Special Forces blocked 2,000 credible asylum claims from Afghan commandos, MoD confirms
The Triples - so-called because their designations were CF 333 and ATF 444 - were set up, trained, and paid by UK Special Forces and supported the SAS and SBS on operations in Afghanistan. When the country fell to the Taliban in 2021, they were judged to be in grave danger of reprisal and were entitled to apply for resettlement to the UK.The rejection of their applications was controversial because they came at a time when a public inquiry in the UK was investigating allegations that Special Forces had committed war crimes on operations in Afghanistan where the Triples were present.The inquiry has the power to compel witnesses who are in the UK, but not non-UK nationals who are overseas. If resettled, former members of the Triples could be compelled by the inquiry to provide potentially significant evidence.BBC Panorama revealed earlier this year that UK Special Forces command had been given veto power over their resettlement applications and denied them asylum in Britain. The revelation caused a wave of anger among some former members of the SAS and others who served with the Afghan units.The MoD initially denied the existence of the veto, suggesting that the BBC's reporting had been inaccurate, but then-Defence Minister Andrew Murrison was later forced to tell the House of Commons the government had misled parliament in its denials.The confirmation of the more than 2,000 rejections emerged in court hearings earlier this month during a legal challenge brought by a former member of the Triples. Lawyers for the MoD applied for a restriction order which temporarily prevented the BBC from reporting on the relevant parts of the proceedings, before withdrawing their application last week under challenge.Documents disclosed in court also showed that at the same time the MoD was denying the existence of the veto, it already knew that every rejection decision made by UK Special Forces was potentially unsound and would have to be independently reviewed.Special forces blocked resettlement for elite Afghan troopsMinister says Afghan commandos described 'horrific' SAS crimesSAS unit repeatedly killed Afghan detainees, BBC findsMike Martin MP, a member of the defence select committee and former British Army officer who served in Afghanistan, told the BBC the rejections were "extremely concerning"."There is the appearance that UK Special Forces blocked the Afghan special forces applications because they were witnesses to the alleged UK war crimes currently being investigated in the Afghan inquiry," Martin said."If the MoD is unable to offer any explanation, then the matter should be included in the inquiry," he added.Johnny Mercer, the former Conservative MP for Plymouth Moor View, who served alongside the SBS in Afghanistan, testified to the Afghan inquiry that he had spoken to former members of the Triples and heard "horrific" allegations of murder by UK Special Forces.Mercer said it was "very clear to me that there is a pool of evidence that exists within the Afghan community that are now in the United Kingdom that should contribute to this Inquiry".The MoD began a review last year of all 2,022 resettlement applications referred to and rejected by UK Special Forces. All contained what MoD caseworkers on the resettlement scheme regarded as "credible" evidence of service with the Triples units.The government said at the time that the review would take 12 weeks, but more than a year later it has yet to be completed. Some rejections have already been overturned, allowing former Triples to come to the UK. But the MoD has refused to inform the Afghan commandos whether they are in scope of the review or if their rejections were upheld, unless they write to the MoD.Many are in hiding in Afghanistan, making it difficult to obtain legal representation or pro-actively contact the MoD. Dozens have reportedly been beaten, tortured, or killed by the Taliban since the group regained control of the country."Although decisions have been overturned, it's too late for some people," said a former Triples officer. "The delays have caused a lot of problems. People have been captured by the Taliban or lost their lives," he said.The officer said that the Afghan commandos worked alongside British Special Forces "like brothers" and felt "betrayed" by the widespread rejections."If Special Forces made these rejections they should say why. They should have to answer," he said.The MoD is now facing a legal challenge to aspects of the review, including the decision not to inform applicants whether their case is being reviewed or disclose the criteria used to select those in scope.The legal challenge is being brought by a former senior member of the Triples who is now in the UK, on behalf of commandos still in Afghanistan."Our client's focus is on his soldiers left behind in Afghanistan, some of whom have been killed while they wait for these heavily delayed protection decisions," said Dan Carey, a partner at Deighton Pierce Glynn."As things stand they have a right to request a reassessment of a decision they haven't even been told about. And there are others who think they are part of the Triples Review when the secret criteria would tell them that their cases aren't even being looked at."Lawyers acting for the former member of the Triples also heavily criticised the level of disclosure in the case by the MoD, which has not handed over any documentation from within UK Special Forces or government records about the decision-making process that led to the rejections.In court filings, they criticised the "total inadequacy" of the MoD's disclosure, calling it an "an obvious failure to comply with the duty of candour and to provide necessary explanation" of the process.New evidence that emerged last week in court also showed that the MoD appeared to have rejected out of hand some applicants who served with UK Special Forces in Afghanistan after 2014 - when Britain's conventional armed forces left Helmand province - without even referring them to UK Special Forces headquarters for sponsorship.The MoD has not explained the reasoning behind the policy, which was kept secret from applicants. A spokesperson for the MoD said that after 2014 the UK's role "evolved from combat operations to primarily training, advising and assisting CF 333, who were under the command of the Afghan Ministry of Interior".But officers who served with UK Special Forces told the BBC that the Triples continued to support British-led operations after 2014."Saying the Triples didn't support UK Special Forces operations after 2014 isn't true at all," said former officer who served with UKSF."We had a squadron of CF 333 with us. We worked closely together. These were NATO targets, UK planned operations," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Why thousands of Afghans were secretly relocated to the UK
This week an email was sent to people in Afghanistan. It told the recipients, who had all worked for British forces in Afghanistan, that some of their personal data 'may have been compromised'. All had applied for asylum in the UK, fearful because their work for Britain made them a target for the Taliban. Now they were told their asylum applications had been leaked into the public domain. They were advised not to take phone calls or respond to messages or emails from unknown contacts, to limit access to their social media, to consider closing their accounts, and to only go online via a private connection. Understandably, they were terrified. Dan Sabbagh, the Guardian's defence and security editor, tells Helen Pidd how 24 hours later, John Healey, the defence secretary, apologised for probably the biggest – and most expensive — data leak in British government history. And the former Afghan judge Marzia Babakarkhail tells Helen about how Afghans fear the data list could could endanger their lives.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Spies and SAS personnel among 100-plus Britons included in Afghan data leak
Details of members of the SAS are among more than 100 Britons named in the database of 18,700 Afghans, the accidental leak of which by a defence official led to thousands being secretly relocated to the UK. Defence sources said the highly sensitive document contained names and email addresses belonging to people sponsoring or linked to some individual cases. Personal information about MI6 officers was also included. The identities of members of the SAS and MI6 are a closely guarded secret, and the possibility that such information could have ended up in the public domain was a source of significant official concern. SAS and other special forces officers were involved in assessing whether Afghans who said they were members of the elite 333 and 444 units, known as the Triples, were allowed to come to the UK. Defence sources said the dataset also referred to a 'secret route' that Afghans could use to come to the UK. This week it emerged that the Ministry of Defence had obtained a superinjunction preventing the disclosure of the leak and that a £2bn-plus scheme had been created to relocate some Afghans affected by the breach to the UK to protect them from the Taliban. That superinjunction lapsed on Tuesday, when a high court judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, concluded after a government review that the threat to the 18,700 Afghans was no longer very significant. Some of the remaining restrictions were relaxed on Thursday after another court hearing. The MoD said it would be possible to publish additional descriptions about contents of the database. In a statement on Tuesday, after the unprecedented superinjunction was lifted, the defence secretary, John Healey, offered a 'sincere apology' on behalf of the government for the data breach. He later told the Commons that the spreadsheet contained 'names and contact details of applicants and, in some instances, information relating to applicants' family members, and in a small number of cases the names of members of parliament, senior military officers and government officials were noted as supporting the application'. 'This was a serious departmental error,' he added. Parliament's intelligence and security committee (ISC), which monitors the UK spy agencies, said it would scrutinise the affair, following on from an inquiry announced by the Commons defence select committee. The ISC asked that all intelligence assessments that had been shared with high court in secret now be shared with the committee. Its chair, Lord Beamish, asked why 'material relating to the data loss' could not be shared with the committee early given that it routinely reviews classified material. The MoD welcomed the proposed review. 'Defence intelligence and the wider department have been instructed by the defence secretary to give their full support to the ISC and all parliamentary committees,' a spokesperson said. The decision to seek an injunction preventing the disclosure of the data breach was first taken by Ben Wallace, then the Conservative defence secretary, in August 2023, when the MoD first became aware that the personal information had leaked to a Facebook group. A judge then ordered that the injunction remain secret, turning it into a rarely used superinjunction. Wallace's immediate successor, Grant Shapps, sought to maintain the gagging order until the general election in July 2024 while developing a secret relocation scheme for about 15,000 Afghans affected. The day-to-day task for developing the scheme was handed to one of Shapps's deputies, James Heappey, the then minister for the armed forces. On Thursday, in a social media posting, Heappey said the scheme was discussed in the cabinet's domestic an economic affairs committee. He said the committee 'tried to extend entitlements by smallest number possible', as led by legal advice, with little resistance from other members of the government. 'I don't recall fierce opposition. There was frustrated resignation that it was necessary,' he said. It can now be reported that the leaked data included the names, email addresses and phone numbers for thousands of Afghans who had applied to come to the UK under an existing relocation scheme designed for those who had helped the British military. In some instances the data contained further written information about their case and status of their application – focused on whether they had in fact helped the UK or British forces in Afghanistan – but it did not contain addresses or photographs. This week Afghans affected by the breach received a message addressed from the UK government, sent in English, Pashto and Dari, that warned the recipient's email address had been used to make a resettlement application and that some personal data may have been compromised. Details of the breach were limited, but recipients of the email – some of whom remain in hiding from the Taliban in Afghanistan – were advised 'not to take phone calls or respond to messages or emails from unknown contacts' and to limit who could see their social media profiles.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Armed Forces minister at time of Afghan data leak admits he and other officials 'let the country down badly'
The Armed Forces minister at the time of the Afghan data leak last night admitted that he and other officials had 'let the country down badly'. James Heappey's rare mea culpa came after other ministers sought to distance themselves from the catalogue of errors and failures to inform Parliament about what went wrong. Mr Heappey was minister when the data breach – putting thousands of Afghans on a Taliban 'kill list' – was uncovered in 2023 and when the super-injunction to keep it secret was granted. The former Conservative MP, who gave up his seat at last year's election, also defended the official responsible for the leak, which occurred 18 months before it was discovered. A military officer working for United Kingdom Special Forces (UKSF), accidentally emailed the database of 18,714 Afghans to someone, thinking he was sending just 150 names to be checked for possible relocation to Britain. It emerged yesterday the leak also included British Special Forces officers and MI6 spies. The officer was moved to a new role but not sacked. In a 25-message-long thread on X, Mr Heappey said: 'It was gut-wrenching to find out that someone in the Ministry of Defence had screwed up so awfully although I came to find subsequently they were incredibly dedicated to those we served with in Afghanistan. 'Few had done more to get people who served alongside our Special Forces out of Afghanistan. 'It is incredibly unfair that someone who'd done so much good and changed so many lives deservedly for the better, should be responsible. 'But the worst part of all, of course, was the mortal danger we feared this breach presented to applicants whose details had been compromised. The intelligence assessment was clear: if the Taliban got their hands on the list, violent and even lethal reprisal was likely. 'The Ministry of Defence was magnificent in response to it all. But on this breach, we let the country down badly.' Mr Heappey said he was not involved in setting up any of the injunctions surrounding the data leak, but he backed the decisions to impose them. He added that issues arising from the breach resulted in fierce arguments between ministers and 'some pretty choice words' in meetings. The leak led to the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) – in April 2024. Its existence was revealed on Tuesday when the near-two-year super-injunction was lifted. Yesterday former home secretary Suella Braverman and Tory justice spokesman Robert Jenrick said they strongly opposed the plan to bring more than 24,000 Afghans to Britain. It was also reported that those in the Treasury, plus the likes of Sir James Cleverly, the foreign secretary at the time, and Michael Gove, the then-communities secretary, were against it. Key figures yet to break cover include a former Special Forces chief, a Chief of the Defence Staff and Sir Grant Shapps, the defence secretary at the time the injunction was upgraded to a super-injunction and the decision was taken to launch the ARR. General Sir Gwyn Jenkins was director of Special Forces at the time of the leak. In August 2023, when it was discovered, Sir Gwyn was invited to a Cobra meeting in Whitehall. Asked by a minister if he should resign, he reportedly replied: 'Certainly not.' Downing Street has been forced to defend Sir Gwyn's role this week, putting out a statement saying he had 'no role in any aspect of the Afghan resettlement schemes'. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin was Chief of the Defence Staff when the leak was discovered and when it occurred the previous year. The same minister who asked if Sir Gwyn would resign also asked if Sir Tony was going to fall on his sword, and was similarly rebuffed.
