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

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


Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Reform's bacon and egg offensive to woo business
Reform UK's deputy leader Richard Tice is conducting a 'bacon and eggs' charm offensive to woo British businesses ahead of the next election. Tice told The Mail on Sunday that he and other senior party figures, including leader Nigel Farage, had been meeting 'dozens and dozens and dozens' of bosses for breakfast meetings. He said they included chief executives, finance chiefs, chairmen and top lobbyists at FTSE 100 and FTSE 250-listed firms, as well as those at private and foreign-owned companies. It echoes the 'smoked salmon and scrambled eggs' charm offensive by Labour ahead of the last General Election. Tice, pictured with Farage, said the 'penny dropped' for many firms about Reform's potential to form the next government after its landslide success in May's local elections and taking a 14-point lead in the latest national opinion poll. And he dismissed concerns raised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) about whether Reform's sums added up, dismissing the respected economic think-tank as 'the institute for feeble studies'. Tice said: 'Lots of companies recognise we are a serious contender to be the next government, whenever the election is. They are taking it seriously, so want to meet me and understand where we're coming from on a variety of big issues. 'Whether you want to call it the bacon and eggs offensive or whatever, a series of breakfasts and other meetings are going on, and it is going well, and we're doing quite a lot of it.' A well-placed City source who alerted The Mail on Sunday to the meetings suggested there was some scepticism among business leaders about Reform's plans. Firms contacted by this newspaper were tight-lipped over whether they had met Tice. One FTSE 100 director, who asked not to be named, said he had 'not seen him' as part of the drive, but had once bumped into the politician and 'couldn't find anything we could agree on'. However, Tice said the reaction had been positive, particularly relating to plans to scrap the net zero carbon climate goal. 'We understand the language of business,' he said. 'I was chief executive of a billion-pound multinational listed company. Nigel's a businessman. We understand what it takes to save the British economy. 'We are talking about our dead seriousness about scrapping net zero and that is greeted with almost universal joy on a private basis. Privately, they all admit it's bonkers, it's costing them a fortune, it's making them uncompetitive.' Tice said Reform had told oil and gas companies to prepare applications for drilling licences in the North Sea 'so they can be checked and pre-approved before an election and rubber-stamped within a matter of days' if Reform were to win. He added: 'We're not mucking about. We're very clear that things like net zero, ESG (environmental, social and governance) investing, DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) – it's all for the birds. It all goes and we will be pretty aggressive on that and anyone who tries to get in our way.' The IFS's analysis of Reform's tax-cutting plans found that raising an individual's annual tax threshold from £12,570 to £20,000 and other measures could cost up to £80 billion a year, and that the party's strategy involved large, unspecified cuts to public services. And Simon French, chief economist at investment bank Panmure Liberum, has warned that Britain could face an 'immediate and violent' sterling crisis if Farage wins power. But Tice dismissed these, calling the IFS estimate a 'back-of-the-fag-packet guess' saying: 'We expect the enemy to do that.' Asked whether business leaders were convinced by Reform's plans, Tice said: 'They get it.' He added that he and Farage were 'probably two of the most successful financial, economic, businesslike MPs they've ever met'.


Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Boom time for Barrow as Naval orders flood in
HMS Agamemnon sits in the open dock as workers add finishing touches to the latest Astute Class submarine to roll off production lines at Barrow-in-Furness. Completion of the sixth of a seven-boat order begun in 2001 might, in years gone by, have been followed by the town's shipyard facing a contract drought and winding down. But its fortunes are now different – with a full order book for decades to come, bringing investment and prosperity to an isolated corner of Cumbria. Rising fears of global conflict mean billions of pounds of orders from the Royal Navy for shipyard owner BAE Systems. Four Dreadnought submarines will eventually replace the Vanguard class vessels that carry Britain's Trident nuclear weapons. The Government has also placed an order for up to 12 nuclear-powered Aukus attack submarines. As a result, BAE is upping its workforce at Barrow-in-Furness from 11,000 to 17,000 – on a par with the shipyard's historic peak – and is near-trebling its apprenticeship programme to 1,000. And a £220 million investment in infrastructure over the next ten years, awarded by Rishi Sunak's government, is seeing benefits with improvements to the A595, Barrow's link to the M6. Barrow's population of 67,000 has grown for the first time in nearly 40 years, with newcomers attracted by the stunning coastline and Lake District. On a recent visit accompanied by Defence Secretary John Healey, Prime Minister Keir Starmer described its renaissance as a 'blueprint for the nation'. Leading BAE's training at its £25 million submarine Academy For Skills And Knowledge, which opened in 2018, is Jim Perks. The former submarine captain said: 'We've known for years the Government's requirement for submarines is growing. We needed to increase our workforce dramatically, increase the size of the yard and improve the supply chain.' He said the company adopted a 'grow your own' approach, recruiting via the academy, which is expanding with a high-tech training hub in the Debenhams store, which closed in 2021. Perks said the hub would allow apprentices to learn techniques on simulators so they can be 'up to speed' before joining teams on real boats. Recruits are a 60:40 split of trade versus degree apprentices, and demand is high with 4,000 applicants in 2024 and 6,000 this year. While there is a tradition of generations of Barrow families working at the shipyard, Perks, who is also recruiting more women, said: 'Some of the most complex machines in the world are made here by Barrovians, but we want to look further afield too.' Carrie, 20, a trainee electrician following in her father's footsteps, said: 'I wanted a hands-on job and was always interested in engineering and carrying on the tradition.' Olivia, 19, training to be a joiner, said: 'I think it's good for the town as there's not been too much to offer around here. It's particularly helpful for young people. It's a good start in life with job security.' Local traders are starting to see an upturn after years of decline. Ashley Holroyd, 33, owner of Coffee D'Ash, opened a branch next to the hub last year having previously sold his drinks from a trailer. He now employs eight staff, and said: 'I came to Barrow in 2017 when the shops were closing and footfall was close to dead.' Pointing to the smartened-up town centre, he added that it now 'feels like a town on the up'. BAE's investment in Barrow is mirrored on the Clyde in Glasgow, where it is building eight Royal Navy Type 26 destroyers. The firm has invested £12 million in an academy – opened by Princess Anne in April – to train 300 recruits annually for the sites at Govan and Scotstoun. Referring to the threat posed by Russia, vice-admiral Sir Simon Lister, managing director of BAE's Navy Ships business, who spent over 40 years in the Royal Navy and was briefly British Naval attache in Moscow, said: 'Over 48 years in the Armed Forces and in the military and defence industry, I'd say this is the most tense and challenging time for us all.' BAE has also invested £300 million in production facilities at Glasgow to cut the time it takes to build each £1 billion destroyer by a third, from 98 months to 66. This includes opening a giant shipbuilding hall, allowing two warships to be assembled at once under cover rather than being built in sections before being joined together under scaffolding. Among apprentices at BAE's Glasgow academy is Anna, 30. She said almost 'every male member of my family' had worked in the yards or on ships. She added: 'My dad served in the Royal Navy, my grandad was in the Royal Naval Reserve and my great grandad, Edward McKnight, was a chief engineer for the Royal Navy. I'm following in my family's footsteps.'


The Sun
6 minutes ago
- The Sun
Sir Keir Starmer will meet Donald Trump at his Scottish golf course to discuss how to end starvation of kids in Gaza
SIR Keir Starmer will meet Donald Trump at his Scottish golf course tomorrow — to discuss how to end the starvation of kids in Gaza. The US President teed off his five-day visit with a round at his Turnberry resort, accompanied by a massive security team. 6 6 6 The PM will fly up to see him tomorrow to hold wide-ranging talks — and could raise calls to recognise an independent Palestinian state. The pair will discuss the suffering of people in Gaza and how to get aid and food trucks back into the region. Sir Keir will also press Mr Trump on what can be done to restart Israel-Hamas ceasefire talks after their collapse late last week. The US and Israel withdrew their negotiating teams, with Trump claiming Hamas 'didn't really want to make a deal'. Sir Keir is under massive pressure from Labour MPs to follow France and immediately recognise Palestine as a state. But the PM has rejected the move and insisted it can only be done with allies as part of a concrete peace process. A No10 source said: 'Sir Keir and the President will cover a wide range of topics in Scotland, building on strong links between our nations. 'From putting more money in working people's pockets through the UK-US trade deal, to discussing steps to end the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, everything this government does is delivering security for the British people.' Britain is drawing up plans to airdrop aid into Gaza as the famine there worsens. Confirming the plan, the PM tweeted yesterday: 'Israel must allow aid in over land to end starvation in Gaza. The situation is desperate. First look at Donald Trump's armoured motorcade 'the Beast' as President whisked off to Turnberry 'We are working with Jordan to get aid in. And we are accelerating efforts to evacuate children who need critical medical assistance to the UK for treatment.' Yesterday, the PM spoke with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to discuss plans for a new peace process. After touching down on Friday, Mr Trump warned that mass immigration was 'killing Europe'. He added: 'You've got to stop this horrible invasion.' Some 5,000 cops from across the UK have been drafted in to watch over the course, beach and perimeter of Turnberry. 6 6 6 Police boats are patrolling the sea while officers on quad bikes keep an eye on the beach. And specialist firearms officers with high-powered sniper rifles look down on the course from a scaffold platform and the hotel roof. Mr Trump's armoured presidential car, The Beast, yesterday left the hotel at around 9.45am. He was then escorted around the course in his golf buggy by 24 others filled with staff and Secret Service agents. FOOD AIRDROP FEAR AN AID agency has labelled UK plans to airdrop food into besieged Gaza as a 'distraction and smokescreen'. The United Nations' Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA said the move would not reverse worsening starvation and could harm civilians in the crush to reach crates on the ground. Boss Philippe Lazzarini urged: 'Lift the siege, open the gates and guarantee safe movements and dignified access to people in need.' The UK government says it is working with Jordan on plans to airdrop aid and evacuate children needing medical assistance. On Friday, Gaza's health ministry, run by terrorist ruling party Hamas, claimed nine people had died in 24 hours from malnutrition. It said this brought the total killed by starvation since Israel's military action to 123, including 84 children. Israel said on Friday it will allow airdrops of aid by foreign countries into Gaza to alleviate starvation.