Secret plan resettles thousands of Afghans in Britain after data leak

UPI

15-07-2025

Thousands of Afghan refugees who assisted Britain during the years-long war in Afghanistan have been relocated to British shores under a secret government scheme, but only after data was mistakenly leaked by an official in the British Defense Ministry (pictured Tuesday in London, England). Photo By Andy Rain/EPA
July 15 (UPI) -- Thousands of Afghans were relocated to Britain in a secret government scheme after a data breach of nearly 100,000 refugee applicants via Afghanistan following the Taliban's 2021 seizure of power.
A British judge suggested it ultimately created "serious" concern over free speech and an independent media.
It was revealed Tuesday by British authorities that the private data of nearly 19,000 people was leaked "in error" in February 2022 by a Ministry of Defense official, containing applicant names and other personal details part of the government's so-called "Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy."
As a result, the prior government under then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak initiated last year in April a secret Afghan relocation program styled as the "Afghanistan Response Route."
As of March, about 36,000 people have been resettled in the island nation under ARAP and other similar resettlement plans.
The now-defunct ARAP program was launched in April 2021 and ended earlier this month after immigration policy adjustments by parliament.
Nearly 100,000 people, including family members of ARAP applicants, were said to be affected by the incident and could be at risk of harassment, torture or even death if the information got into Taliban hands, a judge said last year in June.
It's understood so far to have cost more than $535 million with an estimated final price tag of over $1.1 billion between legal fees, compensation and other related costs.
In September 2023, a rare superinjunction was given by a High Court to prevent British media from reporting on the story in a request by then-Defense Minister Ben Wallace to cut back on the risk of notifying Taliban warlords.
On Tuesday, the super injunction was lifted. It's thought to be the longest judicial order of its kind and the first time the British government had sought such a restrictive act against the free press.
According to officials, the dataset left osecure government computer servers while the unnamed defense official allegedly attempted to verify information.
Reports indicate around 4,500 individuals have so far arrived to British shores or in transit via the government's "Afghanistan Response Route."
It includes some 900 Arap applicants and roughly 3,600 of their family members.
An independent government review commission, seated this year in January, concluded in June that the data was "unlikely to significantly shift Taliban understanding of individuals who may be of interest to them."
In 2021, a government whistleblower testified to Britain's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office over the Afghanistan withdrawal of British troops months prior in August.
British authorities later paid out nearly $1 million in compensation for almost 300 civilian deaths during the Afghanistan conflict.
Whistleblower testimony revealed that "between 75,000 and 150,000" Afghan allies had applied for emergency evacuation out of Afghanistan as the Taliban took control, but fewer than 5% received foreign assistance.
British government officials only became aware of the data breach over a year later when excerpts appeared on Facebook.
"This data leak should never have happened and was an unacceptable breach of all relevant data protocols," James Cartlidge, the shadow defense minister who sat in Sunak's government when the scheme was hatched, told the BBC on Tuesday.
Defense Minister John Healy offered a "sincere apology on behalf of the British government" for the leak in remarks to the House of Commons.
However, the situation overall didn't sit well with the judge who stated that by granting his own super injunction, it had "given rise to serious free speech concerns."
"The superinjunction had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability which operate in a democracy," Justice Martin Chamberlain said in his summary judgment.
"This led to what I describe as a 'scrutiny vacuum,'" he added.