
Personal details of UK special forces and spies were included in Afghan data breach
Date: 16:37 BST
Title: Why the latest revelation was allowed to be reported
Content: Joel GunterReporting from the High Court
Very little was
said in court today that the public was allowed to hear – but what was said
paved the way for the dramatic revelation that current and former members of
the UK's special forces and security services were compromised by this leak.
The judge, Mr
Justice Chamberlain, told the court that the barristers for the Ministry of
Defence and for a group of media organisations had reached a compromise in a
closed-door hearing.
That meant that
the media organisations involved in the case – including The Mail, Global Media
and the Independent – could now report that sensitive British officials were in
the leak.
That revelation
had been prevented by an injunction issued earlier this week, but then Defence Secretary John Healey said in Parliament on Tuesday that a "small
number" of senior military officials, MPs and other government officials had
been affected.
Then on Wednesday
the Sun newspaper reported that special forces and spies were involved. It was
enough to push the group of media organisations in this case to request an
emergency hearing and ask the judge to lift the restrictions on them.
Update:
Date: 16:20 BST
Title: The data breach was much worse than we thought
Content: Joel GunterReporting from the High Court
It was already a huge scandal
earlier this week, when the country learned that the details of thousands of
Afghans at risk from the Taliban had been accidentally leaked by someone in UK
Special Forces headquarters, and a secret scheme had been set up to bring them
to the UK.
Today we can report that the
data breach was much worse than previously thought: it contained personal
details of more than 100 British officials including those whose identities are
most closely guarded – special forces and spies.
In the light of today's
revelations, it is no wonder that the British government obtained an
unprecedented super-injunction, a kind of gagging order that prevents the
reporting of even the existence of the injunction.
Taken together, the leak of
the personal information of both at-risk Afghans and some of the most sensitive
officials in the UK make this one of the worst security breaches in modern
British history.
Update:
Date: 16:05 BST
Title: Special forces' identities are tightly kept secrets
Content: Joel GunterReporting from the High Court
The security breach
was kept under wraps by an injunction until today, when the gagging order
was lifted in part by a High Court judge.
Details of more than 100 British officials were included in
the leaked data, which may have fallen into the hands of the Taliban.
The identities of
members of the UK's special forces regiments, including the SAS and SBS, and
the identities of people working in the security services are tightly kept
secrets.
The breach occurred
in February 2022, when a database was accidentally emailed outside of
government by an individual working at UK Special Forces headquarters in
London.
The database also
contained the personal information of
nearly 19,000 Afghans who had
worked with the British during the 20-year conflict in Afghanistan and had
applied to be resettled to the UK after the Taliban retook control in 2021.
Many of those who had applied were judged to be at risk of
serious harm or even death as the Taliban sought revenge against those who had
worked with the British government during the war.
Update:
Date: 15:59 BST
Title: More than 100 British people included in Afghan data leak
Content: The details of more than 100 British people - including spies and special forces - were included in a massive data leak that resulted in thousands of Afghans being secretly relocated to the UK.
This is a breaking story and we will bring you more information shortly - stay with us.
Hashtags

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


The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Two former traders have rate rigging convictions quashed at Supreme Court
Two financial market traders who were jailed for manipulating benchmark interest rates have had their convictions quashed at the Supreme Court. Former Citigroup and UBS trader Tom Hayes was found guilty of multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud over manipulating the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (Libor) between 2006 and 2010. Carlo Palombo, ex-vice president of euro rates at Barclays bank, was found guilty of conspiring with others to submit false or misleading Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) submissions between 2005 and 2009. The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from both men in March last year. They then took their cases to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the panel of five justices found there was 'ample evidence' for a jury to convict the two men had it been properly directed, but they had not. In an 82-page judgment, with which Supreme Court president Lord Reed, Lords Hodge and Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler agreed, Lord Leggatt said: 'That misdirection undermined the fairness of the trial.' The jury direction errors made both convictions unsafe, Lord Leggatt said. He added: 'Mr Hayes was entitled to have his defence to the allegation that he agreed to procure false submissions as well as his denial that he had acted dishonestly left fairly to the jury. 'He was deprived of that opportunity by directions which were legally inaccurate and unfair. 'It is not possible to say that, if the jury had been properly directed, they would have been bound to return verdicts of guilty. 'The convictions are therefore unsafe and cannot stand.' Mr Hayes was jailed for 14 years after his conviction in 2015, which was later lowered to 11 years after an appeal, while Mr Palombo was jailed for four years in 2019. Lord Leggatt continued: 'When the flaws in the directions given at Mr Palombo's trial are considered in combination, it cannot safely be assumed that, without them, the jury would still have been bound to convict Mr Palombo. 'Thus, his conviction also cannot stand.' He added: 'Accordingly, both appeals should be allowed.' The Libor rate was previously used as a reference point around the world for setting millions of pounds worth of financial deals, including car loans and mortgages. It was an interest rate average calculated from figures submitted by a panel of leading banks in London, with each one reporting what it would be charged were it to borrow from other institutions. Euribor was created along with the euro currency in 1999 as a benchmark rate of interest for transactions in euros. In 2012, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) began criminal investigations into traders it suspected of manipulating Libor and Euribor. Mr Hayes was the first person to be prosecuted by the SFO, who opposed his and Mr Palombo's appeals at the Supreme Court. The SFO brought prosecutions against 20 individuals between 2013 and 2019, seven of whom were convicted at trial, two pleaded guilty and 11 were acquitted. Mr Hayes had also been facing criminal charges in the United States but these were dismissed after two other men involved in a similar case had their convictions reversed in 2022.


The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Traders found guilty of rigging interest rates have convictions quashed by Supreme Court
Former financial market traders Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, who were found guilty of benchmark interest rate rigging, have had their convictions quashed at the Supreme Court. Former Citigroup and UBS trader Tom Hayes was found guilty of multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud over manipulating the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (Libor) between 2006 and 2010. Carlo Palombo, the ex-vice president of euro rates at Barclays bank, was found guilty of conspiring with others to submit false or misleading Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) submissions between 2005 and 2009. After the Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from both men in March 2024, they took their cases to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the panel of five justices found there was 'ample evidence' for a jury to convict the two men had it been properly directed – but they had not. In an 82-page judgment, with which Supreme Court president Lord Reed, Lords Hodge and Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler agreed, Lord Leggatt said: 'That misdirection undermined the fairness of the trial.' The jury direction errors made both convictions unsafe, Lord Leggatt said. He added: 'Mr Hayes was entitled to have his defence to the allegation that he agreed to procure false submissions as well as his denial that he had acted dishonestly left fairly to the jury. 'He was deprived of that opportunity by directions which were legally inaccurate and unfair. 'It is not possible to say that, if the jury had been properly directed, they would have been bound to return verdicts of guilty. 'The convictions are therefore unsafe and cannot stand.' Mr Hayes was jailed for 14 years after his conviction in 2015, which was later lowered to 11 years after an appeal, while Mr Palombo was jailed for four years in 2019. Lord Leggatt continued: 'When the flaws in the directions given at Mr Palombo's trial are considered in combination, it cannot safely be assumed that, without them, the jury would still have been bound to convict Mr Palombo. 'Thus, his conviction also cannot stand.' He added: 'Accordingly, both appeals should be allowed.' A spokesperson for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) said it would not be seeking a retrial. In a statement issued after the judgment, it said: 'Our investigation led to nine convictions of senior bankers for fraud offences, with two of these individuals pleading guilty and seven found guilty by juries. 'This judgment has determined that the legal directions given to the jury at the conclusion of trial were incorrect in Hayes' and Palombo's trials and for that reason their convictions have today been found unsafe. 'We have considered this judgment and the full circumstances carefully and determined it would not be in the public interest for us to seek a retrial.' The investigations The Libor rate was previously used as a reference point around the world for setting millions of pounds worth of financial deals, including car loans and mortgages. It was an interest rate average calculated from figures submitted by a panel of leading banks in London, with each one reporting what it would be charged were it to borrow from other institutions. Euribor was created along with the euro currency in 1999 as a benchmark rate of interest for transactions in euros. In 2012, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) began criminal investigations into traders it suspected of manipulating Libor and Euribor. Mr Hayes was the first person to be prosecuted by the SFO, which opposed his and Mr Palombo's appeals at the Supreme Court. The SFO brought prosecutions against 20 individuals between 2013 and 2019, seven of whom were convicted at trial, two pleaded guilty and 11 were acquitted. Mr Hayes had also been facing criminal charges in the United States but these were dismissed after two other men involved in a similar case had their convictions reversed in 2022.


The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
British families of Air India crash victims ‘received wrong bodies' in bungled repatriation
Grieving British families of the Air India crash victims have received the wrong bodies to bury in a bungled repatriation scheme. A lawyer acting for the bereaved said that the remains of several victims had been wrongly identified, with one family forced to abandon funeral plans after allegedly being told the coffin contained a different, unidentified body. Only one passenger survived when the Air India flight 171 lost power and crashed into a building, seconds after departing Ahmedabad for London Gatwick. Cockpit audio recovered from the flight recorders shows the plane's junior first officer, Clive Kunder, asking its captain, Sumeet Sabharwal, why he had flipped the switches, starving the engines of fuel, according to a number of international media reports citing sources in the investigation. Of the 261 passengers and crew members who died, 52 were Britons. James Healy-Pratt, a lawyer representing several British families, said that the remains of at least 12 British victims had been repatriated. He told the Daily Mail: 'I've been sitting down in the homes of these lovely British families over the last month, and the first thing they want is their loved ones back. But some of them have got the wrong remains and they are clearly distraught over this. 'It has been going on for a couple of weeks and I think these families deserve an explanation.' In another instance, it has been reported that the remains of more than one person were put into a single coffin, and had to be separated before the funeral. Many of those killed were buried or cremated shortly afterwards in line with Hindu, Muslim and other religious customs. Due to the nature of the crash, which saw temperatures reach 1,500C as a large fireball engulfed the area, many of the victims had been burnt beyond recognition. This meant that many families received their loved one's remains from the Civil Hospital in a plastic container, after being asked to supply DNA samples to help with the identification process. However, the mishandling of repatriations was only uncovered when Dr Fiona Wilcox, the senior coroner for inner west London, sought to verify their identities by matching them with DNA from their families. Mr Healy-Pratt continued: 'If [it] isn't their relative, the question is, who is it in that coffin? Presumably, it's another passenger, and their relatives have been given the wrong remains. 'The coroner also has a problem because she has an unidentified person in her jurisdiction.' As a result, Sir Keir Starmer is expected to raise concerns over the errors during a meeting with his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, during his state visit to the UK this week.