logo
Superinjunctions must never be used to shroud mistakes

Superinjunctions must never be used to shroud mistakes

Times20-07-2025
British forces in Helmand province
SUNDAY TIMES PHOTOGRAPHER RICHARD POHLE
I n September 2023 a High Court judge granted the British government its first superinjunction. The order by Mr Justice Knowles prevented not only reporting of a terrible data breach but any reference even to the existence of restrictions.
The unprecedented measure, extended several times at the request of Conservative and Labour governments, finally lapsed last week, allowing the public to learn that the details of 19,000 Afghans who had worked with the UK before the Taliban retook power had been released on Facebook, putting them and others at risk of torture or death. The mistake by an official in the UK special forces headquarters led the government to launch a secret refugee scheme that relocated to the UK more than 16,000 people compromised by the leak, at a cost of £850 million.
The incompetence of the original act, which involved a spreadsheet containing hidden data being shared via email, should not cloud the argument over whether the superinjunction was reasonable. It would have been worse had the individuals affected suffered reprisals from the Taliban. Ben Wallace, then the Tory defence secretary, was undoubtedly terrified of costing lives when he first requested an injunction in August 2023.
But as the injunction became a superinjunction, its very existence became a secret. Its lifespan then stretched into two years. Government officials warned the Commons and Lords Speakers not to allow any parliamentary questions hinting at it. The Labour opposition was not informed; nor was the intelligence and security committee or the defence committee. There came an indeterminate point when the interests of the Afghan breach victims faded and the interests of Whitehall officials grew stronger.
Mr Justice Chamberlain, who took over the case and ruled in favour of maintaining the restrictions in November 2023, said the superinjunction was 'likely to give rise to the understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship'.
It fell away at midday on Tuesday after a retired deputy chief of defence intelligence, Paul ­Rimmer, completed a review that concluded the leaked data had not spread as widely as feared and its value to the Taliban, and risk to those named in it, had diminished. Media organisations were allowed to reveal that the resettlement scheme had been hidden even from councils responsible for providing housing at considerable cost to the taxpayer, and that the Ministry of Defence's annual report had been massaged to avoid mentioning that a data incident had been reported to the Information Commissioner's Office.
All this is a disgraceful abuse of the original argument over national security and the safety of the Afghans affected.
The 2022 breach was a blunder rather than a systemic problem such as the infected blood or Post Office scandal. In those cases elaborate and long-running institutional cover-ups were exposed only thanks to media scrutiny, which eventually forced the government to take responsibility.
As Heather Brooke brilliantly argues today, UK officialdom nearly always tends towards obfuscation and non-disclosure. Ministers and civil servants dodge embarrassment wherever they can. We must ensure that the original decision to grant the government a superinjunction is a one-off, not a precedent — and that those who rule us cannot again abuse such a powerful tool.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump showed ‘willingness' to move on whisky tariffs during meeting
Trump showed ‘willingness' to move on whisky tariffs during meeting

North Wales Chronicle

time6 minutes ago

  • North Wales Chronicle

Trump showed ‘willingness' to move on whisky tariffs during meeting

Scotland's First Minister met the president ahead of the opening of a second course at his Aberdeenshire golf club, where he pressed him on the 10% levy on Scotland's national drink. The tariff, it is believed, costs the sector £4 million per week, with distillery bosses keen to reach an agreement as part of the US-UK trade deal. Speaking to the PA news agency after the opening of the course, the First Minister said: 'I think there's a willingness for President Trump to look at the issues that I've set out to him. 'I don't think that was the position a few days ago, because I think President Trump was of the view that the trade deal was done and dusted and that was an end of the matter.' Mr Swinney told Mr Trump Scotch whisky was 'unique' to Scotland and the tariff was a 'significant impediment'. 'I think there is an opportunity for us to make progress,' he added. 'I wouldn't have expected to be able to get an outcome in the course of the discussion I had yesterday and this morning with President Trump, but we will follow this up with the US administration, follow up with the United Kingdom Government, to make the progress that I think Scotland would expect on this matter.' The president was asked about whisky tariffs by journalists at his Ayrshire golf course on Monday, where he appeared not to know there was an issue. 'We'll talk about that, I didn't know whisky was a problem,' Mr Trump said. 'I'm not a big whisky drinker but maybe I should be.'

Trump showed ‘willingness' to move on whisky tariffs during meeting
Trump showed ‘willingness' to move on whisky tariffs during meeting

Rhyl Journal

time6 minutes ago

  • Rhyl Journal

Trump showed ‘willingness' to move on whisky tariffs during meeting

Scotland's First Minister met the president ahead of the opening of a second course at his Aberdeenshire golf club, where he pressed him on the 10% levy on Scotland's national drink. The tariff, it is believed, costs the sector £4 million per week, with distillery bosses keen to reach an agreement as part of the US-UK trade deal. Speaking to the PA news agency after the opening of the course, the First Minister said: 'I think there's a willingness for President Trump to look at the issues that I've set out to him. 'I don't think that was the position a few days ago, because I think President Trump was of the view that the trade deal was done and dusted and that was an end of the matter.' Mr Swinney told Mr Trump Scotch whisky was 'unique' to Scotland and the tariff was a 'significant impediment'. 'I think there is an opportunity for us to make progress,' he added. 'I wouldn't have expected to be able to get an outcome in the course of the discussion I had yesterday and this morning with President Trump, but we will follow this up with the US administration, follow up with the United Kingdom Government, to make the progress that I think Scotland would expect on this matter.' The president was asked about whisky tariffs by journalists at his Ayrshire golf course on Monday, where he appeared not to know there was an issue. 'We'll talk about that, I didn't know whisky was a problem,' Mr Trump said. 'I'm not a big whisky drinker but maybe I should be.'

Farage labels Kyle's comments ‘below the belt' and reiterates call for apology
Farage labels Kyle's comments ‘below the belt' and reiterates call for apology

The Herald Scotland

time6 minutes ago

  • The Herald Scotland

Farage labels Kyle's comments ‘below the belt' and reiterates call for apology

Mr Farage labelled Technology Secretary Mr Kyle's remarks as 'below the belt' and 'so absolutely disgusting that it's almost beyond belief', and urged people to sign a petition calling for the legislation to be repealed. We talked to mums about the Online Safety Act 👇 — Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (@SciTechgovuk) July 25, 2025 Former Reform chair Zia Yusuf said on Monday that the party would repeal the legislation if they got into Government. 'I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he's going to overturn these laws,' Mr Kyle told Sky News. 'So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Peter Kyle's comments on @SkyNews are disgusting. He should do the right thing and apologise. — Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 29, 2025 Responding to Mr Kyle on a live stream on Tuesday morning, Mr Farage said: 'Just how low can the Labour Government sink in its desperation? 'Yes, of course they're in trouble. They're well behind us in the opinion polls. But frankly, to say that I would do anything that would in any way aid and abet people like Jimmy Savile, it's so below the belt it's almost not true.' He also reiterated his demand for an apology and added: 'We're not going to get one. I think perhaps the best thing we can do is to sign the petition to repeal the Online Safety Act. That's what I'm going to do today. I think it makes sense. I'm deeply worried about the implications for free speech.' Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms such as social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. Mr Yusuf has said that the laws work to 'suppress freedom of speech' and 'force social media companies to censor anti-Government speech'. After being asked by Mr Farage to apologise on social media, Mr Kyle doubled down on his comments, claiming that wanting to 'overturn' the Act puts somebody 'on the side of predators'. If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that. — Peter Kyle (@peterkyle) July 29, 2025 Mr Yusuf has claimed that Mr Kyle's remarks showed 'how deeply unserious' the Government was about child safety, adding: 'Talking about Jimmy Savile in that way does nothing other than denigrate the victims of Jimmy Savile.' He told Sky News that the comments are 'one of the most outrageous and disgusting things a politician has said in the political arena that I can remember. And that's quite a high bar, frankly.' Sir Keir Starmer jumped to defend the legislation from its critics when he met Donald Trump on Monday, telling reporters: 'We're not censoring anyone. 'We've got some measures which are there to protect children, in particular, from sites like suicide sites.' The Prime Minister added: 'I personally feel very strongly that we should protect our young teenagers, and that's what it usually is, from things like suicide sites. I don't see that as a free speech issue, I see that as child protection.'

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