The spreadsheet, the superinjunction and the relocation scheme: Afghan data leak
That email contained the names and details of over 18,000 people who had applied for asylum under the Afghan resettlement scheme, many of whom would have been obvious targets for reprisals by the Taliban.
Since then, more and more people have come to find out about that leak, and yet the news remained secret until this week, protected by an extraordinary government superinjunction.
Now that the details of the leak and the subsequent secret resettlement scheme are public, questions are turning to who knew what, and when?
Military officers ask a soldier working out of special forces headquarters to help verify the names of people who were applying for asylum under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap).
The soldier sends a spreadsheet containing all 18,000 names to Afghan contacts in the UK, who then pass it on to others in Afghanistan. Officials say the soldier only intended to send 150 names for verification, and did not know the entire database was actually contained on the spreadsheet either in hidden rows or on a hidden tab.
The existence of the database, which had remained secret since it was sent, becomes public when one Afghan – who had apparently had their asylum claim refused – threatens on Facebook to release it.
Afghans on the Facebook group alert British contacts, one of whom then emails the then defence minister James Heappey and then shadow defence minister Luke Pollard to tell them of the possible security breach.
The Ministry of Defence then works with officials at the foreign office, MI6 and GCHQ to identify the source of the leak. Ministers from various departments meet in the Cobra briefing room along with Gwyn Jenkins, the director of special forces, to discuss their response.
Meanwhile Afghans contact David Williams, a journalist at the Daily Mail, to tell him about the story. Williams calls the MoD, who urge him to hold off publication until they can investigate further.
On Friday 25 August, Ben Wallace, the outgoing defence secretary, personally applies to the courts for an injunction to prevent the details becoming public. The injunction is supposed to last four months, giving the government time to airlift those affected out of Afghanistan and bring them to the UK.
Two days after Grant Shapps becomes defence secretary, the judge Robin Knowles not only grants the injunction, but upgrades it to a superinjunction, meaning that not only can the details of the leak not be reported, but neither can the injunction itself.
Officials decide to relocate an initial 150 people affected by the leak from Afghanistan to the UK under the new and top-secret Afghanistan Response Route. The total number to use that route will eventually grow to 6,900 by the time the Labour government shuts it down in July 2025.
Heappey briefs John Healey, then shadow defence secretary, about the leak and the response, at the same time making Healey subject to the superinjunction. Healey takes the legal threat so seriously he does not tell his party leader Keir Starmer about it.
Around this time the Speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle, is also made aware of what has happened.
The Afghanistan Response Route begins operating.
Judge Martin Chamberlain orders the removal of the superinjunction, but the decision is successfully appealed by the government.
Having entered government three months earlier, Labour ministers decide to redesign the secret resettlement programme and fold it into the public one.
The new government applies to have the superinjunction extended.
During the hearing, Chamberlain asks during the hearing how it can be possible for the government not to reveal the details of what has happened, given it now estimates the total cost of all the Afghan resettlement schemes could reach £7bn. Nevertheless, he grants the application.
Six months after winning the election, Labour decides to commission a review into what options it has for the secret resettlement scheme. It is to be led by Paul Rimmer, a retired civil servant, and report in 'late spring'. Once more, the government successfully applies to extend the superinjunction.
The government invites the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch to a briefing about the leak and the secret relocation scheme, but does not mark it urgent and she does not attend.
Rimmer files his report, finding 'little evidence of intent by the Taleban [sic] to conduct a campaign of retribution' against those named on the list.
The review adds: 'The actual data set (versus some knowledge of 'data' being lost) may not have spread nearly as widely as initially feared … We believe it is unlikely the dataset would be the single, or definitive, piece of information enabling or prompting the Taleban to act.'
The government now tells Badenoch it is 'urgent' that she is briefed on the situation, but a meeting does not happen until 14 July.
On the basis of the Rimmer report, Chamberlain says he is now minded to remove the injunction. Three days later, on 4 July, the government says it is ending the secret relocation scheme and will apply to remove the superinjunction.
Chamberlain orders the superinjunction to be withdrawn on 15 July at midday, giving the government time to contact anyone else affected and take protective measures if necessary.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
22 minutes ago
- The Sun
Labour's taken state spying of social media to whole new level – leaked emails read like their from dictatorship not UK
THE Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok has often aroused fears that personal data collected on its users could end up in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. What fewer people imagined was that our own Government would try to use TikTok in order to police speech in Britain. Yet that is exactly what has happened. 7 7 7 Leaked emails show that a shady branch of government known as the National Security Online Information Team has been leaning on TikTok to suppress content that is critical of official migration and criminal justice policy. On several occasions during the riots which followed the Southport murders a year ago, the unit approached TikTok requesting that it 'assess' some posts made by its users — effectively a crude instruction to suppress what they were saying. Legitimate debate Britain, like every other country, operates security services that spy on terrorists who are plotting atrocities as well as organisations involved in propagating serious public disorder. Were a government organisation to prevent a bomb attack which could have killed dozens of people, no one would be too bothered about how it had obtained the vital information. But the emails show activity which goes far beyond the demands of national security. In one case, officials drew TikTok's attention to a post that suggested a large number of migrants were 'undocumented fighting age males'. Another suggested that TikTok take a look at users who spread 'concerning narratives about the police and a two-tier system [of justice] '. I am sure the police and courts will defend themselves robustly against a charge of operating two-tier justice, but whether or not you think they are doing this, it is a perfectly legitimate area for public debate, just as is the question of whether ethnic minorities suffer disadvantage in the workplace, schools, hospitals and so on. Those who made online accusations of a disproportionate response by the police towards protesters, and who dubbed our Prime Minister 'two-tier Keir', had good reason for raising their concerns. Ten days before the Southport murders, the Harehills area of Leeds erupted into rioting after children from a Roma family were taken into care. Protesters descend on Canary Wharf migrant hotel as police surround building amid fears over 'summer of riots' Days later there was a machete fight on Southend seafront. Keir Starmer had little to say about those grim developments, yet went into overdrive when protesters took to the streets following the Southport riots. True, there were plenty of thugs among them, but to insinuate that all protesters were driven by nothing more than 'far-right hatred' was outrageous. I am not going to defend Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months for remarks she made in the wake of the Southport killings — her words read like a pretty clear incitement to violence even if she did not intend them to. But it is perfectly reasonable to question whether her punishment was consistent with the treatment handed out to extreme Islamist preachers and Irish Republican sympathisers. Take the Prevent programme, which was set up by the Blair government specifically to deal with the threat of Islamist terrorism in the wake of the 2005 Tube bombings. 7 7 7 Over time it seems to have become more concerned with the far right. Nineteen per cent of those reported to the programme in the year ending March 2024 were recorded as supporting a far right ideology, against only 13 per cent with Islamist ideology — in spite of the latter being responsible for far more terror attacks and killings than the former over the past two decades. For Government officials to try to stop us discussing these matters is something you might associate more with a dictatorship than with British democracy. We have a human rights lawyer as PM, but where is he when it comes to defending our long-held right to free expression? Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level To be fair to Starmer, it is not just his government that has been trying to silence its critics. The National Security Online Information Team was derived from a body set up during Covid to try to gag critics of vaccines and lockdown. The Online Safety Act, which places obligations on social media companies to police content — and which the Government has used to put pressure on TikTok and other companies — was the brainchild of the last Conservative government. Deep concerns Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level. Particularly disgraceful was Technology Secretary Peter Kyle's attempt this week to claim that Nigel Farage was on the side of Jimmy Savile for daring to criticise the Online Safety Act. To listen to Kyle you would think the act was about nothing other than age verification for users of online pornography (not that Savile used the internet to abuse his victims). There are many people, myself included, who support the age verification measures but who have deep concerns about the act's other provisions, in particular its demand that technologies companies act against anything that could fall under the vague definition of being 'harmful to children'. Even the day's news could be deemed harmful to children if it upsets their immature sensibilities. The trouble is that the Online Safety Act was pushed through on the back of emotional propaganda, with few people realising the dark and disturbing ways in which it could be used to silence any of us. We are belatedly realising that now. 7
Daily Mail
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Anti-migrant protesters face off with counter demonstrators in Southsea as disquiet grows over asylum seeker hotels across the UK
Anti-migrant demonstrators faced off against counter-protesters from Stand Up to Racism this evening outside a hotel on the south coast used to house asylum seekers. Protesters gathered outside the Royal Beach Hotel in Southsea, Hampshire, on August 1. Anti-migrant demonstrations have taken place across the South of England today, with locations including Portsmouth, Southampton and Bournemouth. More are expected across the UK this weekend as the topic of migrants continues to prove inflammatory.
BBC News
22 minutes ago
- BBC News
Italy plan to process migrants in Albania dealt blow by EU Court
A ruling by the EU's top court has dealt a further blow to Italy's attempts to create a fast-track system in Albania for processing asylum applications European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said that the way the Italian government currently defines whether a country is "safe" to return someone whose application is rejected contravenes EU "safe country" concept is central to the deal that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni struck with Albania in 2023 to send migrants intercepted at sea straight there for accelerated from a "safe country" who was refused asylum was supposed to be deported within a week. But the ECJ has ruled that a nation can only be included on the government's list if the entire population there is safe, which means Italy will have to revise its currently identifies Egypt and Bangladesh, for example, as safe, whilst accepting that certain groups there require protection. The ruling brought an angry reaction from the government in Rome which said the European court was overstepping its role, adding that the decision would weaken the ability of countries to "defend national borders".The European court also said that the government must make public any evidence and sources it uses in reaching its conclusions on safe countries, so that asylum seekers can challenge the decision in their cases."Today, the court makes clear that a country cannot be designated as safe unless it offers effective, generalised protection, for everyone and everywhere, and unless that claim can be independently verified and challenged," Katia Scannavini of ActionAid Italy explained."The so-called Albania model collapses at its legal core," she fate of Italy's Albania project is being watched closely by other governments including in the UK which are keen on handling asylum applications offshore as they try to reduce the number of irregular migrants arriving in their as the centrepiece of Meloni's tough approach to immigration, the Albania deal has hit legal obstacles from the very start. The handful of migrants who were sent there were all eventually returned to Italy after the intervention of times over budget, the centres that were built have never yet been used as intended. 'This puts significant halt to Albania plan' In its ruling, the European Court did not object in principle to a fast-track procedure for migrants from safe countries, but it made clear that the implementation of that policy must change."It's fundamental: the 'safe country of origin' concept can no longer be used to carry out transfers to Albania until Italian law is changed to be in line with EU legislation," Amnesty International migration researcher Adriana Tidona told the BBC."This puts a significant halt to Italy's plans in Albania."Amnesty, like others, considers the Albania deal a violation of human rights more fundamentally. "That isn't to do with the safe countries of origin, but with the fact that it's based on an automatic detention system," Adriana Tidona said. "That's unlawful."It is not clear what impact today's ruling may have on the new EU migration pact which enters into force next year and introduces a common list of safe countries for returns – including Egypt and the decision does make clear that the definition of safe countries does not ultimately lie with politicians."The court says it's the judge who has the power to make assessments about safe countries," Daniele Gallo, professor of EU law at Rome's Luiss University explains. "Whatever the government says, every judge in Italy now has a duty to set aside Italian legislation and apply EU law."
