MINISTERS responsible for preventing disclosure of Roman Abramovich’s personal data on grounds of national security should be made to explain their “reluctance to put all cards on the table” in open court, a lawyer representing the Russian billionaire has argued.

More than £5 billion of assets linked to the former Chelsea owner remain frozen in Jersey, where an investigation into allegations of corruption and money laundering began in 2022.

Mr Abramovich is now appealing a certificate – issued by former Home Affairs Minister Mary Le Hegarat – which prevents him from receiving certain personal data released under the data protection law because of concerns about national security.

An appeal hearing to determine whether the minister was correct to withhold the documents is yet to be scheduled, though the extent to which it will play out in open court has already been subject to intense legal scrutiny.

On 5 October, the Royal Court handed down a judgement which specified the procedural format of the appeal proceedings.

Commissioner Alan Binnington referred to the principles of open justice in ruling against the government’s request for permission to make submissions and file evidence in the absence of Mr Abramovich.

But Advocate Michael O’Connell, representing the Home Affairs Minister, reiterated in a skeleton argument filed on 5 October that evidence brought by the minister in relation to the withheld documents should be given “on a closed basis”.

He suggested that an open appeal hearing take place for legal submissions to be made, followed by a closed hearing without the presence in court of Mr Abramovich, his representatives and the public.

Advocate O’Connell wrote that those acting for the minister could then prepare a written “gist” of the hearing for the judge, which would then be relayed to the Russian national following judicial approval.

The adoption of a closed procedure, he asserted, is “entirely consistent” with the approach taken by the courts of England and Wales when dealing with “equivalent issues” under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act 2000.

However, Advocate Howard Sharp, representing Mr Abramovich, wrote in a skeleton argument seen by the JEP that he disagreed with proposals for a closed procedure.

“It appears that the minister intends that the Royal Court will neither be told what has been withheld nor review the majority of that material,” he wrote.

“The minister intends to show the Court only a ‘sample’ of documents selected by the minister. [Mr Abramovich] has no confidence in these proposals.”

Advocate Sharp instead suggested that the decision taken by the Home Affairs Minister to issue a certificate on the basis of national security be litigated by cross-examination conducted in open court.

In particular, Advocate Sharp argued that the Home Affairs Minister’s “extremely broad” definition of “national security” warranted closer scrutiny.

Then-Deputy Le Hegarat’s definition – which was used to justify the withholding of Mr Abramovich’s data – covered “virtually any reputational risk affecting the Government of Jersey or the Jersey finance industry”, he said.

“Applying it,” Advocate Sharp added, “would preclude the release of any personal data that might form the basis of legitimate criticism of the Government of Jersey defendants and/or Jersey, and might even prevent the disclosure of ‘innocuous’ material.”

Mr Abramovich’s lawyer further argued that current Home Affairs Minister Helen Miles had also failed to “engage with the facts” in her own affidavit.

“The current minister argues,” he wrote, “that there can never be disclosure of extremely wide categories of documents, regardless of the facts of the particular case.

“The logical conclusion of Ms Miles’ “evidence” is that any document that might generate criticism of the Government of Jersey or the Jersey finance industry is necessarily caught by national security considerations.”

Advocate Sharp told the Royal Court on Monday that the “impenetrable, obscure and unclear” evidence provided by the two consecutive Home Affairs Ministers was “shrouded in such secrecy” that “one has no real understanding as to how these decisions were reached.”

“There is an obvious and notable reluctance to put all cards on the table, we say, that crosses the threshold for cross-examination,” he added.

Advocate O’Connell countered that the “exceptional remedy” of cross-examination was not necessary – and would instead risk “diverting” the court to an “impermissible examination of executive decision-making, rather than the legality of the decision itself”.

Commissioner Binnington told the lawyers that he would reserve his decision on the appeal hearing procedure for a later date.