
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


Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Tory councillor's wife jailed for Southport riots tweet is set to be freed within weeks, close friend says
The wife of a Conservative councillor who was sentenced to two years in jail over a 'racist' tweet will be freed next month, a close friend has said. Lucy Connolly was imprisoned at HMP Drake Hall, Staffordshire after she pleaded guilty to a charge of inciting racial hatred following last summer's Southport riots. But now a friend of the mother and former childminder has shared a post to X saying Connolly will be 'with a glass of Whispering Angel in-hand' this time next month. The pal, who describes herself as a '"conspiracy" blonde', said: 'Missed a call whilst working today and not spoke to her for 2 weeks now... *HOWEVER* Happy to say that this time next month Lucy will be with a glass of Whispering Angel in-hand - And more importantly her family AT HOME.' She concluded the post with, 'What a year it's been...' Connolly was given a 31-month sentence in October after admitting to making her 'racist' post on X, formerly known as Twitter. The post, which she later deleted, said: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care... if that makes me racist so be it.' News of Connolly's scheduled release comes just two months after she lost an appeal to shorten her 31-month sentence. The post, which she later deleted, said: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care... if that makes me racist so be it' Connolly had told the Court of Appeal in London she 'never' intended to incite violence and did not realise pleading guilty would mean she accepted she had. But her argument was rejected. A number of public figures and politicians have spoken out since Connolly was handed her sentence claiming she is a victim of 'two-tier justice'. Connolly's husband, Raymond, a former West Northamptonshire Conservative councillor, said on the day she lost her appeal: 'Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood says she will release 40,000 prisoners, some of them dangerous men on tag. 'Lucy has not been allowed out on tag and she has been denied leave to see our child who is struggling. 'Today, the court had the opportunity to reduce her cruelly long and disproportionate sentence, but they refused. That feels like two-tier justice. 'The British people know all this is not right. They have given an amazing £81,000 so far to Lucy's crowd-funder. Despite today's upsetting setback, Lucy gets courage from everyone's kind support.' Mr Connolly had been a Tory West Northamptonshire district councillor but lost his seat in May. He remains on the town council. Lucy Connolly, of Northampton, was arrested on August 6, by which point she had deleted her social media account. But other messages which included other condemning remarks were uncovered by officers who seized her phone. Her X post was made just hours after killer Axel Rudakubana murdered three young girls and attempted to murder 10 others at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class on July 29, sparking nationwide unrest. The former childminder was sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court in October after pleading guilty to a charge of inciting racial hatred. The Southport atrocity sparked nationwide unrest, with several people - including Connolly - jailed as a result. Her tweet was viewed 310,000 times in three-and-a-half hours before she deleted it. She later pleaded guilty to distributing material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred at Birmingham Crown Court and was sentenced to 31 months in prison in October. But she told the Court of Appeal in May that she had no idea the full extent of what she was admitting, and that her solicitor Liam Muir had not properly explained what 'inciting violence' meant in the context of her tweet. It was only when the judge was speaking at her sentencing hearing that it fully dawned on her, she said when applying to have her prison term reduced. The case sparked international interest with the White House saying in May it was 'monitoring' Connolly's case. It came as US officials said they had 'concerns' about free speech in Britain. The Ministry of Justice has been contacted for comment.


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Rayner paying thousands more of taxpayers' money to trade union reps
The taxpayer-funded cost of trade union activities in Angela Rayner's department has increased by tens of thousands of pounds in a single year. Documents published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) show that the cost of paying trade union reps rose by 57 per cent in the last financial year. Public and private sector employers are required to pay employees who moonlight as shop stewards 'facility time' – effectively additional paid time off – to complete their union duties. Ms Rayner, who has significantly expanded the power of the unions in private industry with her employment rights reforms, is also paying far more for the reps. The latest annual report for MHCLG shows the department paid £225,803 in facility time in the 2024-5 financial year, up from £143,527 under the Conservatives the previous year. Union reps have been entitled to paid time off to carry out their duties in Britain since 1975 under the Wilson government. Ms Rayner has increased the facility time that both public and private sector employers must pay in her employment rights bill, so the cost of the payments are set to rise again next year when it passes into law. The legislation will also force employers to pay the extra wages for 'equality representatives' in the workplace for the first time. James Cleverly, the shadow housing secretary, said: 'This boom in trade union time off on Angela Rayner's watch is a shocking waste of taxpayers' money. 'Yet again prioritising trade union trots over taxpayers shows [Ms] Rayner is still in hock to her union pals. 'Whether it's this, the employment bill or no-strings-attached payouts, Labour must stop putting the interests of unions who bankroll the party ahead of the national interest.' Research by the Taxpayers' Alliance last year found there were 23,592 public sector workers moonlighting as trade union reps in 2023 – the second highest number on record. The total cost of the payments to the taxpayer was almost £100m. An MHCLG spokesman explained the extra cost of facility time in Ms Rayner's department by arguing that salaries for civil servants had increased in line with inflation. But the increase of 57 per cent cannot be explained by inflation alone. Other departments, including the Foreign Office, have seen almost no change in their bill for facility time in the last year. Ms Rayner, a former union rep on Stockport council, has long had close ties to Unison, where she also once worked as an official. However, the Left-wing Unite the Union voted to suspend her earlier this month, over her reluctance to support striking bin workers in Birmingham. Sources close to Ms Rayner said she had already cancelled her membership, and that she believed the workers should accept a pay offer by Birmingham city council. A spokesman for the MHCLG said: 'These figures represent less than 0.1 per cent of our total pay bill and have increased for reasons including annual salary uplifts for staff in line with civil service pay guidance. 'Trade union representatives have a legal right to be given time off to undertake their duties, and they bring benefits to workplaces and the economy. We continue to support staff to do this as part of our commitment to supporting workers' rights.'

ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Rise in foreign states silencing dissidents in UK going 'unchecked', MPs warn
Foreign states are becoming bolder in their attempts to silence dissidents in the UK and the government must take stronger action, parliamentarians have warned. In a report published on Wednesday, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said transnational repression had increased in recent years, with foreign states using online harassment, lawsuits and physical violence to intimidate people in the UK. MI5 investigations into threats from other states have increased 48% since 2022, the report said, while committee chairman Lord David Alton warned the rise was 'going unchecked'. He said: 'This risks undermining the UK's ability to protect the human rights of its citizens and those who have sought safety within its borders. 'We have seen prominent cases of Hong Kongers with bounties placed on their heads, Iran intimidating journalists – but evidence submitted to the inquiry suggest this may be the tip of the iceberg.' The warning comes amid rising concern about transnational repression, including reports that China has offered rewards for people turning in pro-democracy Hong Kong activists based in the UK. Last month, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee warned that Iran had attempted to kidnap or murder at least 15 UK-based people since 2022. Meanwhile Russia has also targeted dissidents including the attempt to kill Sergei and Yulia Skripal with Novichok in 2018. While the cross-party human rights committee said China, Russia and Iran were the 'most flagrant' perpetrators of transnational repression in the UK, it highlighted evidence suggesting a string of other countries including India, Rwanda, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain had sought to target people in Britain. MPs and peers said they had also received 'substantial' evidence of intimidation by the Eritrean government, including surveillance of anti-government activists and infiltration of community groups and churches in an effort to isolate opponents of the regime. The committee went on to criticise Interpol, saying the organisation had refused to acknowledge misuse of 'red notices' – international requests for an arrest – to harass dissidents or take any steps to address this. Almost half of the 6,550 public red notices currently in circulation have been issued at Russia's request. Lord Alton said: 'We want to see a two-pronged approach from the government. More needs to be done to give support and protection to the individuals and communities most at risk of transnational repression. 'We also want to see transnational repression prioritised in diplomatic relations and leadership at an international level to tackle the misuse and exploitation of systems of justice to silence and intimidate.' As well as pressing Interpol for action on abuse of red notices, the committee urged the government to provide more training on transnational repression for police officers in the UK and greater protection from vexatious lawsuits known as Slapps (strategic lawsuits against public participation). The committee also called for China to be placed in the highest tier of the foreign influence registration scheme that came into effect last month, saying its omission risked 'undermining the credibility and coherence' of the scheme given the extent of Chinese transnational repression. An Interpol spokesperson said: 'Every year, thousands of the world's most serious criminals are arrested thanks to Interpol's systems. "Children are saved from sexual exploitation and terrorists, cyber criminals and traffickers are brought to justice. 'Interpol knows red notices are powerful tools for law enforcement co-operation, which is why we have robust processes for ensuring that all Interpol notices and diffusions comply with our rules. 'Our constitution forbids Interpol from undertaking activities of a political, military, religious or racial character and all our databases and activities must also comply with the universal declaration for human rights.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We take the threat of transnational repression extremely seriously. "Any attempts by a foreign state to coerce, intimidate, harass, or harm individuals on UK soil are considered a threat to our national security and sovereignty, and will not be tolerated. 'The committee's review echoes many of the same findings and recommendations from the Defending Democracy Taskforce report on TNR, published in May, and we are already taking action arising from those recommendations to further strengthen our response.'