
What do the Afghan leaks tell us about state secrecy in Britain? We're entering a dangerous era
In attempting to remedy the impact of the leak, both Conservative and Labour governments will end up spending £850m. And thousands of Afghans and their families have been brought to the UK via a secret resettlement programme. These significant decisions made by multiple governments have never been publicly scrutinised. So how was this allowed to happen?
In discharging the superinjunction on Tuesday, Mr Justice Chamberlain acknowledged that this was an 'unprecedented case'. We are far more used to superinjunctions being granted in relation to celebrities than to protect state secrecy. Indeed, this was the first time that we know of that one was granted on the government's application and represents a step change in the means that it has to prevent the spread of potentially harmful or embarrassing information.
This was also the first superinjunction that we know of that was made contra mundum. This meant that it was an offence for anyone to speak publicly about the fact that there had been a data breach, the various and extensive efforts made to mitigate the harm of the breach, or that there were restrictions in place preventing the reporting of said breach.
The legal remedies open to the government of today, in the form of superinjunctions, are far more wide reaching than any available to previous governments. The deployment of a superinjunction in relation to matters of national security may well mark a new frontier in the executive's attempt to maintain state secrecy.
However, what has been clear throughout the various applications for extension of the superinjunction is that there was increasing judicial unease. Mr Justice Chamberlain considered in July 2024 that the superinjunction 'could no longer be maintained' – due, in part, to the inability for public scrutiny to take place and to the fact that those impacted by the list were denied the opportunity to benefit from public pressure on the government to do more for them. The court of appeal, however, said it would be wrong to lift the order, and so the superinjunction remained in place. This follows a path of the judiciary generally deferring to the state on matters of national security. However, this position can only be sustained when the state provides full and proper disclosure.
The original motivation for the superinjunction was to protect vulnerable Afghans' lives. What is certain is the leak of their details, at the very least, added to the risk they faced and it was right the government took action to protect them. But serious questions need to be asked about how the risk to them was examined throughout the years the superinjunction was in place – and whether withholding information from public scrutiny improved the situation of those involved.
It is of note that the reason for the superinjunction no longer being extended was largely due to a Whitehall review conducted by Paul Rimmer, a former deputy chief of defence intelligence. In essence, Rimmer stated that a person's presence on the leaked list was not a 'defining factor' in determining risk to an individual, rather it was an element of the risk posed to Afghans who had assisted the UK. Once this report was provided to the court, keeping the superinjunction in place was simply unsustainable. As a consequence, judicial tolerance for the government's position ran out.
Given the content of the government's own report, it could be argued that the state had a large part in bringing down its own superinjunction. Indeed, following Chamberlain's provisional view on 1 July 2025 that the superinjunction should be lifted, the government legal department confirmed that the defence secretary, John Healey, had decided to discontinue the secret Afghan resettlement scheme and applied to discharge the injunction.
It's concerning then that the decision over whether or not this unprecedented superinjunction was necessary was, seemingly, up to the government. The public interest can only be defended by robust judicial analysis based on the state providing the court with a full account of information. The deference granted to the state on matters of national security is predicated on full and proper disclosure. However, in the context of seemingly flexible government opinion, it is questionable whether such deference is warranted if the primary factor in determining such applications can change so readily.
This seems particularly true when superinjunctions as powerful as this one are exercised far past their sell-by date. If government opinion is a determining factor in applications such as these, one might reasonably question what happens if the government's opinion does not change. Could extensive powers, similar to this superinjunction, continue indefinitely, denying the media the opportunity to properly scrutinise important decision-making relating to highly sensitive political matters?
This unprecedented case raises the question of whether the state is being fair and above board in what it tells judges and whether there can be sufficient interrogation of the state's position regarding matters of national security. A question it will only become more urgent that we answer.
Theo Burges is a criminal barrister with a focus on national security laws at Red Lion Chambers, London
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Sun
26 minutes ago
- The Sun
Our political party system is shattering and Britain could soon become ungovernable
Days before the 2015 General Election, then Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted: 'Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband.' Given the decade since: six Prime Ministers, four elections, Brexit gridlock, a pandemic, a cost-of-living crisis, partygate and the mini-budget, many rightly wonder: if that was stability, how bad could chaos have been? 3 But at the time, Cameron's pitch worked, partly because many Brits feared Labour might end up governing in a three-party combo with the Lib Dems and SNP, with the late former Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond calling the shots. Unlike our neighbours on the Continent, we aren't used to coalitions and dislike the idea of smaller parties potentially holding the Government to ransom. Fast forward to 2025 and it looks like Brits might have to get used to coalitions. Our political map has been reshaped. Fewer than half the public now describe themselves as strong supporters of any one party. The days of being 'a Labour family' or voting for 'anything with a blue rosette' are over. Voters are now far more promiscuous, shopping around to see what they like best. 3 As recently as 2017, the two main parties took over 80 per cent of the vote. That plummeted to 57 per cent in last year's election, a post-war low and our polling suggests it's fallen further still since - just 43 per cent now say they'd vote Labour or Tory. Instead, voters are turning to new emerging parties on the right and left. Last year's General Election was the first time post-war that more than three parties each won over ten per cent of the vote, and more than four won over five per cent. Why is this happening? More in Common's latest report Shattered Britain delves into what's behind our growing fragmentation. Simply put - it finds the old dividing lines of left and right no longer cut it. New political fault lines are emerging. These include whether we can fix a country many feel is broken by improving our institutions or, as 38 per cent think, we need to 'burn them all down'; whether the answers to our problems are common sense or complex; whether diversity strengthens or erodes British identity; and crucially whether we trust mainstream news or prefer independent voices online. Just as our politics is fragmenting, so too is where we get our information with a knock on effect on politics, reducing the stranglehold the big two parties have in communicating with the public. 3 None of these divides map neatly onto our existing political landscape and our First Past the Post system is struggling to cope as these new fault lines scatter Britons votes across multiple parties. More in Common's latest MRP - a model for projecting what the next Parliament might look like, helps to show how this might all play out: it suggests an election tomorrow could deliver a political map we've never seen before. Reform UK would come first on 290 seats, Labour trailing on 126, Tories barely third on 81, the Liberal Democrats snapping at their heels on 73. With 325 seats needed for a majority, the likeliest outcome would be a Reform UK–Tory coalition. But how comfortable would the Conservatives be as junior partners to Farage's Party, given the bad blood between them? Even those headline numbers hide more turbulence beneath the surface. Nearly 100 seats could be won on under 30 per cent of the vote and small shifts could flip many of them. Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, voting for the first time at the next election, will make up just two to three per cent of the electorate, but in tight races, that could make all the difference. With only a modest Labour recovery from midterm blues and a Reform dip, we could end up with the only viable option being a five-party coalition: Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru. How's that for a stable Government? And that's before factoring in Jeremy Corbyn's newly announced party, which our polling suggests could take 10 per cent of the vote, further muddying our electoral waters. At this stage it's fair to ask will the next Parliament be ungovernable? Maybe, but we've been here before. In 2019, the Brexit Party was topping the polls, the Lib Dems surged, and the two main parties were barely registering a third of the vote. Come election day, Boris Johnson won a stonking majority. In the early 1980s, the SDP–Liberal Alliance looked set to reshape politics, only to fall back. Still, as Britain drifts into uncharted political waters and the two main parties continue to struggle, it might be wise to use our summer holidays on the Continent to pick up a few tips on coalition-building from our European neighbours. THE UK used to be known worldwide for its stable, two party political system. The choice was binary: Tory or Labour. Elections nearly always delivered a majority government. But all that could be about to change. Old party allegiances have shattered. Our political system has become fragmented. Nigel Farage and his Reform Party have redrawn the political map and decimated the Tory vote. On the Left, Labour are being challenged by the rise of the Greens and creation of Jeremy Corbyn's far-left party. But that begs the question: is Britain about to become ungovernable? We are not used to Coalition governments - but all the evidence suggests we are about to get one. Pollsters say the most likely outcome is a Reform Tory Coalition. But can we really imagine Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch in bed together - after they have spent five years at each other's throats? The alternative is a rainbow coalition of Labour, the Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, and Plaid Cymru. That's a dizzying mix. I doubt a government stuffed with so many different political personalities and policies would last five minutes - let alone five years. The result would surely be another snap election and yet more political turmoil? The next general election is still four years away and much can happen in that time. One thing is clear - voters are desperate for Britain to break out of its current quagmire. They want politicians who can actually get things done and aren't held to hostage by their backbenchers. It's why they gave Boris Johnson a majority to get Brexit done - and took it off him again when the Tories sank into civil war. It's why they handed Keir Starmer a landslide - then sent his poll ratings tumbling when he failed to come up with a big package of reforms. If the polls stay the same then it looks like Britain is heading for more political turbulence and a coalition. But who knows? Voters may decide to gamble big and hand Nigel Farage a majority next time. I wouldn't bet against it.


The Sun
26 minutes ago
- The Sun
Charming English town is getting new £42million train station that will reopen key link shut for over 60 years
A RURAL English town has been given the green light for a new £42million train station that will reopen a vital link. After more than 60 years without a railway station, Cullompton has been granted funding by the Department of Transport and HM Treasury. 2 2 The announcement is set to turbo-charge the economy of the Devon town and provide desperately needed transport links for locals and visitors. The funding will also help to support plans for a new station in Wellington. Cullompton station first opened in 1844 and closed in 1964. The reopening will be key to enabling the Culm Garden Village development, which will create around 5,000 homes. The new station will also be next to the motorway services at Junction 28 of the M5. Councillor Jacqi Hodgson, Devon County Council Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Biodiversity, said: 'Further investment in rail infrastructure in Devon is always welcome and this railway station for Cullompton is key to the town's economic growth and will help reduce carbon emissions in the county. "People need improved public transport options if they're going to be encouraged to change their travel habits. "Hopefully Cullompton could follow the success of Okehampton Station and the re-opening of the Dartmoor Line, which is a great example of what can be achieved given the necessary funding from government.' In April, a delegation of 30 people from the region travelled to London to hand-deliver powerful letters of support to rail minister Lord Hendy. Backed by a cross-party group of South West MPs and Wellington Town Council, the letters stressed how restoring rail links to both Okehampton and nearby Wellington could unlock major economic, social and environmental benefits. Lord Hendy said: 'The stations would contribute to sustainable development, connecting new residential areas with regional employment, education and healthcare opportunities. "The case for taking a combined approach presents significantly higher value for money compared with a stand-alone project in either area.' He added: 'Reopening Cullompton and Wellington stations would be a strategic investment aligning with the Government's goals to drive economic growth, reduce environmental impact and improve social mobility.' Economic growth Gideon Amos, who also backed the scheme, said: 'For the cost of around £42 million, £180 million of economic growth would go into the region — which I know the Government would want to see. 'Frankly, there is no other rail project in the south-west that is ready to go and could be built and completed in the next two years, as the project is so far advanced. 'In fact, had it not been for the review in July last year, the spades would be in the ground and the platforms under construction, because the contract was about to be let and the detailed design was almost finished.' And Labour MP Simon Lightwood added in the Commons: 'The strategic objectives are clear. "Enhancing public transport connectivity will support growth and productivity in Exeter, Taunton and Bridgwater, while also reducing road congestion, car dependency and carbon emissions. ' He continued: 'The stations would contribute to sustainable development, connecting new residential areas with regional employment, education and healthcare opportunities." This comes as satellite images of a new £15million train station at Okehampton were revealed. The station, which will be the newest addition to the Dartmoor Line, connecting West Devon, Torridge and North Cornwall with Exeter and beyond, will also benefit education and leisure services in the region. GWR Regional Growth Manager David Whiteway said the project would provide "valuable support for the community and local economies". Satellite images show the rapid development of the £15million scheme, which is being funded by the Department for Transport with contributions from Devon County Council and West Devon Borough Council. Since work began in January, major progress has been made to create the new station on the edge of Okehampton, two minutes from the A30. In March, 300 metres of the single-line track was moved 90cm north to allow a new platform to be built alongside it.


The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Labour should allow debate about racism
Jason Okundaye's insightful response to Diane Abbott's second suspension from the Labour party points to the 'cancellation' in the public sphere of a serious and necessary debate about racism and discrimination in British society (The Diane Abbott row shows how impoverished Britain's conversations about race have become, 18 July). His considerations begin with Channel 4's Devil's Advocate, in which Darcus Howe challenged Bernie Grant MP on his call for a 'voluntary repatriation' scheme for Black people in Britain. I was Channel 4's commissioning editor, co-conceiving the format and mission of Devil's Advocate. It set out to challenge Black nationalism, which Darcus spent his life opposing, in his dedication to the postcolonial development of multi-ethnic Britain. As Jason contends, Diane simply pointed to the fact that the racism the Black population of Britain faces through skin colour is different from the undoubted discrimination experienced by other communities. Her suspension is a mystery. Diane has in fact pointed to something that Labour needs to address urgently. What precisely is the distinction between anti-Netanyahu-Zionism and antisemitism? What precisely do Black youths on the streets being challenged by the police face that white youths don't? The work of the Darcus Howe Legacy Collective continues Darcus's championing of social justice, equality and representation to provide a framework for debate and understanding of current racial and social issues. Is the Labour government unable to recognise the distinctions, formulations and policies that should follow what Diane has so modestly pointed out? If Devil's Advocate were still broadcast today, we'd invite Diane and Keir Starmer to examine why pointing out an obvious truth entails suspension from the very party that keeps us from the disaster of the Tories and the death wish of Reform. Farrukh DhondyThe Darcus Howe Legacy Collective Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.