After nearly two years of secrecy, a UK judge has lifted a rare and powerful super-injunction that had prevented the media—and the public—from even knowing that a Court case/injunction existed.
The case involved a serious error by the Ministry of Defence (MOD), which accidentally leaked personal information about thousands of Afghan citizens who had worked with the UK before the Taliban takeover in 2021.
The leaked data included names, contact information, and potentially sensitive notes.
What is a Super-Injunction?
A super-injunction is one of the rarest and most extreme legal tools available in the UK. It does not just stop the press from publishing certain information—it also bans them from revealing that the Court order itself exists.
In this case, the MOD argued that if news of the leak or the Court case became public, the Taliban might find and use the leaked data to hunt down Afghans who helped the UK.
Reasons it was kept a secret
From 2023 to 2025, the UK Government persuaded the Court that the risk to lives was so serious that secrecy was justified. Judges agreed—for a while.
At one point, the Government planned to bring around 20,000 people to the UK as a result of the breach, at a cost of billions of pounds. But because of the secrecy, this huge public commitment could not be debated in Parliament or reported by the press.
The judge handling the case called this a “scrutiny vacuum”—meaning no one outside the Government could question or understand what was happening. This is plainly a concern in the democratic country we live in.
What changed?
In June 2025, a new independent review found that the leaked data probably does not pose a serious new risk. Key findings included:
- The Taliban already have lots of data on former Afghan officials, given that they are now the incumbent Government;
- Being on the leaked list is unlikely to be the sole reason someone is targeted; and
- The danger was overestimated, especially now, years after the Taliban takeover.
The author of the review, a former civil servant, summed up his findings as follows:
“The challenge for HMG is to design a response to the data breach in a manner that
is proportionate to the risks that the unauthorised disclosure poses. This review
concludes that, nearly four years into the de facto Taleban rule of Afghanistan,
early concern about the extent of Taleban intent to target [certain individuals] has
diminished. There is little evidence of intent by the Taleban to conduct a campaign
of retribution against [certain individuals]. This review has also found no evidence
to determine there is a consistent or sustained effort to target [certain individuals].
Killings are undoubtedly still occurring, and human rights violations remain
extensive, but it is extremely difficult to determine the causes of individual killings
or detentions.”
The judge’s final decision
On 15 July 2025, the Judge lifted the super-injunction. He said that there was no longer any solid reason to keep the case or the data breach secret.
He explained that continuing the secrecy would unfairly block:
- The media’s right to report,
- The public’s right to know, and
- Parliament’s right to hold the Government accountable.
What’s still protected?
Although most of the cases can now be reported, a smaller Court injunction remains in place. It still bans:
- Publishing the personal details of those affected;
- Revealing specific, private “case notes” about applicants;
- Spreading the full dataset (except for journalists and lawyers, who may use it for legal reasons).
In a post-script to his judgment, the Judge said:
“Those involved in this long-running and unprecedented case have known throughout that there would come a time when the super-injunction could no longer be maintained. I decided that this point had been reached over a year ago. The Court of Appeal disagreed. For the last year, my assumption has been that the injunction might fall to be discharged when the information protected by it leaked into the public domain through the media in the UK or abroad. The parties have updated the court on a continual basis about the extent to which knowledge of the underlying matters has spread. It is one of the many remarkable features of the litigation—and very much to the credit of the media organisations and individual journalists involved—that there has been no mention in the media of the underlying matters while the super-injunction remained in force.”
Why this matters
As you will no doubt have witnessed through the media, TV and Radio, the existence of a super-injunction has sparked a heated debate about accountability, with important questions being posed, such as:
- How much secrecy is acceptable in a democracy?
- Should intelligence reports always outweigh public oversight?
- How can we protect people without shutting down public debate?
For nearly two years, the UK Government ran a massive relocation programme in total secrecy. Now, with the truth finally out, many are asking whether that level of censorship was ever justified.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in civil disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us