Latest news with #UKResettlement
The Independent
08-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Hundreds of Afghan special forces wrongly rejected for sanctuary due to poor MoD decisions, High Court judge finds
Defective decision making resulted in hundreds of Afghan special forces who served with the British being wrongly rejected for sanctuary and abandoned to the Taliban, a High Court judge has found. Afghan commandos, who served alongside the UK special forces in Afghanistan, were left behind after the Taliban takeover in 2021 and received blanket rejections by the MoD to their applications to resettle in the UK. Thousands of applications by these fighters, who were trained and paid by the British, are being reviewed after the government acknowledged failures in how they were processed. The Afghans are known as the Triples because of the names of their units, mainly Commando Force 333 and Afghan Territorial Force 444. Now the High Court has found that there were numerous defects in the way their cases were handled. In a judgement published on Tuesday, Lord Justice Dingemans found that MoD caseworkers had failed to properly interpret the criteria required for UK resettlement - leading to the Afghans' wrongful rejections. Caseworkers, and the liaison officer from the UK special forces who was assisting them, 'were not given access to relevant records relating to payments' and so didn't know that these Afghan fighters had received direct pay from the British. MoD officials were also 'overly reliant' on UK special forces (UKSF) personnel for input and 'placed too much weight on personal knowledge and judgement', Lord Dingemans found. One UKSF liaison officer, who was tasked with investigating applicants links to the special forces, would refuse applications if the relevant UKSF unit failed to respond to his inquiries, the judgement found. A push to 'sprint' through applications in the summer of 2023 also led to 'a lack of real consideration of the applications', with many Afghan commandos receiving rejections during this time. Lord Justice Dingemans has also ordered the MoD to correct the public record after then-armed forces minister James Heappey gave incorrect information to parliament about the scope of the government's review. Announcing the MoD's review of cases in February 2024, Mr Heappey told MPs it would cover 'all eligibility decisions made for applications with credible claims of links to the Afghan specialist units'. The government told the court that this was in fact incorrect and the review only covers applications from Afghan commandos which had been forwarded on to a UK special forces liaison officer for input. Justice Dingemans said that the government's evidence showed that 'more than a credible claim of links to the Afghan specialist units was needed to be in the scope of the review'. He added: 'There had to have been a reference to the UK Special Forces or a reference from certain other government bodies and parties'. He concluded that 'given the critical importance of the review to those who have made applications' and the evidence that showed that 'the Taliban have tortured and killed members of the Triples it would be to publish accurate information about the scope of the review'. The judge has ordered that a 'transparent and accurate statement about the scope of the Triples review' is published. The High Court has also ruled that a redacted version of the government's caseworker guidance is published so that Afghan applicants can understand what will qualify them for resettlement. Around 600 Afghan allies, whose applications were among the initial 2,000 re-examined, have been granted approval to come to the UK. On top of the 2,000 applications, up to 2,500 extra cases have been identified for review after the MoD realised the significance of rediscovered payroll data. Daniel Carey, partner at DPG, the law firm acting on behalf of the former Triples, said: 'Our client had to fight very hard to obtain basic natural justice in this case: for his soldiers to be told whether they were included in the government review; the decisions in their cases, and the rules that were being applied. 'We are pleased that he has succeeded. Serious concerns had already been raised about the denial of Arap protection to thousands of Triples who served closely with UK Special Forces. It was vital that the review process itself was not hidden behind a veil of secrecy.'
The Independent
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Process for allowing Afghan troops to UK ‘a disaster area' that could be likened to ‘a crime scene', court hears
The process for determining whether former members of Afghan special forces who served alongside British troops in Afghanistan can be resettled to the UK was a 'disaster area' so terrible it could be likened to a 'crime scene', the High Court has heard. Thousands of applications for sanctuary from Afghans with credible links to special forces units CF333 and ATF444, known as the Triples, were rejected by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Their pleas for help were rebuffed by the government despite these units being paid and trained by the British and the soldiers fighting alongside UK special forces (UKSF) in Afghanistan. The MoD is undertaking a review of some 2,000 applications of Afghans linked to the units, after The Independent, along with Lighthouse Reports, Sky News and the BBC exposed how they were being denied help. The court heard that the review of some 2,000 applications is only looking at cases that were referred by MoD caseworkers to UK special forces for input. UK special forces had power over the UK sanctuary applications of Afghan allies amid an ongoing inquiry into potential war crimes in Afghanistan. Concerns have been raised by MPs about the potential conflict of interest of allowing UKSF a role in the resettlement process. The inquiry has been investigating alleged war crimes committed on raised by UKSF between 2010 and 2013. Members of the UKSF have been accused of killing unarmed Afghans, planting weapons on them, falsifying reports and then covering up the crimes. The High Court also heard that the MoD rejected the resettlement application of one senior commander from the Triples units, who was in the units at the time of a key incident being examined in the Afghan war inquiry. A former senior member of the Triples, who is now in the UK, is bringing the legal challenge on behalf of commandos still in Afghanistan - challenging how the review has been carried out. The case is an application for judicial review which, if granted, would see the scheme further challenged in the courts. Thomas de la Mare KC, for the claimant, told the court on Wednesday that there had been an effective blanket ban on approvals for these ex-servicemen who fought side-by-side with the British forces. He told the court that decisions on whether to help these Afghans were 'life and death decisions', with Triples members or their families being murdered or tortured because of their support for UK forces. Speaking about the decision-making within the MoD, he said: 'The decision-making process prior to the review is almost a crime scene, it's a disaster area.' He added: 'It's almost as disastrous an area of decision-making as it's possible to conceive.' He argued that information about how the approvals were made should be made public 'to restore public confidence and trust in the decision-making process'. Mr de la Mare continued: 'There is a widespread perception that there is an issue of conflict of interest or bias in this process. Those conflicts of interest were vented very clearly in January 2024, and they were a key part in the decision-making process.' The court also heard that political pressure was put on MoD decision-makers to 'sprint' through resettlement cases. This prompted concerns about the quality of decision-making, which resulted in an internal review where 'a pattern of blanket refusal of Triples claims referred to UKSF became obvious', the court was told. Flaws in the decision-making process included people being 'inappropriately reliant on UKSF personnel', particularly 'during the 'sprints' that took place through the summer of 2023', the court heard. Caseworkers before the review lacked access to relevant records and were insufficiently experienced. The court heard that then-minister for veterans affairs, Johnny Mercer, wrote to Oliver Dowden in January 2024 to raise concerns about how the process was being carried out. He highlighted that the role of UKSF personnel in the decision-making process was 'deeply inappropriate' and represented a 'significant conflict of interest'. Mr de la Mare added that until the Triples review was announced in February 2024, a 'vanishingly small' number of the special forces commandos had been approved for relocation to the UK. He told the court that senior ministers had decided to conduct a review 'on the basis that all credible claims of Triples membership were in scope'. However, Mr de la Mare said this had been narrowed to just re-examine cases where the Afghan applicant's case had been referred to UK special forces. The hearing is due to conclude on Friday, with a decision expected in writing at a later date.
The Independent
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
MoD's decision-making on Afghan cases ‘a disaster area' that could be likened to ‘a crime scene', court hears
The process for determining whether former members of Afghan special forces who served alongside British troops in Afghanistan can be resettled to the UK was a 'disaster area' so terrible it could be likened to a 'crime scene', the High Court has heard. Thousands of applications for sanctuary from Afghans with credible links to special forces units CF333 and ATF444, known as the Triples, were rejected by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Their pleas for help were rebuffed by the government despite these units being paid and trained by the British and the soldiers fighting alongside UK special forces (UKSF) in Afghanistan. The MoD is undertaking a review of some 2,000 applications of Afghans linked to the units, after The Independent, along with Lighthouse Reports, Sky News and the BBC exposed how they were being denied help. The court heard that the review of some 2,000 applications is only looking at cases that were referred by MoD caseworkers to UK special forces for input. The High Court also heard that the MoD rejected the resettlement application of one senior commander from the Triples units, who was in the units at the time of a key incident being examined in the Afghan war inquiry. A former senior member of the Triples, who is now in the UK, is bringing the legal challenge on behalf of commandos still in Afghanistan - challenging how the review has been carried out. The case is an application for judicial review which, if granted, would see the scheme further challenged in the courts. Thomas de la Mare KC, for the claimant, told the court on Wednesday that there had been an effective blanket ban on approvals for these ex-servicemen who fought side-by-side with the British forces. He told the court that decisions on whether to help these Afghans were 'life and death decisions', with Triples members or their families being murdered or tortured because of their support for UK forces. Speaking about the decision-making within the MoD, he said: 'The decision-making process prior to the review is almost a crime scene, it's a disaster area.' He added: 'It's almost as disastrous an area of decision-making as it's possible to conceive.' He argued that information about how the approvals were made should be made public 'to restore public confidence and trust in the decision-making process'. Mr de la Mare continued: 'There is a widespread perception that there is an issue of conflict of interest or bias in this process. Those conflicts of interest were vented very clearly in January 2024, and they were a key part in the decision-making process.' The court also heard that political pressure was put on MoD decision-makers to 'sprint' through resettlement cases. This prompted concerns about the quality of decision-making, which resulted in an internal review where 'a pattern of blanket refusal of Triples claims referred to UKSF became obvious', the court was told. Flaws in the decision-making process included people being 'inappropriately reliant on UKSF personnel', particularly 'during the 'sprints' that took place through the summer of 2023', the court heard. Caseworkers before the review lacked access to relevant records and were insufficiently experienced. The court heard that then-minister for veterans affairs, Johnny Mercer, wrote to Oliver Dowden in January 2024 to raise concerns about how the process was being carried out. He highlighted that the role of UKSF personnel in the decision-making process was 'deeply inappropriate' and represented a 'significant conflict of interest'. Mr de la Mare added that until the Triples review was announced in February 2024, a 'vanishingly small' number of the special forces commandos had been approved for relocation to the UK. He told the court that senior ministers had decided to conduct a review 'on the basis that all credible claims of Triples membership were in scope'. However, Mr de la Mare said this had been narrowed to just re-examine cases where the Afghan applicant's case had been referred to UK special forces. The hearing is due to conclude on Friday, with a decision expected in writing at a later date.
