Up to 7,000 Afghans being relocated to UK in secret scheme after MoD data breach
The blunder exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families.
The Ministry of Defence said the relocation costs alone will be around £850m. An internal government document from February this year said the cost could rise to £7bn, but an MOD spokesperson said that this was an outdated figure.
However, litigation against the UK arising from the mistake could add additional cost, as well as whatever the government has already spent on the super injunction.
Details about the blunder can finally be made public after a judge lifted a super injunction that had been sought by the government.
Barings Law, a law firm that is representing around 1,000 of the victims, accused the government of trying to hide the truth from the public following a lengthy legal battle.
Defence Secretary John Healey offered a "sincere apology" for the data breach in a statement to MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon.
He said he had felt "deeply concerned about the lack of transparency" around the data breach, adding: "No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner."
The disaster is thought to have been triggered by the careless handling of an email that contained a list of the names and other details of 18,714 Afghan nationals, who had been trying to apply to a British government scheme to support those who helped or worked with UK forces in Afghanistan that were fighting the Taliban between 2001 and 2021.
The collapse of the western-backed Afghan government that year, saw the Taliban return to power. The new government regards anyone who worked with British or other foreign forces during the previous two decades as a traitor.
The source said a small number of people named on the list are known to have subsequently been killed though it is not clear if this was a direct result of the data breach.
It is also not clear whether the Taliban has the list - only that the Ministry of Defence lost control of the information.
Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, said: "This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the Ministry of Defence has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public.
"It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region.
"A total of around 20,000 individuals have been affected, putting them and their loved ones at serious risk of violence from opponents and armed groups."
The law firm is working with around 1,000 of those impacted "to pursue potential legal action".
Read more:
It is thought that only a minority of the names on the list - about 10 to 15% - would have been eligible for help under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP).
However, the breach means a much larger pool of people now potentially have a claim to request assistance or even to leave Afghanistan, fearing for their own security.
"Through its careless handling of such sensitive information, the Ministry of Defence has put multiple lives at risk, damaged its own reputation, and put the success of future operations in jeopardy by eroding trust in its data security measures," Mr Malik said.
"Our claimants continue to live with the fear of reprisal against them and their families, when they should have been met with gratitude and discretion for their service. We would expect substantial financial payments for each claimant in any future legal action. While this will not fully undo the harm they have been exposed to, it will enable them to move forward and rebuild their lives."
While the Ministry of Defence's data breach is by far the largest involving Afghan nationals, it is not the first.
Earlier this month, the MOD said Afghans impacted by a separate mistake could claim up to £4,000 in compensation four years after the incident happened.
Human error resulted in the personal information of 265 Afghans who had worked alongside British troops being shared with hundreds of others who were on the same email distribution list in September 2021.
In December 2023 the UK information commissioner fined the Ministry of Defence (MoD) £350,000 and said the "egregious" breach could have been life-threatening.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel strike kills Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza
By Nidal al-Mughrabi and Maayan Lubell CAIRO/JERUSALEM (Reuters) -A prominent Al Jazeera journalist, who had previously been threatened by Israel, was killed along with four colleagues in an Israeli airstrike on Sunday in an attack condemned by journalists and rights groups. Israel's military said it targeted and killed Anas Al Sharif, alleging he had headed a Hamas militant cell and was involved in rocket attacks on Israel. Al Jazeera, which is funded by the Qatari government, rejected the assertion, and before his death Al Sharif had also denied such claims by Israel. "Anas Al Sharif and his colleagues were among the last remaining voices in Gaza conveying the tragic reality to the world," Al Jazeera said. Al Sharif, 28, was among a group of four Al Jazeera journalists and an assistant who died in an airstrike on a tent near Al Shifa Hospital in eastern Gaza City, Gaza officials and Al Jazeera said. A hospital official said two other people died. A sixth journalist, local freelance reporter Mohammad Al-Khaldi, was also killed in the strike, medics at Al Shifa Hospital said on Monday. Calling Al Sharif "one of Gaza's bravest journalists", Al Jazeera said the attack was a "desperate attempt to silence voices in anticipation of the occupation of Gaza". The other journalists killed were Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher and Mohammed Noufal, Al Jazeera said. "The deliberate targeting of journalists by Israel in the Gaza Strip reveals how these crimes are beyond imagination," Qatari Prime Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, said on X. The U.N. human rights office condemned the killings, saying the actions by Israel's military represented a "grave breach of international humanitarian law" as Palestinians reported the heaviest bombardments in weeks. Its post on social media platform X was accompanied by a photograph of flattened blue tents next to a bullet-ridden wall in Gaza City. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is "gravely concerned" about the repeated targeting of journalists in Gaza, his spokesperson said. The Israeli military said in a statement that Al Sharif led a Hamas cell and "was responsible for advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians" and Israeli troops, citing intelligence and documents it said were discovered in Gaza as evidence but which it did not disclose. Israel denies deliberately targeting journalists, saying many of those killed in Israeli airstrikes were members of Islamist militant groups, working under the guise of the press. Israeli military spokesperson Avichay Adraee posted undated photos on X that appeared to show Al Sharif with Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of the Hamas October 2023 attack on Israel, and other Hamas officials. Reuters could not verify their authenticity. It was not clear when the purported images were taken nor how the military acquired them. Adraee wrote that only a "terrorist" would be seen with Hamas officials, without providing any context as to why Al Sharif, a journalist, had allegedly met them. People gathered at Sheikh Radwan Cemetery in the heart of the Gaza Strip on Monday to mourn the journalists. Friends, colleagues and relatives consoled each another, many wiping away tears as they bid farewell. Al Sharif was previously part of a Reuters team which in 2024 won a Pulitzer Prize in the category of Breaking News Photography for coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. The war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza is the deadliest on record for journalists, according to the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs' Costs of War project. The Hamas-run Gaza government media office said 238 journalists have been killed since the war started on October 7, 2023. The Committee to Protect Journalists said at least 186 journalists have been killed in the Gaza conflict. A press freedom group and a United Nations expert previously warned that Al Sharif's life was in danger due to his reporting from Gaza. U.N. Special Rapporteur Irene Khan said last month that Israel's claims against him were unsubstantiated. PRE-RECORDED MESSAGE Al Jazeera said Al Sharif had left a social media message to be posted in the event of his death that read, "...I never hesitated to convey the truth as it is, without distortion or misrepresentation, hoping that God would witness those who remained silent". Israel's military had named Al Sharif in October as one of six Gaza journalists it alleged were members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, citing documents it said showed lists of people who completed training courses and salaries. 'Al Jazeera categorically rejects the Israeli occupation forces' portrayal of our journalists as terrorists and denounces their use of fabricated evidence,' the network said in a statement at the time. The Committee to Protect Journalists, which in July urged the international community to protect Al Sharif, said in a statement that Israel had failed to provide any evidence to back up its allegations against him. Al Sharif, whose X account showed more than 500,000 followers, posted on the platform minutes before his death that Israel had been intensely bombarding Gaza City for more than two hours. Palestinian militant group Hamas, which runs Gaza, said the killing may signal the start of an Israeli offensive. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he will launch a new offensive to dismantle Hamas strongholds in Gaza, where a hunger crisis is escalating after 22 months of war. "The assassination of journalists and the intimidation of those who remain pave the way for a major crime that the occupation is planning to commit in Gaza City," Hamas said in a statement.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
British prison officer admits to inappropriate months-long relationship with inmate
A British prison officer could be headed for her own cell after recently fessing up to a month-long inappropriate relationship with an inmate, according to a report. Megan Breen, 23, made the shocking admission in a Welsh court, becoming the latest of more than a dozen UK prison workers charged with similar conduct in recent years, the Telegraph reported. Breen initially denied the allegations before owning up to the affair, while the prisoner involved remains unnamed. Advertisement Megan Breen admitted to the inappropriate relationship after initially denying the affair Exactly what happened between Breen and the inmate remains unclear. But their relationship was carried out between February and May 2022, while Breen was working at two South Wales prisons — HMP Usk and HMP Prescoed. Advertisement Prescoed is a minimum security prison, according to the Telegraph, while Usk is a tighter security facility that houses the likes of sex offenders. It also remains unclear which prison the relationship happened at. 'While acting as a public officer, namely a prison officer, willfully and without reasonable excuse or justification, [you] misconducted yourself in a way which amounted to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder by having a relationship with a prisoner,' Breen's charges read. Breen could face prison time after owning up to the affair with an inmate at a prison where she worked. Advertisement She was released on bail until her sentencing next month. 'All sentencing options' are on the table, Judge Carl Harrison ahead of her release. Exactly how much time she faces remains unclear, but people convicted of misconduct in a public office in the UK can be sentenced to life in prison. Advertisement Breen is only the latest UK prison worker to be caught canoodling with an inmate in the past few years. At least 19 prison staffers were charged with inappropriate conduct between 2023 and 2024, according to the UK Ministry of Justice. Some of their sentences — for charges including having sex with inmates, or transferring money on an inmate's behalf — were 12 to 21 month prison terms, the Mirror reported.
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Trump Has Deployed Troops At Home Like No Other President
President Donald Trump announced on Monday that he would take control of the police force in Washington, D.C. and deploy 800 National Guard troops to quell crime and remove homeless encampments in the city. Flanked by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump said he was deploying troops to 'help reestablish law, order and public safety' in the nation's capital, which he claimed had been 'overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals." It comes just months after federal officials announced that violent crime in the city hit a 30-year low. The move is the latest in a string of military deployments on home soil by Trump that experts say represents a marked departure from his predecessors. It comes just two months after Trump deployed California's National Guard to quell protests in Los Angeles over his immigration policies, after the protests had largely died down. William Banks, professor of law at Syracuse University and an expert on the role of the military in domestic affairs, says Trump's move is likely intended as a 'symbolic' show of power, especially after a former DOGE staffer's assault in the city caught his attention. 'Symbolism has always been very important to Trump,' Banks tells TIME. 'Trump wants to clean the city up. He wants to make it look like the White House lawn.' Banks adds that the United States has always been 'unique' in its allocation of law enforcement to civilians and its general refusal to use the military on its own citizens. 'The [British] soldiers in the colonies ransacked people's homes, arrested people without cause, beat people up, stole their papers, [and] violated their privacy, so by the time of revolution and then the Constitution, we didn't have a good feeling about the presence of soldiers on our streets,' Banks says. 'We want our members of our community, our neighbors, people that we know and recognize, in civilian uniform.' Banks acknowledges that the Constitution recognizes there may be 'exceptional circumstances' where a military presence is required domestically, but that Presidents prior to Trump did so more sparingly. He points to what he calls 'rights-promoting deployments' of the National Guard, including by Lyndon B. Johnson to desegregate schools in Alabama and Mississippi. Though Trump focused on D.C., he also hinted that the capital city is just the beginning, mentioning New York City, Baltimore, and Oakland—cities in which he has much less jurisdiction. 'This will go further,' Trump said. 'We are starting strongly with D.C.' Here is where Trump has chosen to deploy federal troops during his two terms. Along the border During Trump's first term, he deployed the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border in a bid to cut down on illegal immigration. Trump's first term, much like his second, was defined by his aggressive immigration tactics. At the time, Trump's proclamation justified his deployment of troops by pointing to a surge of apprehensions at the border, while critics said that overall border crossings were at historic lows. This deployment of the National Guard at the border continued during his second term. In May of this year, thousands of National Guard troops were deployed to the Southern Border, escalating his crackdown on immigration. 'National Defense Areas' were established in New Mexico and Texas. Importantly, federal troops have been deployed at the border during previous Administrations, specifically to aid Border Patrol. Trump's expansion of military zones along the U.S. border, though, has empowered the military to further act as a law enforcement body, detaining and searching those who they consider as trespassing in these defense areas. Typically, the President would need Congressional approval for defense areas and the creation of essentially a 170-mile military installation, but the President's Day One declaration of a national emergency on the southern border in an Executive Order allowed him to sidestep this formalization. Black Lives Matter protests, 2020 In May 2020, protests broke out across the country in response to the murder of George Floyd by a police officer. The protests marked one of the largest protest movements in U.S. history, with estimates of as many as 26 million people participating in the call for racial justice. Tens of thousands of National Guard troops in over half of U.S. states were activated by state governors to deal with the Black Lives Matter protests, but Trump also used his own powers to deal with the unrest. In August 2020, Trump deployed federal forces to Kenosha, Wisconsin, to quell protests in the aftermath of the shooting of Jacob Blake by a police officer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also sent hundreds of federal officers to Portland, Oregon, to handle protests, with some reports, including one from the ACLU, claiming that these federal agents grabbed protestors off the streets in unmarked vehicles. Tactical teams of the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) were also sent to Seattle, Washington, though push back by former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and former Mayor Jenny Durkan eventually led to their withdrawal. In D.C., though, Trump, acting as Commander-in-Chief, deployed National Guard members from several states, despite public criticism from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. Trump's National Guard in D.C. also notoriously utilized tear-gas and rubber bullets against these Black Lives Matter protestors to disperse the demonstration and make room for a photo-op at St. John's Episcopal Church, which had been vandalized the night before during protests with a fire in the basement. Eventually, Trump threatened to utilize the Insurrection Act to deploy military forces to suppress the protests, calling the protestors 'terrorists.' Here, though, the Pentagon publicly broke from Trump, as Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he would prefer to not use active duty military on protests analyzed to have been mostly peaceful. Banks notes that Trump, as Commander-in-Chief of D.C., has more authority here than in the states, but adds 'one of the ironies is that in one of the few instances where there really was a violent disturbance inside the district—January 6, [2021]—[Trump] did nothing.' He continued, stating that if Trump had deployed the National Guard during the Jan. 6 insurrection, 'they could have stopped the Capitol rioting in 30 minutes.' Los Angeles, June 2025 President Trump deployed the California National Guard and the Marines in June this year, ostensibly to quell protests in Los Angeles against Trump's aggressive immigration policies and the intense escalation of deportations in the interior by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Trump's deployment of the National Guard came with a Presidential Memorandum that invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federal deployment of National Guard forces in limited circumstances, including if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' When deployed, though, the National Guard was tasked with protecting ICE agents and federal property, and they were not authorized to perform any law enforcement activities. Trump was criticized for the move, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the deployment 'purposefully inflammatory' and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Southern California describing it as 'akin to a declaration of war on all Californians.' Currently, only 300 of the 5,000 troops deployed remain in Los Angeles, as a trial begins over the legality of Trump's deployment in the first place. A California federal judge is to rule whether Trump's use of the troops violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.
