logo
#

Latest news with #September11

World's first plane hijacking: A 20-minute flight that took off from Macau but never reached..., it was hijacked by...
World's first plane hijacking: A 20-minute flight that took off from Macau but never reached..., it was hijacked by...

India.com

time3 days ago

  • India.com

World's first plane hijacking: A 20-minute flight that took off from Macau but never reached..., it was hijacked by...

World's first plane hijacking: A 20-minute flight that took off from Macau but never reached..., it was hijacked by... The event that changed the history of aviation, started with a seaplane being taken over by 'air pirates.' Let's take a look at what the Hong Kong mail called 'unparalleled in the history of aviation.' Flights, at that time were only for the rich. With a 'cigarette flight' between Macau and Hong Kong suddenly crashing, and the sole survivor telling different tales and acting suspicious led authorities to dig deeper within what actually happened. Were there pirates in the air? On July 16, 1948, the plane 'Miss Macao,' took off from Macau with 27 people on board, but 4 of them had no intention of going to Hong Kong. The survivor, Wong Yu, a 24 year-old rice farmer, along with his three fellow mates bought the plane tickets by selling everything they owned, tried to grab control of the airplane from the pilot. One of them learned how to fly a plane as the men thought the proceeds from the crime could get them rich. According to historians, the lead hijacker wanted to gain control of the flight once he subdued the pilots, but things went unexpectedly wrong! The hijackers did not expect the pilots to resist, which led them shooting both of them, sending the captain's body on the plane's joystick and it plummeting into the South China Sea. How did the police get to know? The plane's wreckage proved everything the survivor told was false. But after seeing Wong's poor physical and mental condition, the police could not resort to harsh conditions. What they did instead was clever, undercover cops in the form of patients went to Wong, and befriended him, which led to him eventually admitting everything to them. He confessed that the plan was all about gaining the plane's control, stealing valuables and holding the people for ransom, death was not a part of the plan. The 'air pirates,' tied their guns to their socks and escaped the bare minimum security checks at the time. How 'skyjacking' evolved? After this event storming newspapers, people got more ideas and this became extremely common. With the boom of the aviation industry, there was a boom in the number of skyjackings as well. It started from stealing and ransom, and got to a point where hijackers' killed people and crashed planes for political reasons. From 1968 to 1972, airlines went through the 'golden age of hijacking,' with one happening every five and a half days, and costed the industry $219,221 per passenger. This recklessness brought strict action, with airports becoming miniature police states and strict security procedures being implemented, the numbers greatly reduced, so much that there is a negligible chance of a plane getting hijacked nowadays. What happened on the Miss Macao was not a singular story, but the first of many aviation incidents that transformed air travel. Before 'the golden age of hijacking' or the September 11, 2001 attacks, one nearly forgotten seaplane set a new age of aviation into motion.

US immigration policy echoes approaches tried before in Australia, Britain and elsewhere
US immigration policy echoes approaches tried before in Australia, Britain and elsewhere

NZ Herald

time4 days ago

  • Politics
  • NZ Herald

US immigration policy echoes approaches tried before in Australia, Britain and elsewhere

They included countries where officials have not provided 'diplomatic assurances' that migrants will be safe, and with as little as six hours' notice. A Supreme Court ruling this month cleared the way for the policy. What is a 'third country'? Usually, under a removal order, migrants are deported to a country of which they are a citizen. But some countries do not always co-operate with the US on deportations. They include Cuba, Laos, and Myanmar; some of the eight migrants sent to South Sudan were from those three nations. In cases where countries do not agree to take in their own citizens, 'other countries have agreed that they would take them in … and take care of them until their home country would receive them,' said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Fox News. The US under President Donald Trump has also sent more than 130 Venezuelan migrants to the legal black hole of prisons in El Salvador. Trump used the wartime Alien Enemies Act to remove them, accusing them of terrorism because they had alleged markers of gang membership. Who else has tried this - and what happened? Although it is not the same as sending migrants to third countries, the US has used offshore detention facilities to hold terrorism suspects and process asylum seekers. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the US began sending terrorism suspects apprehended abroad to a detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where some detainees still remain without having been tried. Although most former Guantanamo detainees were returned to their home countries, about one-fifth ended up in third countries for resettlement, under deals brokered by Washington. Before that, under President George Bush snr and President Bill Clinton, the base also served as a site to process thousands of intercepted asylum seekers, many from Haiti - a plan Trump has tried to restore and expand. The CIA for years following 9/11 ran an 'extraordinary rendition' programme, secretly moving terrorism suspects on private civilian aircraft to other countries to be interrogated at secret detention sites by CIA or local officials. More than 50 governments collaborated in some way, according to the Open Society Foundation. The courthouse facilities at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, in 2023. Although it is not the same as sending migrants to third countries, the US has used offshore detention facilities to hold terrorism suspects and process asylum seekers. Photo / Marisa Schwartz Taylor, the New York Times Other countries have pursued third-country deportations. Australia prevents anyone arriving by boat without a visa from settling in the country. Instead, since 2013, authorities send asylum seekers offshore to processing facilities in the Pacific Island nations of Papua New Guinea and Nauru. Medical and human rights professionals have warned that many children being raised in Australia's third-country limbo have developed 'resignation syndrome', struggling to eat, drink and speak and in extreme cases requiring a feeding tube. Some have attempted suicide. Starting in 2022, Britain's Conservative Party, in power at the time, began trying to implement a policy that would send certain asylum seekers some 6440km to Rwanda to have their cases processed. Those assessments could lead to migrants remaining in Rwanda under an agreement with its government, moving on to third countries not including Britain or being sent to their country of origin. Then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the plan would 'stop the boats', echoing proponents of Australian policies. The British plan ended up costing more than US$900 million, according to British Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, but only four people in total - who volunteered to go for cash - wound up in Rwanda. The Labour Party quickly shut down the process upon taking over last year. Israel had a similar but secret agreement with Rwanda, sending thousands of Israel-based Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers to Rwanda between 2013 and 2018, when the supreme court suspended the government plan, the BBC reported. Those asylum seekers were given the choice to be sent to a migrant detention facility back home or receive US$3500 to go to Rwanda. Years later, many settled in Europe, the BBC found. In recent months, India has been implementing a hard-line deportation drive against its Muslim minority. Between early May and July, 1880 people were deported from India to Bangladesh, according to private Bangladeshi government data obtained by the Washington Post. More than 100 people were logged by border officials in Bangladesh as Indians who were wrongly deported and sent back, another document showed. What are the legal and human rights concerns? Rights advocates have challenged Trump's third-country deportation efforts, arguing that the policy doesn't give migrants a chance to plead their cases and that it violates federal and international law, if migrants are sent to places where they are known to face danger. US District Judge Brian Murphy ruled in May that the Trump Administration had violated a court order by trying to send migrants to South Sudan, and that the 'hurried and confused' notice given to the deportees was unreasonable. Even though immigration laws contain provisions allowing the US government to deport people to third countries under some circumstances, it's 'just not something that's been done as a matter of practice', said Jennifer Koh, an associate professor at Pepperdine University's Caruso School of Law. Under international law, the US has a legal obligation not to send migrants to countries where they would face torture or cruel treatment - known as the principle of non-refoulement. The new US policy, which requires minimal notice before such deportations, 'seems like a recipe for rampant potential violations of the torture convention', said Koh. 'The Administration has been pretty clear from the start' that 'one of the tools to advance their immigration policy has been to inflict fear and cruelty on immigrants', aiming for deterrence and self-deportation. It's 'no accident' that the 'third countries' chosen as destinations for migrants 'are places that have notoriously bad human rights records, and where torture in custody is commonplace', said Sarah Sherman-Stokes, a clinical associate professor at Boston University School of Law.

UK counter-radicalisation scheme Prevent must 'up its game', review concludes
UK counter-radicalisation scheme Prevent must 'up its game', review concludes

Straits Times

time4 days ago

  • Politics
  • Straits Times

UK counter-radicalisation scheme Prevent must 'up its game', review concludes

FILE PHOTO: LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND - SEPTEMBER 21: Home Secretary Yvette Cooper speaks with members of the local community during a visit to the recently refurbished Spellow library on September 21, 2024 in Liverpool, England. Leon Neal/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo LONDON - Britain's counter-radicalisation scheme Prevent needs to rapidly adapt to avoid mistakes which saw two men who had been referred to the programme go on to commit deadly knife attacks, a review concluded on Wednesday. Prevent has been a key strand of Britain's security apparatus since the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001, with the aim of stopping radicalisation and preventing people from going on to commit acts of violence. But since its inception it has faced criticism from some Muslims who argue it has been used to spy on their communities, while some referrals have gone on to commit acts of terrorism. The government commissioned a report into the scheme after it emerged that teenager Axel Rudakubana, who murdered three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event in Southport last year, had previously been referred by his school, but concerns about his violent tendencies were not acted upon. David Anderson, the Interim Independent Prevent Commissioner, looked at the case of Ali Harbi Ali, who was inspired by Islamic State to stab to death veteran lawmaker David Amess in 2021. Ali too had previously been referred to Prevent by his school, and Anderson said both cases involved a long string of mistakes and poor judgments. He concluded that the scheme, while it worked sometimes, had to improve and adapt, applying to those who were simply obsessed with violence, such as Rudakubana. In the longer term, it should become part of a broader safeguarding and violence protection system, he said. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Over 600 Telegram groups in Singapore selling, advertising vapes removed by HSA Singapore 2 weeks' jail for man caught smuggling over 1,800 vapes and pods into Singapore Singapore Jail for man who fatally hit his daughter, 2, while driving van without licence Singapore Primary 1 registration: 38 primary schools to conduct ballot in Phase 2A Singapore ComfortDelGro to introduce new taxi cancellation, waiting fee policy Singapore Here comes the sun: Less rain, more warm days in second half of July Singapore Instead of overcomplicating COE system, Govt has ensured affordable transport for all: SM Lee to Jamus Lim Singapore Baby died after mum took abortion pills and gave birth in toilet; coroner records an open verdict "More needs to be done," Anderson said. "Prevent needs to up its game in the online world, where most radicalisation now takes place." Home Secretary (interior minister) Yvette Cooper said the government would immediately act on his findings. The most recent figures showed in the year to the end of March 2024, 6,922 people had been referred to Prevent, an increase of 1.5% on the previous 12 months. Of those, 63% were categorised as holding extremist Islamist views and 29% were considered to hold extreme right-wing ideologies. Only two years ago, another independent review concluded that Prevent should refocus its efforts more on the threat posed by militant Islamism after becoming too concerned with extreme right-wing ideologies. REUTERS

9/11 accused faces trial after court rejects life sentence agreement
9/11 accused faces trial after court rejects life sentence agreement

Canada News.Net

time4 days ago

  • Politics
  • Canada News.Net

9/11 accused faces trial after court rejects life sentence agreement

WASHINGTON, D.C.: A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled on July 11 to cancel a plea deal that would have let Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — the man accused of planning the September 11 attacks — avoid the death penalty. The deal had been in the works for two years and was meant to end a legal case that had dragged on for over twenty years. The canceled agreement would have given Mohammed and two other men life in prison without parole, in exchange for pleading guilty and answering questions from the victims' families. The plot Mohammed, a Pakistani national, is accused of leading involved hijacked planes crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and another into a field in Pennsylvania. The decision means that the long-running military trial at Guantanamo Bay will continue, with no clear end in sight. Families of the 9/11 victims were divided on the proposed deal. Some believed it was the best way to finally get answers and bring closure, while others felt that only a full trial could deliver justice and reveal the whole truth. Part of the deal included a promise that the accused men would answer any remaining questions from the families. However, former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin rejected the plea deal last year. He said that a decision as serious as whether to seek the death penalty in a case like 9/11 should be made by the defense secretary, not others. Lawyers for the accused men argued that the deal had already been legally finalized and that Austin was too late in trying to cancel it. A military judge and an appeals court at Guantanamo Bay agreed with the defense. But by a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. disagreed and ruled that Austin acted within his rights. The majority of the court said that Austin had the authority to step in and that it was reasonable for him to say the public deserved to see the trial go forward. Two judges, one appointed by Obama and the other by Trump, agreed on this ruling. The third judge, also appointed by Obama, disagreed and said the government failed to prove the military judge made a mistake. Brett Eagleson, whose father died in the attacks, supported the court's decision. He said that plea deals allow the government to quietly end cases without full accountability. He also doubted whether the men would have been honest in answering families' questions. "The only valid way to get answers and seek the truth is through a trial," he said. Elizabeth Miller, who was six when her firefighter father died in the attacks, supported the plea deal. She said that after so many years — it's now 2025 and the trial hasn't even started — it might never happen. She also opposes the death penalty, which made her support the agreement.

Thousands of Afghans secretly moved to UK after leak
Thousands of Afghans secretly moved to UK after leak

The Advertiser

time4 days ago

  • Politics
  • The Advertiser

Thousands of Afghans secretly moved to UK after leak

The United Kingdom set up a secret scheme to relocate thousands of Afghans to the country after people's personal details were disclosed in a data leak, risking reprisals from the Taliban after their return to power in Afghanistan in 2021. Concerns that individuals named could be targeted by the Taliban led the previous Conservative government to set up the relocation scheme, involving thousands of people and estimated to cost the government 2 billion pounds ($A4.1 billion). The leak by the Ministry of Defence in early 2022, which led to data being published on Facebook the following year, and the secret relocation program, were subject to a so-called superinjunction preventing the media reporting what happened, which was lifted on Tuesday by a court. UK defence minister John Healey apologised for the data leak, which included details about members of parliament and senior military officers who supported applications to help soldiers who worked with the UK military and their families relocate from Afghanistan. "This serious data incident should never have happened," Healey told MPs in the House of Commons. "It may have occurred three years ago under the previous government but to all whose data was compromised I offer a sincere apology." Healey said that about 4500 affected people "are in Britain or in transit ... at a cost of around 400 million pounds". But he added that no-one else from Afghanistan will be offered asylum because of the data leak. UK forces were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001 following the September 11 attacks on the United States and they played a major role in combat operations there until 2014. The government is facing lawsuits from those affected by the breach, further adding to the ultimate cost of the incident. A Ministry of Defence-commissioned review of the data breach, a summary of which was also published on Tuesday, said more than 16,000 people affected by it had been relocated to the UK as of May this year. The details emerged on Tuesday after a legal ruling known as a superinjunction was lifted. An unprecedented superinjunction was made at the High Court in September 2023 after officials argued that a public disclosure of the breach could put people at risk of extra-judicial killing or serious violence by the Taliban, with the decision to apply for an order made by then-defence secretary Ben Wallace. The superinjunction is thought to be the longest lasting order of its kind and the first time the government has sought such a restrictive measure against the media. At multiple hearings, government lawyers said in submissions that there was a "very real risk that people who would otherwise live will die" if the Taliban gained access to the data. Healey, the Defence Secretary, told MPs the superinjunction had left him feeling "deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House" about the breach and the secret relocation scheme set up in its wake. Under plans set out last October, the Afghanistan Response Route was expected to allow up to 25,000 people - most of whom were ineligible for Arap but deemed to be at the highest risk from Taliban reprisals - to be relocated. Judge Martin Chamberlain, who ruled that the injunction should be lifted, said on Tuesday at the High Court that the gag order 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," he said. "This led to what I describe as a 'scrutiny vacuum'." The dataset contained personal information of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to be relocated to the UK and their families. A High Court said in a summary of its ruling to lift the injunction that the data "contained personal information about more than 33,000 applicants". It was released in error in early 2022 before the MoD spotted the breach in August 2023 when part of the dataset was published on Facebook. The former Conservative government obtained the injunction the following month. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government, which was elected last July, launched a review into the injunction, the breach and the relocation scheme, which concluded that although Afghanistan remains dangerous, there was little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution. with PA and AP The United Kingdom set up a secret scheme to relocate thousands of Afghans to the country after people's personal details were disclosed in a data leak, risking reprisals from the Taliban after their return to power in Afghanistan in 2021. Concerns that individuals named could be targeted by the Taliban led the previous Conservative government to set up the relocation scheme, involving thousands of people and estimated to cost the government 2 billion pounds ($A4.1 billion). The leak by the Ministry of Defence in early 2022, which led to data being published on Facebook the following year, and the secret relocation program, were subject to a so-called superinjunction preventing the media reporting what happened, which was lifted on Tuesday by a court. UK defence minister John Healey apologised for the data leak, which included details about members of parliament and senior military officers who supported applications to help soldiers who worked with the UK military and their families relocate from Afghanistan. "This serious data incident should never have happened," Healey told MPs in the House of Commons. "It may have occurred three years ago under the previous government but to all whose data was compromised I offer a sincere apology." Healey said that about 4500 affected people "are in Britain or in transit ... at a cost of around 400 million pounds". But he added that no-one else from Afghanistan will be offered asylum because of the data leak. UK forces were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001 following the September 11 attacks on the United States and they played a major role in combat operations there until 2014. The government is facing lawsuits from those affected by the breach, further adding to the ultimate cost of the incident. A Ministry of Defence-commissioned review of the data breach, a summary of which was also published on Tuesday, said more than 16,000 people affected by it had been relocated to the UK as of May this year. The details emerged on Tuesday after a legal ruling known as a superinjunction was lifted. An unprecedented superinjunction was made at the High Court in September 2023 after officials argued that a public disclosure of the breach could put people at risk of extra-judicial killing or serious violence by the Taliban, with the decision to apply for an order made by then-defence secretary Ben Wallace. The superinjunction is thought to be the longest lasting order of its kind and the first time the government has sought such a restrictive measure against the media. At multiple hearings, government lawyers said in submissions that there was a "very real risk that people who would otherwise live will die" if the Taliban gained access to the data. Healey, the Defence Secretary, told MPs the superinjunction had left him feeling "deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House" about the breach and the secret relocation scheme set up in its wake. Under plans set out last October, the Afghanistan Response Route was expected to allow up to 25,000 people - most of whom were ineligible for Arap but deemed to be at the highest risk from Taliban reprisals - to be relocated. Judge Martin Chamberlain, who ruled that the injunction should be lifted, said on Tuesday at the High Court that the gag order 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," he said. "This led to what I describe as a 'scrutiny vacuum'." The dataset contained personal information of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to be relocated to the UK and their families. A High Court said in a summary of its ruling to lift the injunction that the data "contained personal information about more than 33,000 applicants". It was released in error in early 2022 before the MoD spotted the breach in August 2023 when part of the dataset was published on Facebook. The former Conservative government obtained the injunction the following month. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government, which was elected last July, launched a review into the injunction, the breach and the relocation scheme, which concluded that although Afghanistan remains dangerous, there was little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution. with PA and AP The United Kingdom set up a secret scheme to relocate thousands of Afghans to the country after people's personal details were disclosed in a data leak, risking reprisals from the Taliban after their return to power in Afghanistan in 2021. Concerns that individuals named could be targeted by the Taliban led the previous Conservative government to set up the relocation scheme, involving thousands of people and estimated to cost the government 2 billion pounds ($A4.1 billion). The leak by the Ministry of Defence in early 2022, which led to data being published on Facebook the following year, and the secret relocation program, were subject to a so-called superinjunction preventing the media reporting what happened, which was lifted on Tuesday by a court. UK defence minister John Healey apologised for the data leak, which included details about members of parliament and senior military officers who supported applications to help soldiers who worked with the UK military and their families relocate from Afghanistan. "This serious data incident should never have happened," Healey told MPs in the House of Commons. "It may have occurred three years ago under the previous government but to all whose data was compromised I offer a sincere apology." Healey said that about 4500 affected people "are in Britain or in transit ... at a cost of around 400 million pounds". But he added that no-one else from Afghanistan will be offered asylum because of the data leak. UK forces were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001 following the September 11 attacks on the United States and they played a major role in combat operations there until 2014. The government is facing lawsuits from those affected by the breach, further adding to the ultimate cost of the incident. A Ministry of Defence-commissioned review of the data breach, a summary of which was also published on Tuesday, said more than 16,000 people affected by it had been relocated to the UK as of May this year. The details emerged on Tuesday after a legal ruling known as a superinjunction was lifted. An unprecedented superinjunction was made at the High Court in September 2023 after officials argued that a public disclosure of the breach could put people at risk of extra-judicial killing or serious violence by the Taliban, with the decision to apply for an order made by then-defence secretary Ben Wallace. The superinjunction is thought to be the longest lasting order of its kind and the first time the government has sought such a restrictive measure against the media. At multiple hearings, government lawyers said in submissions that there was a "very real risk that people who would otherwise live will die" if the Taliban gained access to the data. Healey, the Defence Secretary, told MPs the superinjunction had left him feeling "deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House" about the breach and the secret relocation scheme set up in its wake. Under plans set out last October, the Afghanistan Response Route was expected to allow up to 25,000 people - most of whom were ineligible for Arap but deemed to be at the highest risk from Taliban reprisals - to be relocated. Judge Martin Chamberlain, who ruled that the injunction should be lifted, said on Tuesday at the High Court that the gag order 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," he said. "This led to what I describe as a 'scrutiny vacuum'." The dataset contained personal information of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to be relocated to the UK and their families. A High Court said in a summary of its ruling to lift the injunction that the data "contained personal information about more than 33,000 applicants". It was released in error in early 2022 before the MoD spotted the breach in August 2023 when part of the dataset was published on Facebook. The former Conservative government obtained the injunction the following month. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government, which was elected last July, launched a review into the injunction, the breach and the relocation scheme, which concluded that although Afghanistan remains dangerous, there was little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution. with PA and AP The United Kingdom set up a secret scheme to relocate thousands of Afghans to the country after people's personal details were disclosed in a data leak, risking reprisals from the Taliban after their return to power in Afghanistan in 2021. Concerns that individuals named could be targeted by the Taliban led the previous Conservative government to set up the relocation scheme, involving thousands of people and estimated to cost the government 2 billion pounds ($A4.1 billion). The leak by the Ministry of Defence in early 2022, which led to data being published on Facebook the following year, and the secret relocation program, were subject to a so-called superinjunction preventing the media reporting what happened, which was lifted on Tuesday by a court. UK defence minister John Healey apologised for the data leak, which included details about members of parliament and senior military officers who supported applications to help soldiers who worked with the UK military and their families relocate from Afghanistan. "This serious data incident should never have happened," Healey told MPs in the House of Commons. "It may have occurred three years ago under the previous government but to all whose data was compromised I offer a sincere apology." Healey said that about 4500 affected people "are in Britain or in transit ... at a cost of around 400 million pounds". But he added that no-one else from Afghanistan will be offered asylum because of the data leak. UK forces were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001 following the September 11 attacks on the United States and they played a major role in combat operations there until 2014. The government is facing lawsuits from those affected by the breach, further adding to the ultimate cost of the incident. A Ministry of Defence-commissioned review of the data breach, a summary of which was also published on Tuesday, said more than 16,000 people affected by it had been relocated to the UK as of May this year. The details emerged on Tuesday after a legal ruling known as a superinjunction was lifted. An unprecedented superinjunction was made at the High Court in September 2023 after officials argued that a public disclosure of the breach could put people at risk of extra-judicial killing or serious violence by the Taliban, with the decision to apply for an order made by then-defence secretary Ben Wallace. The superinjunction is thought to be the longest lasting order of its kind and the first time the government has sought such a restrictive measure against the media. At multiple hearings, government lawyers said in submissions that there was a "very real risk that people who would otherwise live will die" if the Taliban gained access to the data. Healey, the Defence Secretary, told MPs the superinjunction had left him feeling "deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House" about the breach and the secret relocation scheme set up in its wake. Under plans set out last October, the Afghanistan Response Route was expected to allow up to 25,000 people - most of whom were ineligible for Arap but deemed to be at the highest risk from Taliban reprisals - to be relocated. Judge Martin Chamberlain, who ruled that the injunction should be lifted, said on Tuesday at the High Court that the gag order 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," he said. "This led to what I describe as a 'scrutiny vacuum'." The dataset contained personal information of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to be relocated to the UK and their families. A High Court said in a summary of its ruling to lift the injunction that the data "contained personal information about more than 33,000 applicants". It was released in error in early 2022 before the MoD spotted the breach in August 2023 when part of the dataset was published on Facebook. The former Conservative government obtained the injunction the following month. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government, which was elected last July, launched a review into the injunction, the breach and the relocation scheme, which concluded that although Afghanistan remains dangerous, there was little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution. with PA and AP

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