header-logo header-logo

16 July 2025
Issue: 8125 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection , Privacy , International , National security , Military
printer mail-detail

List put Afghans at risk of Taliban reprisal

The High Court has lifted a two-year super-injunction concealing the leak of a Ministry of Defence (MoD) list of more than 18,000 Afghan nationals who assisted British forces against the Taliban

The MoD learned of the data breach three years ago, initially thinking only a small number of people were affected. In August 2023, it learned the spreadsheet, of Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy applicants, was circulating online and contained details of far more people than first suspected. After a newspaper began investigating, the MoD sought an injunction. Mr Justice Robin Knowles not only granted the injunction but went further, barring disclosure of the injunction itself.

However, Mr Justice Chamberlain ordered the super-injunction be lifted this week, in MoD v Global Media and others [2025] EWHC 1806 (KB). He found ‘the sheer scale of the decision making, in terms of the numbers involved and the financial cost, meant that further secrecy was not feasible and was objectionable in principle’.

His decision follows an MoD review which concluded the Taliban likely already possess the information, therefore disclosure was ‘unlikely substantially to raise the risk faced by the individuals whose data it includes’.

Iain Wilson, managing partner of Brett Wilson, said: ‘Data breaches are an inescapable fact of modern life, with consequences that range from minor to potentially life-threatening.

‘Here, the Ministry of Defence appeared to present a strong evidential basis for the latter, and in September 2023 the court understandably granted a wide injunction. The MoD argued that revealing the injunction's existence could prompt the Taliban to try to locate the list, knowing it was considered highly sensitive. That reasoning holds, although any legal proceedings risk attracting attention.

‘The order has since been narrowed, following a government report that found the risk to those named is low. If that assessment is right, the basis for the original injunction has been undermined. There is clear public interest in the fact the government considered spending £7bn to relocate 20,000 people, especially if that was never truly necessary.’

Deputy Information Commissioner Emily Keaney said she was reassured the MoD has ‘minimised the risk of this happening again’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll