logo
My court fight to lift superinjunction and expose government's secret failings

My court fight to lift superinjunction and expose government's secret failings

Independent15-07-2025
It was in the bowels of the Ministry of Defence building in Whitehall that I was handed a piece of paper by a government lawyer, to read in silence, that would put me at the heart of a nearly two-year legal battle in Britain's High Court – a battle involving a major data breach, secret government operations and the most unprecedented legal order ever imposed on the British press.
I had been brought to the MoD building, on Friday 8 December 2023, by a story I was investigating. Since the botched evacuation of Kabul in August 2021, I had extensively covered the government's attempts – and failures – to bring Afghan soldiers who fought alongside Britain, and were desperately trying to escape the clutches of the Taliban, to the UK.
I had revealed stories about those who had worked for the UK but had been told their links were not strong enough to make them eligible for Arap or ACRS, two resettlement schemes set up by Britain for at-risk Afghans. But now something curious was happening – some of those previously refused sanctuary were receiving emails from the MoD, telling them they were in fact eligible to be relocated to the UK.
After approaching the government, I was summoned to the MoD main building for a briefing. There, I was put through a security screening and led to a meeting room where I was promptly served with an order. The order warned that, if I disobeyed it, I could end up in jail.
I was then handed a brief revealing my story was one piece of a top secret puzzle that no one in the world – not even my editors, at that point – was allowed to know about.
In that moment, the magnitude of what was happening began to dawn on me. The confidential note revealed a dataset of 'a very significant number of names and personal details' of Arap applicants was now in the hands of 'at least one unauthorised third party'. Extracts from the dataset had also been published on Facebook.
The MoD believed the Taliban were unaware of the breach, but that it would be 'highly likely' they could obtain a copy of the data if anything were published about it – with catastrophic consequences. Essentially, those who had been named on the list faced serious harm, or even death, if news of the leak got out.
It appeared some Afghans were suddenly being offered sanctuary in the UK because the government was scrambling to make good on the error. But even those selected for evacuation could not be told why, or that they were at risk, because a judge had granted a superinjunction, banning anything about the information being shared or spoken about. Not only that, but the very existence of the order had to remain secret – and I was only one of a handful of people who knew about it.
Superinjunctions, known colloquially as gagging orders, came to prominence in the late 2000s, most notably over the private lives of celebrities. But while parties in those cases had to be formally injuncted, High Court judge Mr Justice Knowles, in this case, used an unprecedented 'contra mundum' superinjunction. Contra mundum – 'against the world' in Latin – means a person could be found in contempt of court if they shared any information about the injunction, whether or not they are involved in the case.
This was believed to be the first superinjunction of this kind ever granted and the first brought by the government against the British press. In every respect, the situation was truly unprecedented. And that was just the beginning.
Legal battle begins
An imposing Gothic building on the Strand, the Royal Courts of Justice, where the High Court sits, was somewhere I was very familiar with. It can sometimes be the centre of celebrity scandal, as it was for the Wagatha Christie trial, but it also deals with technical cases against government departments or complex financial disputes.
One of its most prominent court rooms, court 27, sits just across from the press room – one of two, along with court 72, used to hear top secret cases.
It was in these two rooms that the extraordinary case would unfold over almost two years,involving more than 20 hearings and more than 1,000 pages of legal submissions.
In an early hearing on 18 December 2023, I was among a dozen or so people in the courtroom including the judge, MoD legal representatives, two lawyers and a team of three from Global Media. By the time the case drew to a conclusion this month, proceedings had become a circus of the most expensive lawyers and barristers that taxpayers' money can buy, as well as half of Fleet Street.
On that first day, I was there as a journalist to observe. The government had insisted that secrecy was vital while it came up with a plan to evacuate the Afghans at risk and the media had not yet decided to challenge the decision.
But this also meant the government was facing very little scrutiny over the number of people they were helping, the intelligence assessments they were relying on or the money they would be spending – except from the questions of the High Court judge.
By the next hearing on 22 January 2024, amid questions over the lack of transparency around the process, Global Media and The Independent had applied to formally challenge the injunction, with The Times and Associated Newspapers, which owns the Daily Mail, soon joining in the case as defendants.
At a hearing in February, as part of our case, journalists addressed Justice Chamberlain. I told him I had been focusing my reporting on the fate of former Afghan special forces commandos who had been left behind by Britain after serving alongside UK troops. I knew from my investigations that the MoD had made widespread errors in processing their resettlement applications, leaving many facing extreme danger, and I had no confidence that they could successfully operate a new secret evacuation scheme.
I explained this cohort was already in hiding because the Taliban knew who they were and were hunting them down. I explained their need for compensation to help them financially – something I did not think they would have a chance of getting in secret – and went through the already numerous examples in the MoD's evidence that knowledge of a data leak had spread, making attempts to keep it secret futile.
I pointed out that only around 150 Afghan applicants whose data had been breached had at this point been selected for relocation, representing less than one per cent of the affected cohort and meaning thousands more were at risk.
I also raised what would become a running theme throughout the case – the failure of the MoD to do any investigation into claims that contradicted their assessments.
Lewis Goodall from Global Media raised concerns about the huge implications this injunction was having on freedom of expression and the inability to publicly scrutinise any MoD decisions, let alone the glacial pace it was going at – the protection of a superinjunction offering no incentive for them to move any faster.
For the next 18 months, in the absence of any public scrutiny or the involvement of parliament, the only people able to hold the government to account were us journalists inside the closed hearings, our legal teams, the judge, and two special advocates - security-cleared lawyers appointed to represent the interests of a party in closed proceedings.
We were under the highest possible restrictions imaginable – unable to ask any sources, experts or Afghans themselves about anything covered by the injunction.
The secret court hearings were split into two layers of secrecy – 'private' hearings, that journalists who had been injuncted were allowed to attend, and 'closed' hearings, which we weren't.
In these 'closed' hearings, the special advocates would hear the evidence the MoD didn't want to share with us due to national security fears and try to scrutinise it on our behalf. We could send them information, but they could only communicate with us if the government approved the email – making it much more restrictive than a normal client-lawyer relationship.
We were also blocked from having the answers to even the most basic questions. How would you even know whether or not the Taliban found out about the data leak? Sorry – that can only be answered in 'closed', government officials told us. When does the government plan on the evacuation scheme ending? Sorry – that, too, can only be answered in 'closed'.
Significantly, the majority of the intelligence assessments on which the whole case rested – including the risk to Afghans from the Taliban – were also only known in 'closed'.
One key way in which officials were trying to assess whether the Taliban had the dataset was to track the number of reprisals being carried out by the extremists against those named on the list.
As I know from trying to document reprisals myself, this is incredibly difficult to assess, with many deaths and examples of reprisals going unreported because families live in fear of information being shared publicly.
The MoD also maintained it could not investigate whether its own intelligence assessments were correct, because officials claimed that would in itself risk alerting the Taliban to the dataset and undermine the superinjunction. The evidence (or lack of it) backing up the central claims at the heart of this unprecedented superinjunction was – and always will be – hidden.
The Treasury Devil
By May 2024, Mr Justice Chamberlain came to the view that the superinjunction could no longer stand because it relied on intelligence assessments that were themselves 'caveated' and 'contained a number of imponderables'.
Even if the injunction was helping the smaller number the MoD wanted to evacuate, it was preventing the rest of the affected Afghans from knowing their data had been breached and enabling them to take steps to help themselves, he said.
He added that the 'sheer scale of the decision-making', and the five or six years the MoD was estimating the evacuation could take, also made further secrecy difficult to maintain.
By this point, as questions grew over the MoD's legal arguments, so too did the cohort of expensive lawyers on the government side. Their trump card was Sir James Eadie, who in the role of 'Treasury Devil' represents the government on its most important cases, such as the legal bid to find the Rwanda scheme unlawful and opposing Prince Harry's battle with the government over his security.
At the Court of Appeal in June 2024, Sir James appealed the High Court ruling, asking for the order to be reinstated.
The three Court of Appeal judges – Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Singh and Lord Justice Warby – agreed, and the case was sent back to the High Court, superinjunction intact.
The truth prevails
Over the next year, several more legal hearings were held in private as the government orchestrated a cover story about why they were suddenly bringing thousands of Afghans to the UK. Meanwhile, the number of journalists put under the injunction grew as the information protected by it spread.
It was clear the government's secret scheme was starting to unravel.
Under pressure to justify the basis of the superinjunction, a review was commissioned in January this year which interrogated how many people were truly at risk due to the breach – three years after the initial leak.
Carried out by a retired civil servant, it was a pivotal point in the case and undermined the very premise on which much of the government's arguments and actions had been based. It found that, while extra-judicial killings and other targeting against former Afghan officials do occur, 'it appears unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting'.
'Should the Taliban wish to target individuals, the wealth of data inherited from the former government would already enable them to do so,' it continued. The report also concluded that while knowledge of a data leak has spread somewhat, the actual database 'has not spread as widely or as rapidly as was initially feared'.
But in what was perhaps the most extraordinary conclusion, the review found that the establishment of a bespoke government evacuation scheme, as well as the use of an unprecedented superinjunction, may have 'inadvertently added more value to the dataset'. In all its secrecy, the government may in fact have made the data leak more tempting to those it was trying to avoid noticing it.
After the review was published in June, the MoD decided time was up.
Today, after 683 days of secrecy spanning two governments, in courtroom 4 of the Royal Courts of Justice, the case made its first appearance in open court as Mr Justice Chamberlain made the decision to lift the order. He said the conclusions of the review 'fundamentally undermine the evidential basis' on which the injunction, and the decisions to maintain it, have relied.
He also raised questions over key differences between the review and the government's case, saying the new report's assessments were 'very different' from those on which the superinjunction 'was sought and granted'.
Having caved in their bid to maintain the superinjunction, the government has now brought another contra mundum injunction against the press over what can be said about the contents of the dataset – adding yet more secrecy to nearly two years of private hearings. However this time, the press can report on the further gagging order.
Mr Justice Chamberlain said it is for others to decide whether the superinjunction should have been kept in place based on inherently uncertain defence intelligence assessments. Far earlier in the case, in a judgement from November 2023, he warned: 'The grant of a superinjunction to the government is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship. This is corrosive of the public's trust in government… the grant of a superinjunction has the effect of completely shutting down these mechanisms of accountability, at least while the injunction is in force.'
Finally, the extraordinary story is out in the open – and the government can be held accountable.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

PM suggests UK will play role in Gaza aid airdrops amid mounting calls for Palestinian statehood
PM suggests UK will play role in Gaza aid airdrops amid mounting calls for Palestinian statehood

ITV News

time14 minutes ago

  • ITV News

PM suggests UK will play role in Gaza aid airdrops amid mounting calls for Palestinian statehood

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has suggested the UK will play a role in dropping aid into Gaza by air, as he faces calls from 221 cross-party MPs to recognise a Palestinian state. Israel said on Friday it will allow airdrops of aid by foreign countries into Gaza to alleviate starvation in the Palestinian territory. Starmer said the UK will 'do everything we can to get aid in via this route'. Meanwhile, he faces growing calls to recognise a Palestinian state immediately. Some 221 MPs from Labour, the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru, SDLP and independents, have signed a letter calling on the government to take the step at a UN meeting next week. France's president Emmanuel Macron announced his nation would formally recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September, leading UK politicians to question whether the British government would follow suit. US President Donald Trump suggested Macron's announcement 'doesn't matter' as he left America for a visit to Scotland. But Sarah Champion, the senior Labour MP who organised the letter by parliamentarians, said recognition 'would send a powerful symbolic message that we support the rights of the Palestinian people'. Other senior Commons figures who signed the letter include Labour select committee chairs Liam Byrne, Dame Emily Thornberry and Ruth Cadbury. Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey, as well as Tory former minister Kit Malthouse, and Sir Edward Leigh – Parliament's longest-serving MP – also signed it. The majority of those who have signed, 131, are Labour MPs. In a video statement released on Friday, Starmer made plain his desire for a ceasefire in the war. He said: 'I know the British people are sickened by what is happening. The images of starvation and desperation are utterly horrifying. 'The denial of aid to children and babies is completely unjustifiable, just as the continued captivity of hostages is completely unjustifiable.' Signalling the UK is willing to help get aid into Gaza via air, the prime minister added: 'News that Israel will allow countries to airdrop aid into Gaza has come far too late, but we will do everything we can to get aid in via this route. 'We are already working urgently with the Jordanian authorities to get British aid on to planes and into Gaza.' Children who need specialist medical treatment will be evacuated from Gaza to the UK, Starmer added. He also called for an international coalition to 'end the suffering' in Gaza, similar to the coalition of the willing aimed at helping Ukraine. Starmer had earlier responded to calls for the recognition of a Palestinian state, insisting such a move needed to be part of the 'pathway' to peace in the Middle East, which he and allies are working towards. He added: 'Recognition of a Palestinian state has to be one of those steps. I am unequivocal about that. But it must be part of a wider plan which ultimately results in a two-state solution and lasting security for Palestinians and Israelis.' In a statement released on Friday alongside the leaders of France and Germany, the prime minister urged Israel to stop restricting the flow of aid into Gaza. Charities operating in Gaza have said Israel's blockade and ongoing military offensive are pushing people there towards starvation, warning that they are seeing their own workers and Palestinians 'waste away'. The prime minister will meet the US president during his trip to Scotland, where he arrived on Friday evening. US-led peace talks in Qatar were cut short on Thursday, with Washington's special envoy Steve Witkoff accusing Hamas of a 'lack of desire to reach a ceasefire'. The deal under discussion is expected to include a 60-day ceasefire in which Hamas would release 10 living hostages and the remains of 18 others in phases in exchange for Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.

Dear Keir Starmer, stop cosying up to Donald Trump – or he'll drag Britain down with him
Dear Keir Starmer, stop cosying up to Donald Trump – or he'll drag Britain down with him

The Guardian

time36 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Dear Keir Starmer, stop cosying up to Donald Trump – or he'll drag Britain down with him

Donald Trump's victory in last November's US presidential election presented Keir Starmer, Britain's Labour prime minister, with a choice – and an opportunity. Either cosy up to a man whose obnoxious, hard-right, ultra-nationalist policies are inimical to UK security and foreign policy interests, economic prosperity and democratic values; or risk a rupture with the US, a longstanding but overbearing ally, and seize the moment to redefine Britain's place in the world, primarily through reintegration in Europe. Starmer made the wrong call – and Britain has paid a heavy price ever since. The cost to national dignity and the public purse will be on painful show this weekend as Trump, pursued by the Epstein scandal and angry protesters, makes an expensively policed, ostensibly private visit to his golf courses in Scotland. On Monday, the prime minister will travel north to kiss the ring. More humiliations loom. In September, Trump will return for an unprecedented second state visit, at Starmer's unctuous behest. At that point, the full, embarrassing extent of Britain's thraldom will be there for all the world to see. Let's be clear. Trump is no friend of Britain's and is, in key respects, a dangerous foe. Efforts to curry favour with this narcissist will ultimately prove futile. Trump always reneges. His unedifying career is littered with broken promises and relationships, personal and political. His only loyalty is to himself. Right now, this wannabe dictator is busy making America not greater but weaker, poorer, less influential and more disliked. Don't let him drag Britain down, too. It's not too late to make the break. US leadership of the western democracies used to be taken for granted. Now it's a problem. Politicians in both Britain's main parties have difficulty accepting this shift. As so often, public opinion is ahead of them. Recent polling by the Pew Research Center found 62% of Britons have no confidence in Trump 'to do the right thing regarding world affairs'. Most of those surveyed in 24 countries viewed him as dangerous, arrogant and dishonest. Thanks to him, the US's international standing is in freefall. Giving Israel a free hand in Gaza is the most egregious example of how Trump's policies conflict with UK interests. Starmer's government has condemned the deliberate killing and starving of civilians. Among the 55% of Britons opposed to Israel's actions, 82% believe they amount to genocide, a YouGov poll found last month. A majority backs additional sanctions. Trump's support for forced relocations, opposition to a two-state solution and close collaboration with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli leader charged with war crimes, all contradict stated UK policy. Trump bears significant personal responsibility for what Starmer calls the 'unspeakable and indefensible' horror in Gaza. Starmer warned dramatically last month that the UK was in growing danger of military attack following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Britain and other Nato states have steadfastly supported Kyiv. Not so Trump. Since taking office, he has toadied to Vladimir Putin, vilified Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy, suspended military supplies and questioned Nato's future. Ignoring proliferation fears, Trump is simultaneously fuelling a nuclear arms race. Now the hapless Starmer has been panicked into buying US jets capable of carrying warheads and, it is claimed, has secretly allowed US-owned nukes back into the UK. This is not the Britain Labour voters want. Trump recently reversed himself on Ukraine, patched things up with Nato and criticised Putin. But he could change his mind again tomorrow. Oblivious to the glaring double standard, he congratulates himself meanwhile on 'obliterating' Iran's nuclear facilities – even though last month's illegal US bombing was only partly successful. Britain rightly favours negotiations with Tehran. It wasn't consulted. Trump's tariff wars pose a direct threat to the UK economy, jobs and living standards. Despite Starmer's deal mitigating their impact, 10% tariffs or higher remain on most US-bound exports. Trump's bullying of Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Panama and others over sovereignty, migration and trade feeds uncertainty. His irrational hostility to the EU may gratify the likes of Nigel Farage (and Putin). But endless rows between important allies do not serve Britain's interests. The advance of hard-right, nationalist-populist parties in Europe and, most recently, in Japan suggests the socially divisive, chauvinist agendas championed by Trump's Maga movement have widening international appeal. That augurs ill for democracy in Britain and the world generally. For the same reason, Trump's assaults on US constitutional rights, notably minority and gender rights, attacks on judges, universities and public institutions, and attempts to suppress independent media scrutiny are ominous. Such toxic behaviour is contagious. Trumpism is the new Covid. Britain needs inoculation. By slashing overseas aid, cutting public service broadcasters such as Voice of America, defunding and ostracising UN agencies, flouting international courts and pretending the climate emergency is illusory, Trump inflicts immense harm on the US's reputation, global influence and soft-power armoury. He is wrecking the rules-based order that Britain views as fundamental. It's a gift to China, Russia and authoritarians everywhere. As Pentagon spending rockets to $1tn annually, his crude message is unmistakeable: might makes right. Brute strength rules. Trump is a disaster for the west and all in the UK who respect progressive democratic values. His second term will evidently be more globally perilous, destructive and destabilising than his first. In support of universal principles established centuries before anyone heard of him, Britain should steer clear of this walking, talking catastrophe. Rather than hug Trump close, Starmer should keep him at arm's length for fear of infection. Don't go to Scotland to see him, Prime Minister. Don't waste your breath. Instead, start planning for the post-special-relationship era. Make the break. It's time. Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator

‘Dodgy guys who dress just like him': meet the team behind far-right activist Tommy Robinson
‘Dodgy guys who dress just like him': meet the team behind far-right activist Tommy Robinson

The Guardian

time40 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

‘Dodgy guys who dress just like him': meet the team behind far-right activist Tommy Robinson

The Tommy Robinson outriders were early to Epping. Wendell Daniel, a former Labour councillor who is now a film-maker for Robinson's Urban Scoop video platform, turned his microphone to a young woman on the edge of the protests in the Essex town. 'Look into that,' he said pointing to the camera. 'Talk to Tommy, tell him you want to see him coming down here.' 'Tommy,' she responded, 'I think you should definitely come down because you will help out the situation so much more.' Robinson, 42, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was quick to respond: 'Hear you loud & clear, I'm coming to Epping next Sunday ladies & bringing thousands more with me,' he said on X. The actor and rightwing activist Laurence Fox was coming along too, he added. For days, Epping has been the scene of demonstrations outside the town's Bell hotel after the charging of an Ethiopian asylum seeker – recently arrived on a small boat – with sexual assault against a local girl. With the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, and the Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, talking up the risk of the disorder spreading further, it had appeared the perfect opportunity for Robinson, with a so-called 'migrant hotel' providing the focus. Twenty-four hours later, Robinson appeared to have gone cold on the idea. It might not benefit him and it might not benefit Epping, he mused on camera. It might appear an awkward volte-face, but Lucy Brown, once a right-hand woman to Robinson, chronicling his every stunt and provocative comment for social media for two years, had seen it all before. It was, the 34-year-old suggested, an insight into both his frustrating tendency to act on instinct and a reliance on the colourful team behind him, an inner circle that includes the son of a Krays' gangster, the Canadian publisher of a far-right platform and a Sikh convicted of being part of a robbery in which a shop worker was threatened with having his throat slashed. 'He's very reactive,' Brown said of Robinson. 'It's often just what comes into his head. He's very quick to believe his own myth. It takes probably a bunch of messages from people saying, 'Don't do it'. And finally he has to begrudgingly say: 'Oh, maybe it's not a good idea'. 'He'll just rush in, straight away, whatever feels right at the time. He just does not think. Which is why he falls in [to] prison all the time, because he's always saying stuff that he shouldn't.' Brown was with Robinson at some of the key moments early in his rise, including escorting him to what would be a highly lucrative first meeting with Steve Bannon, the former chief strategist to Donald Trump. Bannon thought he was ex-army, a bemused Robinson disclosed to her at the time. Brown left Robinson's side after a bruising falling out, but suspects that his enthusiasm for Epping dulled when he was alerted by his entourage to appeals from leading figures in the local protests for him to stay away. Robinson may appear to be a one-man band, marshalling his significant following in the UK and a trans-national far-right community that is particularly strong in the US thanks to Bannon and Elon Musk. This week, Robinson sent out an email to followers to raise £106,000 to fund an upcoming demonstration, according to one recipient. In truth, the 42-year-old sits at the centre of an ecosystem of long-term acolytes and more recent hangers-on, who are key to facilitating what even his harshest critics will admit is a successful campaign to put himself at the heart of national debate. When Robinson judicially reviewed his 'detention in solitary confinement and treatment' at HMP Woodhill, where he was jailed for repeating false claims about a 15-year-old Syrian refugee in defiance of a court injunction, the judge ruled against him on the grounds that it was for his protection and he had enjoyed '80 social visits, not including those from family members'. On leaving prison, Robinson told a friendly podcaster that he had planned from his cell a 'Uniting the Kingdom' demonstration in London to be held on 13 September, all with the help of regular communication with his lieutenants. Who then is Team Tommy? Brown, who at one point moved to Bedfordshire to work more closely with Robinson, stopped working with him seven years ago, but the core around him has remained remarkably stable for at least a decade, according to Joe Mulhall, director of research at Hope Not Hate. On leaving HMP Woodhill, Robinson had words of thanks on the steps of the prison for Ezra Levant, the Canadian owner of Rebel Media, a social media platform similar to the better known Breitbart, for helping his family while he was in jail. Nine years ago, he had started paying Robinson £200 a video for Rebel. The platform generates revenue through donations from viewers and crowdfunding campaigns. Brown, who was the helping hand with the camera at the start of that relationship, said Robinson had become a big earner for the businessman. 'Ezra Levant is very important, definitely kind of like the show runner, and it's fascinating seeing him still around,' she said. 'He is the one that goes down to the court cases with [former Sun journalist] Dan Wootton and spins the story to make sure that everyone knows that Tommy's actually the victim, guys. He is perpetuating the Tommy myth despite seeing him up close and personal. But it is a business to him.' While it was with Levant that Robinson did his first interview after leaving jail, the second was on a podcast called The Dozen hosted by Liam Tuffs, son of Peter Gillett, a registered sex offender who was said by Reggie Kray to be his 'adoptive son'. Tuffs, who runs a security firm and has described his father as an 'animal' and 'narcissist', has interviewed figures such as Laurence Fox (in a episode entitled 'British Culture is under Attack') but he has also featured Adam Kelwick, the imam at the Abdullah Quilliam mosque in Liverpool (an episode entitled 'Death Cult or Peaceful Religion? Muslim Leader Quizzed over Radical Islam'). 'He's a friend of Tommy that now and again would go on stage and compere for him,' said Brown of Tuffs, who is regarded as a calming influence on Robinson, who has been diagnosed with ADHD. 'I've watched him sidle his way in. He likes to tell people that he helps Tommy get sober, but I'm not sure if we can trust that Tommy is sober, to be honest with you.' It was Tufts and Guramit Singh, a former leading member of the English Defence League (EDL), who was with Robinson at the Hawksmoor restaurant on London's Air Street last month when they were asked to leave because staff 'felt uncomfortable serving him'. Singh, from Nottingham, was sentenced in 2013 to seven years and three months in jail for his role in a robbery during which a shop assistant was pinned the ground and made threats to slash his throat if he did not hand over cash. There is a further tranche of Robinson devotees at Urban Scoop, the so-called 'independent journalism' website to which Robinson is a consultant. It was set up by Adam Geary, better known as 'Nem', and one of Robinson's closest advisers since the rough and ready days of the EDL. Robinson today emphasises the peacefulness of the protests he organises and the relationship with the police that he has sought to build. But Brown said that those who crossed him were well aware of his ruthlessness. In his biography, Tommy, the Hope Not Hate founder, Nick Lowles, reported how Robinson failed to visit his cousin, Kev Carroll, a former leader of the EDL, for six months when he was on remand after he was caught wielding a machete while standing on the bonnet of a car. 'I'm 52 years old and I've got nothing to show for it,' Carroll later wrote. 'You give Tom everything and he just wants more and more until you have nothing left to give. And then he doesn't want to know you.' Lowles recalled how Robinson doorstepped him at his home alongside 'self-confessed bomb-maker' Peter Keeley to accuse him of paying people to 'make up information about him'. His behaviour towards a female reporter at the Independent, after she investigated his finances, compelled her to apply for an interim stalking order. What, then, keeps people by Robinson's side? 'A lot of these guys around him seem to have the same kind of modus operandi of 'protect the source' – because I guess they'll probably make money as well from association with him', said Brown. 'Many of them have their own little YouTube channels, with varying degrees of success.' There was a darkness to her experience with Robinson, she said. She remembered 'the dodgy guys that look and dress just like him' and the drink and drugs binges. Her memoirs, The Hate Club, are expected to chronicle some of the sleazier moments in her time with him when she self-publishes next month. Robinson has admitted to past heavy drug use while denying claims that he used donations to buy cocaine and pay for the services of sex workers. But he has a charisma that lures people into his circle, said Brown, who is married to Sascha Bailey, the son of the photographer David Bailey. 'It's like being around Peter Pan or something,' she said. 'You just have to keep up the myth. You're either in or out. He wines and dines them all, you know. 'Come out. We'll go for drinks'. He schmoozes people, and he knows what they want. That's something I noticed when we were working together – he knows what people want to hear.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store