A witness statement containing apparently “embarrassing or indiscreet” comments by an aide to Prince Andrew about his work should be made public, a tribunal has ruled after a legal challenge led by the Guardian.
Though the author of the document, Dominic Hampshire, a close friend of the prince, should have behaved with “discretion” regarding the royal family, that did not outweigh the principles of open justice, the judgment published on Friday said.
The 34-paragraph statement was made by Hampshire in support of Yang Tengbo, a man who became a business partner of the prince but has subsequently been accused of being a Chinese spy, leading to his exclusion from the UK.
“Substantial parts of the witness statement contain material which cannot possibly be said to be confidential, such as information about Mr Hampshire’s background or about how he came to know Mr Yang,” the tribunal wrote.
It contained “information about the Duke of York which is in the public domain”, such as “the negative impact of the Duke’s 2019 Newsnight interview” in which he tried to explain the nature of his friendship with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The judgment said: “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.”
The principle of open justice outweighed the fact that “in Mr Hampshire’s dealings with the royal family there is an expectation of discretion” though, the tribunal added, he had not cited any contractual obligations of confidentiality.
The statement was part of unsuccessful legal proceedings brought by Yang to challenge the immigration decision. Hampshire had tried to argue that he had sought to withdraw the document from the court once he realised it would not remain private.
Media organisations led by the Guardian argued the statement should be made public. It was one of many documents used by the tribunal as evidence and was referred to in its public judgment.
On Friday morning, the special immigration appeals commission (Siac) said Hampshire’s witness statement, plus other redacted documents relating to Yang’s business dealings with the prince, should be made public with minimal redactions.
However, the documents themselves are yet to be released, in case the parties decide to appeal. The tribunal also ruled that two words of Hampshire’s witness statement would remain confidential, once the document was released.
“So far as the information concerns commercial activity, there is a substantial public interest in the press being able to report it,” the tribunal said. “Overall, the determining principle is the open justice principle.”
Hampshire had said the statement was originally written for the then home secretary, James Cleverly, to provide context in his review of the original decision to exclude Yang, made by his predecessor, Suella Braverman. Yang then asked him to submit it to the tribunal to help his case, Hampshire said.
Hampshire, a former Scots guard, is an old friend of Andrew’s. He described himself as a “senior adviser” to the duke in letters written to Yang in 2020, one of which praised the Chinese businessman in gushing terms for sticking with the prince when many others dropped him after the BBC interview.
“You sit at the very top of a tree that many, many people would like to be on,” the letter said. He praised Yang for his discretion and said he had showed “total support and loyalty” when others had deserted the prince.
In January, when he was opposing the release of the statement, Hampshire described himself as the “secretary of the Quad-Centenary Club”, a society established to raise funds for London’s Royal Blackheath golf club, of which Andrew was chair.
Yang has said previously that the allegations against him are “entirely unfounded”.
