Latest news with #LegalAction
Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Times
The Afghan data breach has already cost millions. What happens next?
The fallout from the Afghan data breach will have ripples across the world. People named on a leaked dataset that officials feared could become a Taliban 'kill list' must make life or death decisions: whether to move house or, for those who may have already left the country, whether to send their families running. At least 18,500 Afghans have already been secretly flown to Britain and more are expected to arrive in the coming days. Back in the UK, the government is having to grapple with the issues of accommodation for the Afghans whose lives they put in danger more than three years ago, in February 2022, when their data was leaked in a massive blunder. A flurry of legal action is expected as dozens of judicial reviews involving Afghans who have been blocked from coming to the UK are upended, law firms seek compensation for those affected and previously rejected applicants launch appeals. Here is what to expect next: Untested system costing £360,000 a month All of those Afghans affected by the data breach should have been sent proactive notifications to tell them they were among the victims, although the Ministry of Defence (MoD) may be relying on out-of-date information. An information service centre will also be established to notify individuals affected by the incident. Inquiries around the world will be directed here. The service, which costs £360,000 a month, has never been tested at scale before. It will provide advice on what has happened and how individuals can take actions to protect themselves. A follow-up notification will then be sent advising them what to do next. The centre will provide an online self-checker capability; a reactive email service aimed at individuals both in the UK and abroad who are concerned they or their family members are affected. There will also be an automated telephone capability plus a 'limited' call-handling service, which costs £30,000 a month. • Those answering the phones will not be able to tell those calling whether they have been affected or not. Calls will be taken in English only and calls from Afghanistan are discouraged. According to a government plan for 'break glass' — the moment news of the data breach is revealed — prepared in the weeks leading up to the lifting of the superinjunction, 'there remains a risk that we incorrectly email unaffected persons and the self-checker wrongly informs persons if they are likely to be affected or not'. More than 3,000 principal applicants on the list — plus their family members, taking the total to about 18,500 — have so far been allowed to come to Britain under the secret Afghan Response Route, which has been shut down. More than 5,000 more Afghans affected by the breach who have received invitation letters already to come to the UK will be flown to Britain. This will take the total to almost 24,000 Afghans affected by the breach being brought to the UK. The remaining affected Afghans — potentially 76,000 people when taking into account family members — will not be allowed to come as the three Afghan schemes have been shut down. A gigantic lawsuit and 'substantial payments' Hundreds of Afghans all over the world are in the process of launching a claim against the government for leaking their personal data as part of a massive lawsuit that could end up costing taxpayers more than £250 million. The lawsuit is being prepared by Barings Law, a Manchester-based firm that had already signed up some 1,000 clients while the superinjunction remained in place, even though the individuals did not know why they were agreeing to take legal action. Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, told The Times his clients had suffered 'real and ongoing harm' and 'live with the fear of reprisal against them and their families, when they were owed a duty of care for their dangerous work'. 'We would expect substantial financial payments totalling five figures for each claimant,' he said. 'While this will not fully redress the harm they have been exposed to, it will enable them to move forward and rebuild their lives.' Thousands more Afghans are likely to join the legal fight for compensation once they are able to determine whether or not their name is on a 19,000-strong list of principal individuals whose data was breached in February 2022. About 19,000 applicants were on the list, but the MoD feared as many as 100,000 individuals were put at risk by the leak when taking into account family members. Each Afghan could end up with at least £50,000 each and Barings believes they could have as many as 5,000 clients in the coming months. Thousands of family members may also be able to claim compensation because their names were on the list, which included phone numbers and addresses. Malik said the leak was an 'incredibly serious breach which the MoD has tried to hide from the British public … It involved the loss of personal, identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and to support security and stability in the region. 'By allowing their information to be leaked, the MoD has put multiple lives at risk, damaged its own reputation and put the success of future efforts in jeopardy by diminishing trust in its data security protocols.' Malik said the 'lifting of a superinjunction which kept this data breach a secret is crucial in exposing the failings so that lessons can be learnt'. Those Afghans suing the MoD are in the UK, Afghanistan, America, Turkey and Australia, as well as African nations. Until now the law firm had been unable to tell their clients why exactly they may be owed compensation without breaching the superinjunction. Messages circulated on WhatsApp groups urging Afghans to sign up to the legal case on the expectation they would be given huge sums of money, without knowing the true extent of why. Housing strain over rescued Afghans Thousands of hotel rooms are being earmarked for new Afghan residents as councils 'creak under the pressure' of having to find houses for them alongside British citizens and an influx of refugees, court documents have disclosed. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, announced a pledge to stop using hotels to accommodate asylum seekers by the end of the current parliament — expected in 2029 — as part of her spending review last month. But the government is likely to increasingly rely on hotels as hundreds of vulnerable Afghans a month are rescued from the clutches of the Taliban. Behind the scenes, 2,200 beds have been made ready at three hotels and a pilot site to make way. More than 1,000 rooms on MoD bases are being taken up by rescued Afghans and at one point 20 per cent of the defence estate was being used to house them. By September, the government will have run out of 'transitional' accommodation in the form of hotels, serviced accommodation and pilot projects already available, documents released to the court state, raising questions about where all the Afghans will go. One Afghan in a family of four will cost taxpayers about £1.25 million over three years if they are put into MoD transitional accommodation, including a hotel. It costs half that amount if social housing is found for them instead, according to government figures, but officials have pointed out local government is 'creaking under current pressures' and in March 2023 there were 1.29 million households on social housing waiting lists. At one point the problem with finding room for the Afghans was deemed so severe that officials asked ministers to consider asking foreign governments, including the US, to see if they would take them. Officials under the previous Conservative government debated the costs for what was described as a 'Rwanda-style' scheme. The Afghans who are being rescued are not asylum seekers, having come to the UK legally and been given indefinite leave to remain. Misinformation and threat of riots The government has been concerned about the impact on public disorder of the data breach and its handling of it. This is especially so given the superinjunction has been lifted in the summer, when the risk of unrest is deemed to be higher. Court documents disclosed how MoD officials discussed ways to 'provide cover' for the numbers of Afghans arriving last year. Rather than announce there would be large numbers of future arrivals, the government agreed to put out an 'agreed narrative that provides context for the increased numbers without disclosing information relating to the incident'. However, their arrival in large numbers — at a time the real reason why many had been rescued was covered up — has been linked to unrest in the UK. CHRISTOPHER FURLONG/GETTY IMAGES In May, Bracknell Forest council responded to 'misinformation circulating regarding our new Afghan families' after a rumoured assault on a girl that turned out to be fake. After a Facebook user posted in multiple groups their daughter had been attacked the council issued a statement that 'we want to make sure all our residents have the facts' and that it 'would like to reiterate that our new families are not illegal immigrants, asylum seekers or refugees'. 'They have indefinite leave to remain and so are now UK residents,' it added. 'The new families are part of the national Afghan Resettlement Programme, which offers relocation and resettlement to Afghan citizens, and their immediate family, who worked for or with the UK government to support the UK mission in Afghanistan [and] are considered vulnerable or in danger from the Taliban.' MoD documents also referred to the summer riots of 2024, in which asylum seekers and Muslims were targeted, and which were described by officials as 'the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades'. Officials noted that 15 of the 20 primary disorder hotspots were in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with high numbers of supported asylum seekers and Afghan resettlement arrivals. They said that 'this underlines the importance of mainstreaming community cohesion considerations throughout our resettlement approach'.
The Guardian
12-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Birmingham council faces legal action over decision to close adult day centres
Legal action is being taken after commissioners sent to oversee Birmingham council blocked scrutiny of a controversial decision to close adult day centres. An application for a judicial review has been brought in the names of Robert Mason, 63, and Jenny Gilbert, 50, who attend day centres for adults with physical and learning disabilities in the city. The legal challenge argues there was an overreach by the commissioners, in breach of the Local Government Act, when they refused to allow three separate applications by elected council members to 'call in' a cabinet decision to close four day centres for further scrutiny. James Cross, acting on behalf of Mason, his uncle, who attended a day centre in Harborne for 45 years, said the commissioner had 'made a mockery of local government' by overriding the established process and preventing full scrutiny of the closures. 'From our point of view, the local democratic process was removed because of their direct intervention,' said Cross. 'Scrutiny is essential for local democracy, especially when a cabinet decision is made by 12 people out of 101 councillors.' After the council declared itself effectively bankrupt in 2023, the government appointed a team of six commissioners to oversee its daily running for up to five years, until October 2028. Collectively they have been paid nearly £2m in fees and expenses by the council since being appointed. They are led by Max Caller, nicknamed 'Max the Axe' for his tough approach to pushing through cuts at cash-strapped local authorities. There was an outcry in March when four of the nine council-run adult day centres in the city were closed as part of swingeing budget cuts, with the MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, Preet Kaur Gill, saying the commissioners had 'shut down democratic scrutiny' by refusing the call-in requests. Caller said there was 'pre-decision scrutiny' over the day centre closures, and it would have cost the council £100,000 a month to delay. Cross said: 'I put forward a proposal for Harborne day centre where it would be turned into a community hub, so that outside of the day centre hours it could be used to generate income. They just didn't want to know. 'There's no innovative thinking, it's just straightforward, yes, we'll cut that. But it's short-term gain in terms of finance, for long-term pain, because you're just kicking the situation further down the road.' A court hearing on 21 July will determine whether the judicial review can go ahead. With increasing numbers of councils struggling financially, there are now commissioners in place at six other local authorities: Croydon, Tower Hamlets, Nottingham, Slough, Woking and Thurrock. Jonathan Carr-West, the chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit (LGIU), said the commissioner model was 'very much the favoured mechanism of the last government and is being continued by this government' to intervene in struggling councils. 'When people say that it takes away local democratic control, that's true, that's explicitly what it does because, in a way, the point is to say: we're going to send in people who don't have to worry about being elected and can make the really tough decisions,' he said. 'In Birmingham, where they've entirely defunded cultural services, where they've cut children's services by a further 25%, local politicians just wouldn't be able to make those tough choices. [Commissioners] are not accountable or invested in the long term.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion He said commissioners 'very much operate within a certain managerial paradigm, and they're not intended to be there to innovate'. Analysis by the Local Government Chronicle last year found that almost 70% of commissioners sent into struggling councils were male and more than a quarter had not worked in local government for four years or more. Carr-West said the use of commissioners was not a 'scalable' solution to the problems facing councils. 'It feels like a sticking plaster approach, and possibly one that stores up problems for the future, rather than actually a real transformation process,' he said. 'We still have a third of councils across the country saying: 'If nothing changes in the way we're funded, we will go bust within the next five years'. 'Well, you can send Max Caller to two or three councils, but you can't send him to a third of the councils in the country. It can't be a system-wide approach to rescuing local government.' In June, the local government minister, Jim McMahon, said he was minded to send commissioners to run Croydon council as its finances were 'deteriorating rapidly'. The move led to a backlash among councillors, with the executive mayor, Jason Perry, saying 'unelected Labour commissioners could override local democratic decisions, including forcing tax hikes and cuts'. The commissioners in Birmingham have been contacted for comment.
Yahoo
07-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Planned Parenthood sues over Trump megabill ‘defunding' provision
Planned Parenthood sued the Trump administration Monday over a provision in the new tax and spending law that would strip Medicaid funding from its health centers because the organization also provides abortions. Planned Parenthood said the law unconstitutionally eliminates patients' ability to use Medicaid as their insurance at any of its health centers nationwide. 'The prohibition specifically targets Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its member health care providers in order to punish them for lawful activity, namely advocating for and providing legal abortion access wholly outside the Medicaid program and without using any federal funds,' the organization wrote in the complaint. Federal law has prohibited health care providers from using federal funds for abortions for more than 40 years. 'Thus, this statute must be doing something more — and it is. The Defund Provision is a naked attempt to leverage the government's spending power to attack and penalize Planned Parenthood and impermissibly single it out for unfavorable treatment,' the lawsuit stated. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts by Planned Parenthood Federation of America as well as state members Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah. Republicans have been trying to pass legislation that blocks federal funding to Planned Parenthood for years, but the intricate rules of passing a party-line bill in the Senate meant the provisions have needed to pass muster with the Senate's parliamentarian. To abide by those rules, the law imposed a one-year ban on state Medicaid payments to any health care nonprofit that offers abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023 — a list that's comprised almost entirely of Planned Parenthood. The law will primarily affect Planned Parenthood clinics in blue states with large numbers of Medicaid beneficiaries where abortion is still legal. The organization said 200 clinics in 24 states were at risk of closing under the bill. Of those clinics, 90 percent are in states where abortion is protected and legal. 'This case is about making sure that patients who use Medicaid as their insurance to get birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment can continue to do so at their local Planned Parenthood health center, and we will make that clear in court,' Alexis McGill Johnson, the chief executive of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. The Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment on the lawsuit. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Guardian
23-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
US judge overturns Trump order targeting major law firm Jenner & Block
A US judge on Friday overturned Donald Trump's executive order targeting Jenner & Block, a big law firm that employed a lawyer who investigated him. Trump's executive order, called Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block, suspended security clearances for the firm's lawyers and restricted their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work. Trump accused the law firm of engaging in activities that 'undermine justice and the interests of the United States', claiming that it participated in politically driven legal actions. In the executive order, Trump specifically criticized the firm for hiring Andrew Weissmann, an attorney who worked on Robert Mueller's investigation into allegations of Russian influence in Trump's 2016 campaign. The firm sued to block Trump's order, arguing it violated the constitution's first and fifth amendments. US district judge John D Bates ruled on Friday that Trump's directive violated core rights under the US constitution, mirroring a 2 May ruling that struck down a similar executive order against law firm Perkins Coie. Bates did not mince words when calling a Trump executive order unconstitutional, which sought to target Jenner & Block. Trump's order, Bates wrote, 'makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed'. 'Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the constitution,' Bates said. The justice department and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The administration can appeal Bates' order to the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit. Trump signed an executive order in March, targeting Jenner & Block by suspending security clearances and restricting their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work. This was, Trump claimed, because of politically motivated 'lawfare' the firm engaged in. By attempting to push forward this executive order, Trump attempted to 'chill legal representation the administration doesn't like, thereby insulating the executive branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers'. Bates added that the Trump executive orders against law firms 'follow the same recipe: other than personalized touches in their first sections, they generally direct the same adverse actions towards each firm and decry the threat each firm poses to national security and the national interest'. Bates was appointed to the District of Columbia in 2001 by George W Bush. He blocked Trump's executive order completely. Apart from Jenner and Perkins Coie, two other firms – WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey – have sued the Trump administration to permanently block executive orders he issued against them. Nine law firms, including Paul Weiss, Milbank, Simpson Thacher and Skadden Arps, have pledged nearly $1bn in free legal services to causes the White House supports and made other concessions to avoid being targeted by Trump. The justice department has defended Trump's executive orders against Jenner and other law firms as consistent with the broad reach of presidential authority. Reuters contributed reporting
Malay Mail
17-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Malay Mail
‘Kicking the Acropolis': Adidas drone campaign sparks legal fury in Greece
ATHENS, May 17 — A promotional video for Adidas featuring a multicoloured trainer on the Acropolis has sparked public outrage in Greece, prompting the government yesterday to announce legal action as no filming permit was granted. 'The legal procedure was not followed,' Culture Minister Lina Mendoni told Skaï radio, describing the imagery as 'extremely unpleasant' and likening it to 'the Adidas shoe... kicking the Acropolis'. She said a legal complaint would be filed against 'all those responsible,' with the judiciary expected to investigate how the incident occurred. Adidas's Greek subsidiary did not respond to AFP requests for comment. The image, splashed across the front pages of several Greek media outlets yesterday, was captured during a drone show held Thursday evening at the Zappeion Hall. The neoclassical building in central Athens is used for events and managed by a state-run legacy commission under the supervision of the Finance Ministry. The drone display was staged by the company Essence Mediacom as part of a campaign for an Adidas product. According to some reports, Essence Mediacom applied on April 30 for permission to hold the show and was granted approval in exchange for a fee of 'just €380 (RM1,830)'. Essence Mediacom also did not respond to AFP's inquiries. Mendoni said: 'The Zappeion administration should have sought approval from the Culture Ministry before granting such authorisation.' 'There has been a violation of the law on archaeological heritage,' she added. Greek law regulating the use of archaeological sites — many dating back more than 2,500 years — is particularly strict. The Parthenon temple atop the Acropolis, a Unesco World Heritage site built in the 5th century BC, received over 4.5 million visitors in 2024. 'The Acropolis, a global symbol of culture and democracy, cannot be treated as a backdrop for commercial use,' said the opposition Pasok party, accusing the government of negligence. 'Serious questions arise about the role and responsibility of the Culture Ministry,' the party added. In early April, the Culture Ministry had rejected a request from Oscar-winning Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos to film at the Acropolis, arguing that the scenes did not reflect the historic site's image. The incident has also sparked criticism on social media, with users posting: 'No to Yorgos Lanthimos. Yes to Adidas. No to art, yes to money.' — AFP
