Latest news with #RoyalCourtsOfJustice
The Sun
17-07-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Details of MoD ‘kill list' STILL being blocked by Government despite fury over 1000s of Afghans secretly airlifted to UK
THE Government is still battling in courts to keep details of the Afghan data leak secret – despite condemnations of a two year gagging clause that kept parliament and the public in the dark. Defence Secretary John Healey said historic super-injunction that was used by successive governments gag the press for two years was 'in many ways unconscionable'. 6 6 6 He told MPs: 'No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner.' Yet lawyers acting for the Ministry of Defence have gone to court today to defend a second injunction connected to the leak. The injunction concerns the identities of British nationals – including MPs, Special Forces and spies – whose details were part of the leak. At the opening of the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice today MoD lawyers requested a hearing behind closed doors. It meant once again the media could not hear what they went on to say. Mr Justice Chamberlain said he would be 'scrutinising very carefully any justification for holding any parts of this hearing in private, never mind in closed'. The identities of spies and serving special forces are already covered by a convention known as the D Notice System. It prohibits the publication of sensitive personal information that reveals the identity, location or contact details members of 'members of the UK Security and Intelligence Agencies, MOD, Special Forces and Operational Cyber Units'. The superinjunction which lifted on Tuesday was the first time the government had used one to gag the press. It also prevented the government from telling parliament of top secret air lift mission that flew 4,500 Afghan migrants to Britain and is expected to cost almost £1bn. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer claimed the Conservative government which secured the injunction had 'serious questions to answer'. It came after a British Special Forces soldier accidentally sent a list of 18,714 names of Afghans who had applied for asylum in Britain after Kabul fell to the Taliban. Taliban warns thousands of Afghans secretly airlifted to UK 'we will HUNT you down' He thought he was sending a shorter list of 150 people to a trusted group of former comrades. But the spreadsheet contained details of almost everyone who had applied to flee Afghanistan to Britain on the grounds that they had helped UK forces between 2001 and 2021. It also included their contact details, their last known locations and in some cases their UK sponsors. Parts of the list were later published on Facebook triggering a massive government cover-up and a secret mission code named Operation Absurdly, the government is still defending its injunction even though Healey revealed details of what it's trying to keep secret in parliament. He said: 'It contained names and contact details of applicants – and some instances, information relating to the applicants' family members. "In a small number of cases Mr Speaker, the names of Members of Parliament, senior military officers and government officials were noted as supporting the application." Some news organisations covered by the injunction – which does not include The Sun – are banned from reporting what Healey said in Parliament. The leak, which included details of a 'secret route' for some of those affected to come to the UK, was only discovered when excerpts were put on Facebook in August 2023. The next month, the Tory government used a superinjunction to stop journalists reporting the breach. It was extended until being lifted by a High Court judge this Tuesday. The potential huge bill emerged as Nigel Farage claimed 'convicted sex offenders' were among the Afghans secretly airlifted into the UK. The Reform UK leader said the rescue of almost 20,000 Afghans is a risk to women's safety — triggering a row with Labour and the Tories. Defence Secretary John Healey insisted everyone had been checked 'carefully' for any criminal records. And he said if Mr Farage had any hard evidence, he should report it to police. Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride also said Mr Farage should provide evidence for his claims. Sir Ben Wallace, Defence Secretary at the time, insisted there was not a cover-up and the gagging order was to protect at-risk Afghans, and he made 'no apology' for doing so. 6 6 6
Times
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Times
How British state used celebrity gag order to hide its huge blunder
The unprecedented use of a superinjunction to cover up a damning and potentially deadly military blunder has raised concerns about government use of the courts to suppress information. The draconian gagging order, the first to be obtained by the government, can be revealed after a two-year legal battle led by The Times. The injunction restricted reporting on a massive data breach in which a list of Afghans applying to sanctuary in the UK was leaked and up to 100,000 people were put at risk of being killed by the Taliban. • Revealed: Leak that risked lives of 100,000 Afghans — and £7bn cover-up Its gagging power was so wide-ranging that journalists were prevented from asking basic questions about how the leak happened, who knew what when and who should be held to account. Parliament was misled and important scrutiny of a multibillion-pound operation to handle the fallout and rescue potentially endangered Afghans was impossible. In one of the most shocking hearings, behind locked doors in courtroom 27 of the Royal Courts of Justice, lawyers discussed MoD plans to 'provide cover' for the numbers of Afghans arriving in Britain with a statement to parliament. Successive governments obtained secrecy on an extraordinary scale using a legal tool largely used only by celebrities seeking to stop reporting on their private lives. The Conservative government first sought an injunction in August 2023, which was then converted by Mr Justice Knowles to a superinjunction on September 1. • Inside Operation Rubific: 'kill list', secrecy and a rescue mission The injunction 'contra mundrum' — Latin for 'against the world', or 'defying everyone' — was originally designed to be in place for a 'time-limited' period of four months. Yet over time government lawyers, fighting for it to remain in place, admitted there was no longer an 'end date'. It was a 'wholly novel use of the remedy' that 'stifled public debate', the High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain warned halfway through the case in May last year as he lifted it. He said in an earlier judgment that it was 'completely shutting down accountability' and was 'corrosive of the public's trust in government', adding the superinjunction was 'likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship'. But the Conservative government appealed against Mr Justice Chamberlain's decision to lift it before last year's general election and it was reinstated by the Court of Appeal shortly after. The MoD argued that if the superinjunction were lifted it would risk alerting the Taliban to the potential 'kill list', which they could try to get hold of, and would enable them to hunt down up to 100,000 Afghans in hiding or trying to escape the country. Sir James Eadie KC, the MoD's lawyer, said the act of telling the Afghans their data had been breached 'creates the risk of bringing the house down on everyone'. The Times and other media argued for the superinjunction to be lifted on the grounds there was a public interest in being able to hold the government to account. Decisions were being made on significant public policy matters, including on immigration, housing and the budget, while the public was kept in the dark with no democratic accountability. Those tens of thousands of Afghans who were not going to be brought to the UK as a result of the scandal also had the right to know so they could take measures to make themselves safe. Journalists were told for two years that the security risk justified unprecedented secrecy, yet the superinjunction was abandoned by the government after an independent review by a retired civil servant based on 'open source, and often anecdotal, evidence' from non-governmental organisations, think tanks, and Afghan and international activists. • Afghan data breach: John Healey apologises for 'serious error' — live It concluded that given the extent of data already available, the dataset was 'unlikely to provide considerably new or highly pertinent information to the Taliban'. It also noted that the 'glare of publicity around revelation of the data loss would clearly be likely to attract Taliban interest in obtaining it … It is possible that [the government] has inadvertently added more value to the dataset by establishing a bespoke scheme, and through the use of an unprecedented superinjunction.' The review raised serious questions about whether the injunction was justified for the duration of the time it remained in place and the risk assessment on which it was based. If that was unreliable then there would be a question of whether more than 16,000 Afghans affected by the data incident should have been brought to the UK. At a hearing on November 11, lawyers discussed an MoD plan to 'provide cover' for the unexpected numbers of Afghans arriving in Britain. 'Provide cover' was a reference to a witness statement by Natalie Moore, the head of the Afghan resettlement scheme, in which she explained a statement to parliament would not mention a secret Afghan Response Route scheme to handle the fallout of the data breach, but there would be an 'agreed narrative' that would provide context for the increased numbers. 'It is a very, very striking thing,' Mr Justice Chamberlain said. John Healey, the defence secretary, issued a written statement on December 18, the day before parliament rose for Christmas recess, saying the government intended to close 'the UK Afghan resettlement schemes', in a misleading statement that was deliberately vague and left journalists baffled. The court case is likely to reignite debate about superinjunctions, which became controversial about 15 years ago when a series were granted to protect the privacy of celebrities. Ryan Giggs, the former Manchester United footballer, became the most high-profile in 2011 when he sought a superinjunction to prevent an alleged affair being exposed. He was named by Twitter users and identified in parliament. A review of superinjunctions the same year, led by Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, emphasised that open justice was a 'fundamental constitutional principle' and that injunctions preventing the open discussion of court proceedings should be granted only in exceptional circumstances for a short period of time. That was called into question by the granting of the Afghan superinjunction, given its two-year length and repeated arguments by members of the media that the extraordinary measure may be doing more harm than good. Never before had a superinjunction been used by a government; in this case on the grounds of risk to life. The government's superinjunction is also likely to increase scrutiny of the role of special advocates, who represent the interests of excluded parties in cases involving national security. It meant the media was effectively operating blind, because while journalists could raise questions for the advocates to ask in closed session, they could not be told the answers to them and did not know what the government was telling the judge. Tom Forster, a security-cleared KC and the special advocate in this case, warned the lack of any external and effective scrutiny meant the 'democratic process remains in the deep freeze', adding: 'There are no checks and balances in play.' In 2012 Mr Justice Chamberlain, then a human rights and public law barrister, emphasised himself how crucial it was to limit the number of cases involving special advocates as the new system was not always fair. He cited the description of their task by the late Lord Bingham, the former lord chief justice, as like 'taking blind shots at a hidden target'. • I investigated the Afghan data leak. Ministers were gambling with death There is also a history of ministers being accused of trying to use the courts to hide wrongdoing, most notably the alleged torture of suspects after the invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 terror attacks, amid questions of British complicity. In this Afghan case there was a deliberate decision not to inform members of the intelligence and security committee, a parliamentary body used to scrutinise government activity, despite the peers and MPs being trusted to handle the most sensitive information. Cathryn McGahey KC, representing the MoD, admitted in February last year that 'we don't have an end date'. In November the same year, when Labour was in power, Mr Justice Chamberlain asked the court: 'It really is £6 billion?' McGahey replied 'It is … yes, it's a very large amount of public money being spent without currently any information to the public.' It later emerged in the same hearing that the planned cost was £7 billion. The MoD later said the £7 billion referred to the cost for all Afghan schemes, not just those affected by the data breach. In February this year, Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'You're going to have to say something about all of this, because you're spending £7 billion and you're letting in many thousands of people that you would have been letting in before.' Over nearly two years, more and more individuals came to find out about the superinjunction, including a law firm representing Afghans who had been affected. It was clear the superinjunction — the longest ever to be imposed, at 683 days — could no longer hold.
BBC News
14-05-2025
- Health
- BBC News
Emily Chesterton: GMC at High Court over physician associate role
A legal challenge will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice later on Wednesday about the role of physician associates (PA) in the case has been brought against the General Medical Council (GMC) by retired teachers Brendan and Marion Chesterton, whose daughter Emily died in 2022 after a blood clot was missed in two appointments with a with Anaesthetics United, they are seeking more clarity from the GMC about the scope of the PA role in a bid to improve patient safety amid increasing concern about how PAs and anaesthetic associates (AA) are being deployed in healthcare GMC took over the regulation of physician associates and anaesthetic associates in December. What do physician associates do? Physician associates and anaesthetic associates started working in the NHS in 2003, and it is thought it currently employs more than 5,000 of and AAs qualify after completing a part-funded two-year master's degree. They usually need a bioscience-related undergraduate degree, but that is not always a role includes taking medical histories, conducting physical examinations and developing treatment plans. They are not authorised to prescribe medicines nor to order scans involving ionising radiation, such as X-rays or CT scans. They work as part of a multidisciplinary team with supervision from a named senior doctor. When the government appointed the GMC to regulate PAs and AAs last year, the regulatory body's chief executive Charlie Massey said it would help to ensure they "have the necessary education and training, meet our standards, and can be held to account if serious concerns are raised". 'No more Emilys' Ms Chesterton, from Salford, died after a blood clot was missed in two appointments with a PA whom she had believed was a GP. She was 30 years was seen by the physician associate after she called her GP practice, in Crouch End in north London, complaining of pain in her calf, which had become hard. The PA recommended Ms Chesterton should take her condition became worse. Mrs Chesterton told the BBC that her daughter had "difficulty walking" and "was breathless and lightheaded".She said: "In the second appointment, the PA diagnosed her with a calf sprain, long Covid and anxiety. The PA did not examine Emily's calves, and did not make it clear that she was not a doctor."Ms Chesterton had a blood clot in her left leg, which led to her dying of a pulmonary coroner's conclusion was that she "should have been immediately referred to a hospital emergency unit" and, if she had been seen, it was likely that she would have Chesterton told the BBC: "To lose a child is so very painful. It is not the right order of this world." She added that she hoped the High Court case would mean there will be "no more Emilys". How does GMC regulation work? Government legislation governing PA and AA regulation means GMC registration will not become a legal requirement for PAs and AAs to be able to practise until December that point it will be an offence to practise either role in the UK without registration.A GMC spokesperson said: "Regulation will help to assure patients, colleagues and employers that they are safe to practise and can be held to account if serious concerns are raised."To register with us, physician associates and anaesthesia associates need to show that they have the knowledge, skills and experience to treat patients safely, and that there are no outstanding concerns about their fitness to practise."The GMC said it strongly encouraged those who were not already registered to ensure they do so. There are currently 2,479 physician associates and 109 anaesthetics associates registered with the January, the secretary of state for health and social care started an independent review of the PA and AA roles "to agree recommendations for the future". The Leng review states it will consider "the safety of the roles and their contribution to multidisciplinary healthcare teams". United Medical Associate Professionals (UMAPs), a trade union set up in 2023 to represent PAs and AAs, said in a statement: "We would like to acknowledge the strength and resolve of the Chesterton family. Whilst we may not agree with all of the public positions that have emerged around their case, we admire their determination at a time of profound personal grief."The statement added that PAs were "highly trained healthcare professionals", many of whom had previously held senior roles as nurses, pharmacists or within the clinical continued: "The current judicial review brought by Anaesthetists United against the GMC is of concern, not only because it seeks to impose disproportionately restrictive scope-of-practice conditions on one profession alone, but because, if successful, it would set a dangerous precedent for regulating all clinicians through rigid, written scopes." Mrs Chesterton told the BBC that when she found out her daughter had been seen by a physician associate, she did not know what one was. She said: "To lose a child is absolutely devastating, but to find out your child's death was preventable is heart-breaking."Ms Chesterton's father Brendan said: "It's against protocol that Emily was seen twice by a physician associate for the same issue, and she shouldn't have been prescribing."Her GP surgery, The Vale Practice, told the BBC it was "deeply saddened" by Ms Chesterton's death, and said it now only provided appointments with GPs, nurses and pharmacists after a "thorough" added that staff had been told to ensure that "a patient understands their role at the start of each appointment". 'They should recognise their responsibility' The Chestertons told the BBC that since the GMC took over regulation, the scope of the PA role had not become clearer, despite them being told by the body that "supervision would be more defined".The GMC has said it is not appropriate for it to provide advice on how individual PAs and AAs might develop their skills over time. It said this was "a matter for employers and will vary depending on the clinical context and workforce needs". "We would expect employers to be aware of - and have regard to - relevant guidance on scope of practice produced by the royal colleges and other professional bodies when they are making decisions about deployment." A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: "This is a tragic case and our thoughts are with Emily Chesterton's family and friends."The secretary of state has launched an independent review into [the] physician and anaesthesia associate professions to establish the facts and make sure we get the right people in the right places, providing the right care."Regulation of PAs and AAs by the General Medical Council began in December 2024 to ensure patient safety and professional accountability."For Mrs Chesterton, what she and her husband would like to see happen is straightforward."What we want them (the GMC) to do is to recognise their responsibility," she told BBC London. "They were assigned by Parliament to regulate, so that's what they should be doing and not passing it down to employers."They should be creating a proper scope of practice with a defined structure for supervision for patient safety, so there are no more Emilys."
