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

Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi set to sign off on Britain-India trade deal
Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi set to sign off on Britain-India trade deal

South Wales Guardian

time13 minutes ago

  • South Wales Guardian

Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi set to sign off on Britain-India trade deal

The Prime Minister and his Indian counterpart also agreed ahead of their meeting on Thursday to ramp up joint efforts to tackle illegal migration and organised crime. The UK-India trade deal is understood to be the largest of its kind for its economic impact on Britain. It will see tariffs on an array of British goods reduced from an average of 15% to 3%, with the aim of boosting the £11 billion of imports into the south Asian nation. Whisky tariffs will be slashed in half, according to the Government, and will fall further over successive years, while other industries including soft drinks, cars and cosmetics are also expected to see cheaper duties. Before his meeting with Mr Modi to confirm the deal, Sir Keir said: 'Our landmark trade deal with India is a major win for Britain. It will create thousands of British jobs across the UK, unlock new opportunities for businesses and drive growth in every corner of the country, delivering on our Plan for Change. 'We're putting more money in the pockets of hardworking Brits and helping families with the cost of living, and we're determined to go further and faster to grow the economy and raise living standards across the UK.' The deal is expected to result in 2,200 jobs across the country and £6 billion investment by British and Indian businesses. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the investment will 'reach all regions and nations of the UK so working people in every community can feel the benefits'. He added: 'The almost £6 billion in new investment and export wins announced today will deliver thousands of jobs and shows the strength of our partnership with India as we ensure the UK is the best place in the world to invest and do business.' The UK and India are also bolstering co-operation on tackling corruption, fraud, organised crime and illegal migration, by sharing criminal records and other intelligence. The deal has not given the UK as much access as it would have liked to India's financial and legal services industries. The agreement promises some benefits for the UK's financial services, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves understood to have pushed on behalf of the sector in discussions with her Indian counterpart. But more wide-ranging access was not agreed, and talks continue on a bilateral investment treaty aimed at protecting British investments in India and vice versa. The two nations also continue to discuss UK plans for a tax on high-carbon industries, which India believes could hit its imports unfairly. Negotiations on the deal began when Boris Johnson was prime minister in 2022, and were concluded in May this year. Labour sought to portray closing the deal, as well as trade agreements with the US and the EU, as evidence of the Government's pragmatism and global outlook. But shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith said it had only been made possible 'because of Brexit delivered by the Conservatives'. He added: 'Any trade deal that can successfully cut regulation which stops Britain's makers from creating new jobs and wealth will be a step in the right direction. 'But the irony should not be lost on anyone that any gains from this trade deal will be blown out of the water by (Deputy Prime Minister) Angela Rayner's union charter, stifling business with red tape, the jobs tax and, come autumn, Rachel Reeves' inevitable tax hikes that will punish Britain's makers just to reward those who do not contribute.' The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has said that the signing 'sends a powerful signal that the UK is open for business and remains resolute in its commitment to free and fair trade'. Chief executive Rain Newton-Smith added: 'A trade agreement with India – one of the world's fastest-growing economies – is a springboard for long-term partnership and prosperity. UK firms can take advantage of this new platform to scale, diversify and compete on the global stage.' Elsewhere, Sir Keir is facing calls to raise the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, a British citizen who has been detained in India since 2017, when the Prime Minister meets Mr Modi. The Scottish Sikh is accused of being a member of the Khalistan Liberation Force, which is banned as a terror group in India. His family say he is being arbitrarily detained, with his brother Gurpreet Singh Johal insisting the matter should be 'high on the agenda when the prime ministers meet'.

Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi set to sign off on Britain-India trade deal
Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi set to sign off on Britain-India trade deal

Rhyl Journal

time13 minutes ago

  • Rhyl Journal

Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi set to sign off on Britain-India trade deal

The Prime Minister and his Indian counterpart also agreed ahead of their meeting on Thursday to ramp up joint efforts to tackle illegal migration and organised crime. The UK-India trade deal is understood to be the largest of its kind for its economic impact on Britain. It will see tariffs on an array of British goods reduced from an average of 15% to 3%, with the aim of boosting the £11 billion of imports into the south Asian nation. Whisky tariffs will be slashed in half, according to the Government, and will fall further over successive years, while other industries including soft drinks, cars and cosmetics are also expected to see cheaper duties. Before his meeting with Mr Modi to confirm the deal, Sir Keir said: 'Our landmark trade deal with India is a major win for Britain. It will create thousands of British jobs across the UK, unlock new opportunities for businesses and drive growth in every corner of the country, delivering on our Plan for Change. 'We're putting more money in the pockets of hardworking Brits and helping families with the cost of living, and we're determined to go further and faster to grow the economy and raise living standards across the UK.' The deal is expected to result in 2,200 jobs across the country and £6 billion investment by British and Indian businesses. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the investment will 'reach all regions and nations of the UK so working people in every community can feel the benefits'. He added: 'The almost £6 billion in new investment and export wins announced today will deliver thousands of jobs and shows the strength of our partnership with India as we ensure the UK is the best place in the world to invest and do business.' The UK and India are also bolstering co-operation on tackling corruption, fraud, organised crime and illegal migration, by sharing criminal records and other intelligence. The deal has not given the UK as much access as it would have liked to India's financial and legal services industries. The agreement promises some benefits for the UK's financial services, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves understood to have pushed on behalf of the sector in discussions with her Indian counterpart. But more wide-ranging access was not agreed, and talks continue on a bilateral investment treaty aimed at protecting British investments in India and vice versa. The two nations also continue to discuss UK plans for a tax on high-carbon industries, which India believes could hit its imports unfairly. Negotiations on the deal began when Boris Johnson was prime minister in 2022, and were concluded in May this year. Labour sought to portray closing the deal, as well as trade agreements with the US and the EU, as evidence of the Government's pragmatism and global outlook. But shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith said it had only been made possible 'because of Brexit delivered by the Conservatives'. He added: 'Any trade deal that can successfully cut regulation which stops Britain's makers from creating new jobs and wealth will be a step in the right direction. 'But the irony should not be lost on anyone that any gains from this trade deal will be blown out of the water by (Deputy Prime Minister) Angela Rayner's union charter, stifling business with red tape, the jobs tax and, come autumn, Rachel Reeves' inevitable tax hikes that will punish Britain's makers just to reward those who do not contribute.' The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has said that the signing 'sends a powerful signal that the UK is open for business and remains resolute in its commitment to free and fair trade'. Chief executive Rain Newton-Smith added: 'A trade agreement with India – one of the world's fastest-growing economies – is a springboard for long-term partnership and prosperity. UK firms can take advantage of this new platform to scale, diversify and compete on the global stage.' Elsewhere, Sir Keir is facing calls to raise the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, a British citizen who has been detained in India since 2017, when the Prime Minister meets Mr Modi. The Scottish Sikh is accused of being a member of the Khalistan Liberation Force, which is banned as a terror group in India. His family say he is being arbitrarily detained, with his brother Gurpreet Singh Johal insisting the matter should be 'high on the agenda when the prime ministers meet'.

Asylum seekers ‘gambling away tax-payer funded cash cards' meant for food and clothing ‘on slot machines and casinos'
Asylum seekers ‘gambling away tax-payer funded cash cards' meant for food and clothing ‘on slot machines and casinos'

Scottish Sun

time13 minutes ago

  • Scottish Sun

Asylum seekers ‘gambling away tax-payer funded cash cards' meant for food and clothing ‘on slot machines and casinos'

Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) OVER 6,000 asylum seekers have used government-issued cards loaded with £50 a week at betting shops and casinos. Pre-paid cards given out to pay for basics including food and clothing are being used in gambling venues, Home Office data reveals. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 9 An Anti-Migrant Hotel protest was held in Canary Wharf outside the Britannia International Hotel Credit: George Cracknell Wright 9 Over 6,000 asylum seekers have used government-issued cards loaded with £50 a week at betting shops and casinos Credit: PA 9 Growing tension saw chaos erupt outside a migrant hotel in Epping, Essex, last week Credit: Story Picture Agency While attempts to gamble online using the cards had been made, they were blocked each time so they were forced to use them in physical sites, as reported by PoliticsHome. This is because they can only be activated by using the chip and pin. There are currently around 80,000 ASPEN card users in the UK. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp told PoliticsHome: 'It is shocking that over 6,000 illegal immigrants have attempted to use hard-working British taxpayers' money to gamble. "They have illegally entered this country without needing to – France is safe, and no one needs to flee from there. 'The British taxpayer has put them up in hotels, and now they slap us in the face by using the money they are given to fund gambling. "These illegal immigrants clearly don't need the money they are given if they are squandering it at casinos and arcades.' When asylum seekers are placed in fully catered hotels, the ASPEN card is loaded with roughly £9.95 per week. Meanwhile, in self-catered set ups, they are given around £49.18 per week. Data revealed, 227 migrants successfully used the cards to gamble in a week in November last year. Farage fury as cops admit ESCORTING pro-migrant protesters to Essex asylum hotel This month, were 40 incidents is the lowest recorded amount in one week. It is understood the Home Office is working on a solution to prevent this happening. Prepaid Financial Services and the Home Office have been contacted for comment. This comes as we revealed how migrants suspected of illegally working as delivery drivers were nicked by the Home Office yesterday. 9 Outrage was sparked this week after workers were spotted hauling beds into a posh London hotel Credit: SelwynPics 9 It has been confirmed that no asylum seekers are currently living there 9 Housing asylum seekers in hotels costs the taxpayer £5.77million a day Credit: Ray Collins The raid was sparked after the Government gave out the locations of asylum hotels. We revealed how platforms like Just Eat and Deliveroo would be able to block users from taking orders at known asylum accommodation sites. Yesterday Immigration Enforcement officers questioned a number of delivery riders in Wood Green, North London, where at least one man was detained. A photo shows officers talking to the men, including some wearing Just Eat uniforms. One rider suspected of working illegally, who was wearing a beige t-shirt, was searched and placed in the back of a van. And just two weeks ago, there was another Immigration Enforcement raid on the Thistle City Hotel in Islington, Central London, which had been used as a hub for illicit gig economy jobs. When The Sun returned to the hotel on Tuesday we found delivery rider bags and e-bikes were still parked in a fenced-off enclosure outside the three-star hotel. And we saw a steady stream of riders coming and going despite pledges by the Home Office to crack down. Outrage was also sparked this week after workers were spotted hauling beds into a posh London hotel that is set to house hundreds of asylum seekers. Labourers wheeled in the new furniture at the four-star Britannia International Hotel in Canary Wharf this morning, following an anti-migrant protest outside the property last night. Around 150 activists had surrounded the hotel - in London's eastern financial centre - last night after false reports claimed asylum seekers were being transferred there from another migrant hotel in Epping. The rumours, circulated on X by far-right figure Tommy Robinson, claimed migrants would be moved from The Bell Hotel in Epping to the Canary Wharf building. While the Home Office later debunked these claims, it has been revealed that the hotel - where rooms cost up to £460 a night - will be repurposed as temporary accommodation for asylum seekers. A spokesman for the Tower Hamlets Council said: 'We are aware of the Government's decision to use the Britannia Hotel in Canary Wharf to provide temporary accommodation for asylum seekers. 'It is important that the Government ensures that there is a full package of support for those staying at the hotel. 'We are working with the Home Office and partners to make sure that all necessary safety and safeguarding arrangements are in place.' It has been confirmed that no asylum seekers are currently living there - the Home Office reserves beds in empty hotel rooms in case of a surge in crossings over the summer period. Home Office sources revealed to The Sun that the average cost per night for a hotel room for a migrant is now £118.87, down from £162.16 in March 2023. Housing asylum seekers in hotels costs the taxpayer £5.77million a day. Some 23,534 migrants have already arrived on small boats this year — 48 per cent higher than this time in 2024. GROWING UNREST Chaos was sparked outside the hotel in Epping last week after an asylum seeker appeared in court charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. The unrest saw yobs launching themselves on riot vans, smashing windshields and ripping off wingmirrors in senseless displays of "hooliganism". One thug was even run over while attempting to stop a police van gaining access to the hotel. Another man had his teeth knocked out after riot cops smashed a shield into his face in a brutal clash. Cops arrested two men, aged 36, and 47, on suspicion of violent disorder under Section 2 of the Public Order Act. A 51-year-old has also now been charged with violent disorder. A 34-year-old man remains in custody on suspicion of breaching Section 60AA of the Public Order Act. Meanwhile, two teens aged 17 and 16, were also arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage to a vehicle and going equipped to cause criminal damage, respectively. The force confirmed eight officers were injured in the clashes. The protest was sparked by a 38-year-old Ethiopian asylum seeker who was arrested and later charged with three counts of sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and one count of harassment without violence. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, who had been living at the Bell Hotel, in Epping, Essex, denies sexual assault. He appeared at Colchester Magistrates' Court on Thursday, July 10, where he denied all charges. His arrest led to multiple protests in the region, culminating in the violent clashes. Since tensions reached boiling point, violent demonstrations have cost the force £100,000. 9 A man jumping on a police riot van in Essex Credit: no credit 9 One protester was knocked down while trying to stop a police vehicle Credit: Newsflare

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