header-logo header-logo

List put Afghans at risk of Taliban reprisal

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

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll