What are superinjunctions and why were the media prevented from reporting on the Afghan relocations?

ITV News

15-07-2025

An unprecedented superinjunction prevented the public from finding out thousands of Afghans were being relocated to the UK after data about their work with British forces was leaked online.
The scheme, called the Afghanistan Response Route, was set up after a dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) was released 'in error' in February 2022 by a defence official.
Arap was responsible for relocating Afghan nationals who had worked for or with the UK Government and were therefore at risk of reprisals once the Taliban returned to power in Kabul in 2021.
An unprecedented superinjunction was made at the High Court in September 2023 to reduce the risk of alerting the Taliban to the existence of the data, with the decision to apply for an order made by then-defence secretary Ben Wallace.
It was lifted on Tuesday, and it is believed to be the longest-lasting order of its kind and the first time the government has sought such a restrictive measure against the media.
The Afghanistan Response Route has led to around 900 Arap applicants and approximately 3,600 family members have been brought to the UK or are in transit so far.
It is understood to have cost the taxpayer £400 million so far, with a projected cost once completed of around £850 million.
What is an injunction?
An injunction is a court order to either prevent someone from doing something or direct them to do it.
They can be used in a variety of contexts, including in family and civil courts, and can be used to prevent publishing information or naming people.
Injunctions can be temporary, known as interim injunctions, or longer term – either until a future date or until a further order is made.
Breaching an injunction can be considered a contempt of court, which can be punished by up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine.
The vast majority of injunctions referred to in the media are plain injunctions and their existence can be reported but their subjects, or at least some of them, cannot be identified.
Who can they affect?
Injunctions can either be against named people and organisations or 'persons unknown' committing certain acts, often seen in cases related to groups of protesters or anonymous hackers.
They can be made 'against the world', meaning that any third parties who are aware of the injunction are also covered by it, even if they are not named on the order.
However, injunctions are limited to the jurisdiction of the court – in this case, England and Wales.
In 2016, a celebrity known only as PJS won a Supreme Court battle to keep an injunction barring The Sun on Sunday from identifying him in connection with alleged extra-marital sexual activities, even though his name can be found on the internet.
What makes an injunction 'super'?
Usually, the fact that an injunction exists can be reported.
However, a superinjunction means that their very existence is supposed to be unreportable.
In 2018, the Daily Telegraph published a front page story about a 'scandal which cannot be revealed' after a businessman – later named in Parliament as Sir Philip Green – obtained an injunction against the newspaper preventing it from publishing misconduct allegations.
The newspaper was able to publish the story – without naming Sir Philip – because the businessman had not obtained a superinjunction.
But in the case of the newly revealed data breach, journalists from multiple media organisations, including the Daily Mail, Global and the PA news agency, have been prevented from publishing any reference to the proceedings about the data breach until the superinjunction was lifted.
The fact that it was a superinjunction also prevented the journalists from discussing the case with colleagues who were not part of the proceedings, as well as members of the public.
Why was this superinjunction unprecedented?
A few reasons. Firstly, it is thought this was the first time that the government has sought such an order against the media.
The length of the proceedings also made this case the first of its kind. Court documents show that the Ministry of Defence originally asked for the superinjunction to last approximately four months, however, it took more than two years for the order to be lifted after it was made in September 2023, including multiple closed-door High Court hearings.
A report of the Committee on Superinjunctions, set up in 2010, said it was rare for superinjunctions to be applied for, and "even rarer for them to be granted on anything other than an anti-tipping-off, short-term basis".
This superinjunction was also made "against the world", not just against named media organisations, meaning that any third parties who became aware of the proceedings were covered by the order.
This was repeatedly described as unprecedented by lawyers involved in the process.
Mr Justice Chamberlain, the judge who oversaw most of the proceedings, over time became exasperated with the government's commitment to the superinjunction.
In his first decision in November 2023, the judge said that granting the superinjunction to the government 'is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship,' adding: 'This is corrosive of the public's trust in government.'
At one point, he said: "It is fundamentally objectionable for decisions that affect the lives and safety of thousands of human beings, and involve the commitment of billions of pounds of public money, to be taken in circumstances where they are completely insulated from public debate."
When have superinjunctions been granted in the past?
One of the earliest known applications for a superinjunction dates back to 2009 when oil traders Trafigura attempted to use one to prevent The Guardian newspaper from reporting on allegations that the company was responsible for dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast.
Footballer John Terry was granted a superinjunction, which was lifted in January 2010, allowing him to be named as the footballer behind the superinjunction involving his private life. He was reported to have had an affair with the ex-girlfriend of former Chelsea teammate Wayne Bridge.
In November 2010 the Court of Appeal lifted a superinjunction preventing the naming of Take That's Howard Donald, who was granted an order restraining publication of confidential information by a former girlfriend.
In 2011, Ryan Giggs was named in Parliament as having obtained a superinjunction preventing the publisher of the News Of The World from identifying him as the footballer who had an affair with reality TV star Imogen Thomas.
Parliamentary privilege grants certain legal immunities for members of both Houses of Parliament to allow them to perform their duties without interference from outside of the House.
How many superinjunctions currently exist?
The very nature of superinjunctions means their existence should not be known, and therefore, the true number may not be known.
However, in April last year, Lord Rogan asked a written question in the House of Lords, inquiring how many superinjunctions were currently in effect in England and Wales.
Lord Bellamy, then parliamentary under secretary of state in the Ministry of Justice, replied to say there was 'one superinjunction in force which was made in the King's Bench Division of the High Court'.