
The UK says thousands of Afghans have been brought to Britain under a secret resettlement program
The government now plans to close the route, which the media had been barred by a court order from disclosing.
'I have felt deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament and the public,' Defense Secretary John Healey said in the House of Commons.
Healey told lawmakers that a spreadsheet containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to come to Britain after the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan was accidentally released in error in 2022 because of a defense official's email error, and extracts were later published online.
The then-Conservative government sought a court order barring disclosure of the leak, in an attempt to prevent the personal information being made public. The High Court issued a strict order known as a super injunction that barred anyone from revealing its existence. The government then set up a secret new program to resettle the Afghans.
The injunction was lifted on Tuesday in conjunction with a decision by Britain's current Labour Party government to make the program public. It said an independent review had found little evidence that the leaked data would expose Afghans to a greater risk of retribution from the country's Taliban rulers.
About 4,500 Afghans – 900 applicants and approximately 3,600 family members — have been brought to Britain under the secret program, and about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the time it closes, at a total cost of 850 million pounds ($1.1 billion).
About 36,000 more Afghans have been relocated to the U.K. under other resettlement routes.
Critics say that still leaves thousands more people who helped British troops as interpreters or in other roles at risk of torture, imprisonment or death.
British troops were sent to Afghanistan as part of a deployment against al-Qaida and Taliban forces in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. At the peak of the operation, there were almost 10,000 British troops in the country, mostly in Helmand province in the south.
Britain ended combat operations in 2014, and its remaining troops left Afghanistan in 2021 as the Taliban swept back to power, two decades after they were ousted.
The Taliban's return triggered chaotic scenes at Kabul Airport in August 2021 as Western nations rushed to evacuate citizens and Afghan employees.
Super injunctions are relatively rare, and their use is controversial. Unlike regular court injunctions, super injunctions bar reporting that they were even ordered The handful of cases in which they have come to light involved celebrities trying to prevent disclosures about their private lives.
This is the first known case of a super injunction being sought by the government. Healey said he was not aware of any others in existence.
Judge Martin Chamberlain, who ruled that the injunction should be lifted, said Tuesday at the High Court that the gag order had 'given rise to serious free speech concerns."
'The super injunction had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability, which operate in a democracy," he said. 'This led to what I describe as a 'scrutiny vacuum.''

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


Daily Mirror
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Mirror Daily Digest: Our top stories from Starmer suspends MPs to boy, 6, 'kills newborn in hospital'
In this Wednesday's Mirror Daily Digest, we've pulled together the biggest stories of the day from Starmer's suspension of four Labour MPs to the tragic death of a baby in hospital Welcome to the Mirror's Daily Digest, where we pull together all the best stories of the day from our News, Showbiz, Sport teams and more. This Wednesday, we're featuring everything from a newborn being 'killed by a boy left to roam a hospital maternity ward' to the PM's suspension of four MPs and Emma Watson's driving ban. A criminal enquiry has been launched in France after a boy, 6,'left to roam around a maternity unit' allegedly killed a newborn baby. Elsewhere, Harry Potter star Emma Watson was banned from driving after her fourth offence in two years and Keir Starmer suspended four Labour MPs over discipline breaches. Boy, 6, 'kills newborn baby girl while roaming hospital's maternity ward' A baby identified as Zayneb-Cassandra, who was born premature to a 23-year-old woman earlier this month, suffered a traumatic brain injury last Friday after the boy "treated her like a doll" and dropped her on the floor of the Jeanne-de-Flandre Children's Hospital in Lille. The boy had already been reported as a 'disruptive presence' in the hospital when he was found alone with the unconscious baby in a neonatal unit. The baby was her mother's first child, and she was delivered by caesarean section, said the investigating source. Zayneb-Cassandra's grandmother told the Voix du Nord newspaper: 'The boy would arrive at 7am and spend all day running up and down the hallways.' She added: "All the mothers were complaining, and a nurse even warned the child's mother that there was a problem. He was entering the other rooms." Harry Potter's Emma Watson banned from driving after fourth offence in two years Our Showbiz team's eyes were drawn to court again today as Emma Watson was handed a six month driving ban after pleading guilty to speeding. The Harry Potter star did not appear at High Wycombe Magistrates' Court for sentencing. The 35-year-old actress earlier this year admitted to driving at 38mph in a 30mph zone. She was driving her Audi S3, which was towed away last year after being illegally parked, when her car was caught by a camera on Banbury Road, Oxford. Emma was later charged by post and pleaded guilty to the driving offence on March 3. Today she was sentenced over the driving offence. Keir Starmer suspends four Labour MPs over discipline breaches This afternoon, our Politics team broke the news that Keir Starmer has suspended four Labour MPs over persistent breaches of party discipline and stripped three others of trade envoy roles after a series of rebellions. Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff and Neil Duncan-Jordan - all elected just last year - and Rachael Maskell will now sit as Independents in the House of Commons. It is understood the four MPs met with the Chief Whip today, where they were told they would be suspended for repeated breaches of party discipline, pending a future review. They were among dozens of Labour backbenchers to vote against the government earlier this month on disability benefit cuts. Mr Duncan-Jordan, the MP for Poole, was among 42 Labour MPs to sign a letter earlier this year warning the PM cuts to disability benefits were "impossible to support". He told The Mirror: "To my constituents: it's business as usual. I remain your hardworking local MP, I will continue to take up your concerns and speak up for Poole." Prince Harry 'won't let Meghan go to England' as he 'bans' her from latest trip After Prince Harry landed in Angola on Tuesday, our Royal team reported that the Duke of Sussex has "banned" his wife, Meghan Markle, from joining him on his recent trip to the African state of Angola due to safety concerns. Insiders likened the move to him not letting her visit the UK. Meghan Markle has not returned to Britain since the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II in September 2022, where she was pictured on a walkabout with Prince William, Prince Harry and Princess Kate outside Windsor Castle. The once dubbed "Fab Four" haven't been pictured together since then. Now, an insider claims Harry refuses to let Meghan return to the UK along with join him on his latest trip. "The duke won't let his wife go to England over security concerns, so there was no chance he'd allow her to go to Angola to walk across landmines," a source told the Daily Mail. Bizarre story of Sycamore Gap duo and moment that 'tipped them over the edge' Following their sentencing yesterday, the two men who cut down the famous tree at Sycamore Gap out of "sheer bravado" have now been put behind bars. This Wednesday, our news team have been looking further into the bizarre story of the duo. The two were once pals with locals saying the plot saw "the man with no friends" - Daniel Graham, 39 - team up with "the man with no brains", Adam Carruthers, 32. Their three-minute "moronic" destruction of the much-loved tree, which had stood for more than 100 years in a fold in the Northumberland landscape, will never be forgotten. Graham turned on Carruthers, tipping police off that he had cut down the iconic landmark in September 2023. The pair, who were each jailed for four years and three months, were convicted of criminal damage to the tree along with criminal damage to Hadrian's Wall, caused when the sycamore fell on the ancient monument.


Metro
23 minutes ago
- Metro
Why was a superinjunction put on the Afghan evacuation story and what did it do?
On Tuesday, it was revealed for the first time that the British Government had used a superinjunction to keep a secret from the public. The term 'superinjunction' may be familiar to people who paid attention to the news in the 2010s, thanks to their deployment by several high-profile figures who wanted to stop people reading about their private lives. It is a court order a step above an injunction, which is used to stop details of the case being published in public. In a case with a superinjunction, not even the existence of the injunction can be made public. These orders are powerful enough when used by an individual. The use of one by the government to keep the entire UK in the dark is unprecedented. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money was spent without the public's knowledge, to bring a large number of individuals to the UK from Afghanistan without anyone being allowed to learn why. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. It all stemmed from an accidental data breach in February 2022, which exposed the personal details of more than 18,000 Afghans who had assisted British forces in their fight against the Taliban. When the government learned about this breach 18 months after it happened, then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace requested an injunction in the courts. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The reason for this, according to court documents, was to 'preserve the confidentiality of the personal information for as long as possible in order that His Majesty's Government may do everything it reasonably can to help those who might have been put at further risk by the data compromise'. But when the time came for the injunction to be placed, Judge Robin Knowles decided to go a step further. More Trending He wrote: 'I conclude that it is an environment of no publication that best protects lives, although again the matter must and will be kept under constant review.' This decision was made for eight reasons listed in the judgement: 'The risk in question is to the lives of many individuals and their families, and of torture.' The confidentiality of the data was not completely lost, though it had been breached. The order would create a period of time where the data compromise is 'not known or widely known'. It would be less likely for the information to fall into the wrong hands during that period. The period would provide an opportunity for the government to do 'everything it reasonably can' to help those at risk. The impact on freedom of expression was 'justified in the particular and exceptional circumstances of this case'. The fact the injunction would probably no longer be needed at some point and be lifted would limit that impact. The operation and duration of the injunction would be kept under close review. This order was so stringent, then-shadow Defence Secretary John Healey did not tell his party leader about the situation when he was briefed before last year's election. Instead, Sir Keir Starmer learned about it after he became Prime Minister. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: What changes in ISAs could mean for you and where you should invest MORE: Middle class parties hit by lumpy skin disease MORE: What changes to mortgages for first-time buyers means for you


Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Free speech under threat as Brits fear causing offence over race religion and immigration
Free speech is under threat in Britain because people fear causing offence over race, religion and immigration, according to a new study. More than a third of Britons felt they had to self-censor their views on race or ethnicity while 32 per cent said they felt they could not speak freely about immigration or religious extremism. Some 41 per cent felt they had to hold back their views on transgender issues while 31 per cent felt constrained from discussing the conflict in Gaza following the October 7 Hamas terror attack. Almost half of Britons believe people are too easily offended, according to research for the Commission for Countering Extremism, which advises the Government. Older, white males are among those who feel the most restricted, and the more outspoken a person's views, the more likely they are feel constrained by the risk of offending others. The study, based on interviews with 2,500 people, was conducted by Ipsos to establish the state of free speech in Britain and was first reported by the Telegraph. People who are white, male, older and not university educated were more strongly in favour of free speech, regardless of the issue, but felt less able to speak their minds, the poll found. Some 48 per cent of this group said they felt they had to hold back their comments on race, far higher than the average of 36 per cent. The same was true on immigration, where 43 per cent felt they had to hold back on their views compared to an overall average among the public of 32 per cent. Among religious groups, Christians were more likely to back the right to free speech, but also more likely to feel they had to hold back on expressing their views. By contrast, women, younger Britons and people from ethnic minorities or non-Christian religions tended to think that people needed to be more sensitive in the way they spoke. Meanwhile the poll found that people predominantly held back from expressing their views to avoid causing offence or starting an argument. Some 46 per cent resisted expressing their views on any religious figure, text or teaching and 35 per cent held back their political views to avoid causing offence. Some people held back because of heightened concerns about their safety, with a quarter restraining themselves from discussing religion because of safety fears and 17 per cent their political views. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said that the Left's 'determination to shut down debate around immigration has created a chilling environment for free speech'. He told the Telegraph: 'In this context, a catch-all definition of Islamophobia would be a disaster, worsening the culture of fear that has spread throughout society.'