MoD's decision-making on Afghan cases ‘a disaster area' that could be likened to ‘a crime scene', court hears
Thousands of applications for sanctuary from Afghans with credible links to special forces units CF333 and ATF444, known as the Triples, were rejected by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Their pleas for help were rebuffed by the government despite these units being paid and trained by the British and the soldiers fighting alongside UK special forces (UKSF) in Afghanistan.
The MoD is undertaking a review of some 2,000 applications of Afghans linked to the units, after The Independent, along with Lighthouse Reports, Sky News and the BBC exposed how they were being denied help.
The court heard that the review of some 2,000 applications is only looking at cases that were referred by MoD caseworkers to UK special forces for input.
The High Court also heard that the MoD rejected the resettlement application of one senior commander from the Triples units, who was in the units at the time of a key incident being examined in the Afghan war inquiry.
A former senior member of the Triples, who is now in the UK, is bringing the legal challenge on behalf of commandos still in Afghanistan - challenging how the review has been carried out. The case is an application for judicial review which, if granted, would see the scheme further challenged in the courts.
Thomas de la Mare KC, for the claimant, told the court on Wednesday that there had been an effective blanket ban on approvals for these ex-servicemen who fought side-by-side with the British forces.
He told the court that decisions on whether to help these Afghans were 'life and death decisions', with Triples members or their families being murdered or tortured because of their support for UK forces.
Speaking about the decision-making within the MoD, he said: 'The decision-making process prior to the review is almost a crime scene, it's a disaster area.'
He added: 'It's almost as disastrous an area of decision-making as it's possible to conceive.'
He argued that information about how the approvals were made should be made public 'to restore public confidence and trust in the decision-making process'.
Mr de la Mare continued: 'There is a widespread perception that there is an issue of conflict of interest or bias in this process. Those conflicts of interest were vented very clearly in January 2024, and they were a key part in the decision-making process.'
The court also heard that political pressure was put on MoD decision-makers to 'sprint' through resettlement cases. This prompted concerns about the quality of decision-making, which resulted in an internal review where 'a pattern of blanket refusal of Triples claims referred to UKSF became obvious', the court was told.
Flaws in the decision-making process included people being 'inappropriately reliant on UKSF personnel', particularly 'during the 'sprints' that took place through the summer of 2023', the court heard.
Caseworkers before the review lacked access to relevant records and were insufficiently experienced.
The court heard that then-minister for veterans affairs, Johnny Mercer, wrote to Oliver Dowden in January 2024 to raise concerns about how the process was being carried out. He highlighted that the role of UKSF personnel in the decision-making process was 'deeply inappropriate' and represented a 'significant conflict of interest'.
Mr de la Mare added that until the Triples review was announced in February 2024, a 'vanishingly small' number of the special forces commandos had been approved for relocation to the UK.
He told the court that senior ministers had decided to conduct a review 'on the basis that all credible claims of Triples membership were in scope'. However, Mr de la Mare said this had been narrowed to just re-examine cases where the Afghan applicant's case had been referred to UK special forces.
The hearing is due to conclude on Friday, with a decision expected in writing at a later date.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Government and opposition alike must do much better
Out of the three parties that matter most, only one will be looking forward to autumn. When parliament packed up for the summer recess this time last year, the new Labour administration had a stonking majority, a sense of confidence and a clear plan of action. Twelve months on, morale has collapsed. Rarely have a government's fortunes declined so far, so fast. This is not the consequence of world events or the vagaries of the global economy: Sir Keir Starmer is to blame. He came into power with the stated aim of boosting the economy's performance to improve public services. But prioritising growth demanded a degree of discipline that he has signally failed to demonstrate. Although the government has chalked up a few achievements — for instance, in reforming the planning system — too often other considerations have taken precedence over growth. Workers' rights have been strengthened to the detriment of companies. Taxes on employers have been raised with the consequence that firms are hiring fewer people. Higher pay for public servants has contributed to the deterioration of public finances. The government's big effort to rein in spending centred on its planned reform of the welfare system, but Labour backbenchers rebelled against it. Instead of facing up to the rebels by making the issue a vote of confidence, the prime minister backed down. Predictably, this cave-in has encouraged further dissent. The prime minister's problem is that he is a conciliator rather than a leader. That is why he has proved to be an effective diplomat in his dealings with foreign leaders. With his low-key style, he has succeeded in improving Britain's relationship with Europe, in encouraging European leaders to co-operate over defence and in establishing a good working relationship with Donald Trump, despite the two men's glaring ideological differences. These external successes cannot compensate for Sir Keir's domestic failures, however. They have cost him credibility and the economy momentum. In the past two months, national output has shrunk while public debt continues to mount. In June, the government borrowed £20.7 billion. That is £6.6 billion more than in June last year and £3.6 billion more than expected. As Sir Keir has lost focus on the economy, concentrating on averting short-term difficulties rather than pursuing a coherent agenda, he has come to look like a tactical politician rather than a strategic one. Both MPs and voters are increasingly unclear about what his government is for. Labour is divided between pragmatists who want order in the public finances and leftwingers who want to spend more. The autumn budget, in which Rachel Reeves will have to reconcile the conflicting demands of the bond markets and Labour MPs' desire to protect social spending, will be a pivotal moment in the government's life. Sir Keir's greatest boon has been the state of the Conservative Party. Despite a welcome recent attempt to reassert the party's commitment to fiscal rectitude in the wake of the government's welfare debacle, Kemi Badenoch has failed to establish a clear identity around which her party can coalesce. At 23.7 per cent, its share of the vote in the last election was the lowest yet; it has declined further in polling since then, to 17 per cent. This week's reshuffle will not by itself reverse the Tories' decline: changes in personnel cannot compensate for the lack of a compelling story. The one party that has succeeded in devising one in the past year is Reform. Nigel Farage has capitalised on the loss of direction in both main parties to seize a commanding lead in the polls. Sir Keir and Ms Badenoch need to develop better ways of countering Mr Farage over the summer, or he will make short work of them in the coming year. For both, it is a case of 'must do better'.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Two hour screen time limit and curfews for children being considered by government
Why you can trust Sky News Social media limits for children are being planned by the government to tackle "compulsive" screen time, the technology secretary has told Sky News. Peter Kyle said he was concerned about "the overall amount of time kids spend on these apps" as well as the content they see. A two-hour cap per platform is being seriously considered after meetings with current and former employees of tech companies. A night-time or school-time curfew has also been discussed. Children would be blocked from accessing apps such as TikTok or Snapchat once they have hit the limit, rather than just reminded of how long they have been scrolling, it is understood. An announcement on screen time is expected this autumn. Mr Kyle said: "I'll be making an announcement on these things in the near future. But I am looking very carefully about the overall time kids spend on these apps. "I think some parents feel a bit disempowered about how to actually make their kids healthier online. "I think some kids feel that sometimes there is so much compulsive behaviour with interaction with the apps they need some help just to take control of their online lives and those are things I'm looking at really carefully. "We talk a lot about a healthy childhood offline. We need to do the same online. I think sleep is very important, to be able to focus on studying is very important." He added that he wanted to stop children spending hours viewing content which "isn't criminal, but it's unhealthy, the overuse of some of these apps". "I think we can incentivise the companies and we can set a slightly different threshold that will just tip the balance in favour of parents not always being the ones who are just ripping phones out of the kids' hands and having a really awkward, difficult conversation around it," he added. Mr Kyle spoke exclusively to Sky News after meeting with a group of pupils from Darlington who have spent a year participating in regular focus groups about smartphones and social media, organised by their Labour MP Lola McEvoy. They took part in a survey of 1,000 children from the town, mostly aged 14 and 15, which found that 40% of them spent at least six hours a day online. One in five spent as long as eight hours scrolling. Most of the under-16s (55%) had seen inappropriate sexual or violent content - often unprompted. And three-quarters of the under-16s had been contacted online by strangers. In the session in parliament, in which the children were asked what they were most concerned about, Jacob, 15, said: "A lack of restrictions on screen time I would personally say, which leads to people scrolling for hours on Tiktok. "People just glue their eyes to their phone and just spent hours on it, instead of seeing the real world." Tom, 17, said: "I get the feeling you have to be quite tech savvy to protect your kids online. You have to go into the settings and work out each one. It should be the default. It needs to be straight away, day one." Matthew, 15, said: "I think because everybody is online all the time and there's no real moderation to what people can say or what can be shared, it can really affect people's lives because it's always there. "As soon as I wake up, I check my phone and until I go to bed. The only time I take a break is when I eat or am talking to someone." Some of the teenagers had spent 12 or even up to 16 hours a day online. Nathan, 15, said: "When, for example, a 13-year-old is on their phone 'til midnight, you can't sleep, your body can't function properly and your mind is all over the place." But there was scepticism about what could be done. Charlotte, 17, said: "If your parents sets a restriction on Instagram and say, 'right, you're coming off it now' - there's TikTok, there is Pinterest, there is Facebook, there's Snapchat, there so many different other ones, you can go on, and it just builds up and builds and builds up, and you end up sat there for the entire evening just on social media. I think we need harsher controls." Several of the pupils who met Mr Kyle detailed being contacted by adult strangers, either on social media apps or online gaming, in ways which made them feel uncomfortable. How could the ban actually work? The tech already exists to make a ban like this a reality. On Friday, rules will start being enforced in the UK that will mean sites hosting harmful adult content will need to properly check the ages of their users. There are a number of ways companies could do that, including credit card checks, ID checks and AI facial age estimation. It is likely these are the same systems that would be used to keep teenagers off social media during certain hours, as suggested by Peter Kyle to Sky News. It's how Australia is looking into enforcing its total ban of under-16s on social media later this year - but the process isn't without controversy. Concerns around privacy are frequently raised as internet users worry about big tech companies storing even more of their personal data. There are also questions about just how effective these age verification processes could actually be. Tech like AI facial estimation can reliably age-check users - but teenagers may quickly work out how to circumvent the system using plugins and settings that could be a mystery to all but the savviest parents. At the moment, a lot of age-checking AI systems are trained to spot the difference between an adult and a child, and can do that to a high degree of accuracy. But while telling the visual difference between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old is much harder, AI learns fast. Officials working on the UK's age verification scheme have suggested AI will soon be able to accurately verify the ages of under-18s, making a ban like this much more realistic. Mr Kyle said: "It is madness, it is total madness, and many of the apps or the companies have taken action to restrict contacts that adults - particularly strangers - have with children, but we need to go further and I accept that. "At the moment, I think the balance is tipped slightly in the wrong direction. Parents don't feel they have the skills, the tools or the ability to really have a grip on the childhood experience online, how much time, what they're seeing, they don't feel that kids are protected from unhealthy activity or content when they are online." The tech secretary is in the process of implementing the 2023 Online Safety Act, passed by the previous government. From this Friday, all platforms must introduce stronger protections for children online, including a legal requirement for all pornography sites accessed in the UK to have effective age verification in place - such as facial age estimation or ID checks. Mr Kyle added: "I don't just want the base level set where kids aren't being criminally exploited and damaged, that shouldn't be the height of our aspirations. The height of our aspirations should be a healthy experience." Labour MP Lola McEvoy, who organised the focus group, said: "I knew things were bad online for children and young people but their testimony revealed the extent of explicit, disturbing and toxic content that is now the norm. "Their articulation of the changes they wanted to see was excellent and they've done our town and their generation proud." Tiktok, Pinterest, Meta and Snapchat were contacted for comment, but none provided an on the record statement. The companies have accounts for under-16s with parental controls and some set reminders for screen time. TikTok has a 60-minute daily screen time limit for under-18s after which they must enter a password to continue, and a reminder to switch off at 10pm. The company say this is to support a healthy relationship with screen time. Pinterest have supported phone-free policies at schools, in the US and Canada and say they are looking to expand this elsewhere.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Will the Epping hotel riots spark another summer of unrest?
After an asylum seeker staying at a hotel in Epping was charged with sexual assault, the past two weeks have brought a series of escalating and violent demonstrations from local residents and far-right agitators. On Sunday came the most serious unrest yet, with about 1,000 people gathering outside the hotel, escalating into what local police called 'mindless thuggery'. Ben Quinn, a senior reporter at the Guardian, was at the scene and describes to Helen Pidd how the Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, reacted at a press conference the next day: Farage: Do I understand how people in Epping feel? You bet your life I do. Nick Lowles, the chief executive of the anti-racism organisation Hope Not Hate, says Epping has been a hotbed of far-right activity for years. He describes how the recent demonstrations have drawn nationalist activists from around the country but says that, despite that fact, local anger should not be ignored. Lowles believes that listening to residents and offering them a better future is the best way to counter the racist and violent narratives increasingly entering the mainstream. Support the Guardian today:
