noted procedural concerns about transparency at the outset of proceedings: the NCA had been listed under a cipher in the Cause List, the press had not been notified, and the court had not been invited to consider any public announcement following the private hearing. He suggested that Cause List entries should clearly identify the enforcement authority — for example, National Crime Agency v BMR (Unexplained Wealth Order) — and flagged the issue as suitable for consideration by the Civil Justice Rules Committee.

Permission to appeal

Fordham J granted permission to appeal on both grounds — the legal framework and its application — and suspended the discharge of anonymity pending resolution of any appeal.