In brief: The Government of Jersey is seeking to exclude Roman Abramovich and his lawyers from part of a court hearing concerning a National Security Certificate used to withhold personal data from him. The dispute sits alongside a criminal investigation into the origins of his wealth, with more than £5 billion of assets linked to him remaining frozen in Jersey. The Royal Court previously found the government had breached his rights by missing disclosure deadlines.
The Background: Frozen Assets and a Data Battle
Roman Abramovich, the Russian billionaire and former Chelsea Football Club owner, has been at the centre of a significant legal saga in Jersey since early 2022, when a criminal investigation into the origins of his wealth began. More than £5 billion of assets linked to him remain frozen in the island, making this one of the most substantial financial cases Jersey has ever seen.
The current proceedings stem from requests Mr Abramovich made in April 2023 for personal information held by government bodies under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018. On 21 November 2025, the Royal Court ruled in his favour, finding that the government defendants had failed to provide his personal data within the required time limits. Documents were subsequently supplied in three tranches, the last on 29 May 2026.
However, a National Security Certificate, issued on 21 May 2026, exempted certain personal data from disclosure. Mr Abramovich lodged an appeal against that certificate on 16 June, and at a separate hearing in June he also challenged documents as being excessively redacted or wrongly withheld.
Closed Doors: The Government’s Argument
At a hearing reported by the Jersey Evening Post, Advocate Michael O’Connell, representing the Home Affairs Minister, argued that allowing Mr Abramovich or his lawyers to see the disputed material during proceedings would “defeat the object of the exercise.” The minister is asking the court to consider some evidence and legal arguments behind closed doors, without Mr Abramovich, his representatives, or the public present.
The proposal is not a total blackout. The government says it would keep as much of the appeal hearing open as possible, and that Mr Abramovich would receive a court-approved summary of the closed session, followed by an opportunity to respond.
Advocate O’Connell set out a “fundamental question” at the heart of the wider disclosure dispute: whether the government can lawfully withhold information to protect third-party privacy, confidential lawyer-client communications, national security, and crime and taxation purposes. Allowing Mr Abramovich’s lawyers to participate in the closed session would mean they “come to know such matters” before that question is resolved, he argued. He added that the proposed closed procedure is “entirely consistent” with the approach taken by courts in England and Wales when dealing with equivalent issues under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Under the proposed structure, the appeal would begin in open court, with Mr Abramovich and his lawyers able to present their arguments. A closed session would follow to examine the protected material, and the court could order disclosure of anything it considered should have been addressed openly. Commissioner Alan Binnington was presiding, and the hearing, which concerns how the appeal should proceed, was expected to continue the following day. The appeal itself has yet to be listed.
Allegations of Political Motivation
Mr Abramovich’s lawyers at Kobre and Kim have claimed, in a statement to the Jersey Evening Post earlier this month, that the investigation was politically motivated. They argued that Jersey had welcomed his investment before it became “politically inconvenient.” Mr Abramovich himself denies the Attorney General’s allegations about the origins of his wealth.
The government has pushed back firmly. It has stressed that the Attorney General is constitutionally independent and that ministers have “no authority or influence” over his investigation. It has also said it “categorically rejects allegations of conspiracy, misfeasance in public office or bad faith” in the separate civil proceedings.
The Jersey Evening Post notes that Mr Abramovich’s lawyers’ arguments in the current proceedings were to be covered in a subsequent edition.
Source: Jersey Evening Post
