the government secured a super-injunction – a legal tool typically
used by celebrities for privacy. This not only banned reporting *on the >breach itself* but also banned any mention *of the injunction's
existence*, a constitutional first.
In message <1055ms5$1geqj$12@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:33 on Tue, 15 Jul
2025, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
the government secured a super-injunction – a legal tool typically used >>by celebrities for privacy. This not only banned reporting *on the
breach itself* but also banned any mention *of the injunction's
existence*, a constitutional first.
ICBW, but isn't the "super" simply a way of saying that you can't report
the injunction's existence. So not a 'first' at all.
Shocking case, and one that reinforces my deep mistrust of all
governments.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 13:59:33 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Shocking case, and one that reinforces my deep mistrust of all
governments.
It was the judge who granted the injunction who made it a super
injunction. It wasn't what the government asked for.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:06:48 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1055ms5$1geqj$12@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:33 on Tue, 15 Jul
2025, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
the government secured a super-injunction – a legal tool typically used >>>by celebrities for privacy. This not only banned reporting *on the
breach itself* but also banned any mention *of the injunction's >>>existence*, a constitutional first.
ICBW, but isn't the "super" simply a way of saying that you can't report
the injunction's existence. So not a 'first' at all.
I was under the impression (as were 2 other people I spoke to casually)
that superinjunctions had been discontinued.
It seems that the news they hadn't was in itself subject to a >superinjunction.
It seems worryingly that even the incoming government last year had no
idea this injunction existed.
On 2025-07-16, Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 13:59:33 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk >><jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Shocking case, and one that reinforces my deep mistrust of all >>>governments.
It was the judge who granted the injunction who made it a super
injunction. It wasn't what the government asked for.
You're saying the government asked for something and the judge said
"no, I'm going to give you what you asked for and then ten times more?"
Shocking case, and one that reinforces my deep mistrust of all
governments.
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/my-two-years-in-secret-court-how
For nearly two years, journalist Lewis Goodall was silenced by an unprecedented government super-injunction concerning a catastrophic
Ministry of Defence (MoD) data breach. This breach exposed the personal details of approximately 18,000 Afghans (potentially affecting 100,000 including families) who had applied for UK asylum under the ARAP scheme, designed for those who assisted British forces during the war in
Afghanistan. The leak placed them at severe risk of Taliban reprisal.
Goodall learned of the breach in August 2023. Before he could responsibly report it (after alerting the MoD),he was summoned to an emergency
injunction hearing. Shockingly, the government secured a super-injunction
- a legal tool typically used by celebrities for privacy. This not only banned reporting *on the breach itself* but also banned any mention *of
the injunction's existence*, a constitutional first. Justice Knowles
granted this, arguing the risk to life negated any press freedom balance. Initially, Goodall accepted the government's assurance this was temporary
to allow for relocations.
Months passed with no communication. At a subsequent hearing, Goodall discovered the government planned to help only around 200 principals
(approx. 1,000 people total) - just 1% of those potentially at risk. Crucially, the government now argued the injunction must stay in place *indefinitely*, not for evacuation, but to suppress the story. Their new justification: while the Taliban *might* have the data, confirming it was impossible, so awareness could endanger Afghans. The injunction would
only lift at a hypothetical "breakglass moment" when the Taliban's
knowledge became certain - a justification Goodall argued could last
forever.
This plunged the case into "Kafkaesque" territory. Hearings occurred in a locked, secret court (Court 27). Parliament and the public were denied knowledge of a massive scandal involving government incompetence, a
covert MoD resettlement program (eventually bringing over 6,900+ Afghans
at huge cost, potentially £800m-£7bn), and profound implications for
asylum policy and public finances - all during a general election year. Government lawyers frequently invoked "closed sessions," excluding even
the media's lawyers when challenged. Goodall grew convinced political
motives - protecting a besieged Sunak government from a damaging story
and avoiding asylum hotel pressures - were driving the secrecy.
The sole check on executive power was High Court judge Martin
Chamberlain, who bravely challenged the government and even briefly
lifted the injunction, only to be overruled by the Court of Appeal.
Goodall highlighted the dangerous precedent of such vast power resting on
one judge in secret proceedings.
The injunction finally collapsed in June 2025. A government-commissioned review (Rimmer Report), ordered by the new Defence Secretary John Healey, concluded the leaked data was "unlikely to substantially change an individual's existing exposure" given other available Taliban
intelligence. Justice Chamberlain ruled this fundamentally undermined the entire basis for the two-year secrecy. The government quietly closed the
ARAP scheme days before the report's release.
Goodall concludes by questioning the immense cost of the legal secrecy,
the dangerous constitutional precedent set for unchecked executive power,
and the betrayal of Afghan allies owed a debt - a debt seemingly only deepened by the ordeal.
In message <1058i8j$1geqj$14@dont-email.me>, at 15:59:15 on Wed, 16 Jul
2025, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:06:48 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1055ms5$1geqj$12@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:33 on Tue, 15 Jul
2025, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
the government secured a super-injunction – a legal tool typically used >>>> by celebrities for privacy. This not only banned reporting *on the
breach itself* but also banned any mention *of the injunction's
existence*, a constitutional first.
ICBW, but isn't the "super" simply a way of saying that you can't report >>> the injunction's existence. So not a 'first' at all.
I was under the impression (as were 2 other people I spoke to casually)
that superinjunctions had been discontinued.
It seems that the news they hadn't was in itself subject to a
superinjunction.
It seems worryingly that even the incoming government last year had no
idea this injunction existed.
I'm sure that the relevant people would have been informed, as soon as
taking office. They might not have known the before.
On 17/07/2025 10:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1058i8j$1geqj$14@dont-email.me>, at 15:59:15 on Wed, 16
Jul 2025, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:06:48 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1055ms5$1geqj$12@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:33 on Tue, 15 Jul >>>> 2025, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
the government secured a super-injunction – a legal tool typically used >>>>> by celebrities for privacy. This not only banned reporting *on the
breach itself* but also banned any mention *of the injunction's
existence*, a constitutional first.
ICBW, but isn't the "super" simply a way of saying that you can't report >>>> the injunction's existence. So not a 'first' at all.
I was under the impression (as were 2 other people I spoke to casually)
that superinjunctions had been discontinued.
It seems that the news they hadn't was in itself subject to a
superinjunction.
It seems worryingly that even the incoming government last year had no
idea this injunction existed.
I'm sure that the relevant people would have been informed, as soon
as taking office. They might not have known the before.
I'm not convinced. Several senior people who I thought ought to have
known when interviewed by the BBC have said that they learned about it
at the same time as we did! IOW when the super injunction was lifted.
Allowing large files to be sent as attachments by email to multiple
external recipients is a recognised risk in any IT infrastructure. Odd
that the MOD systems didn't flag it up as high risk. Some places have
flags inside documents to prohibit them being sent off site as email >attachments.
I worry about the competence of the MOD systems people. If they really
did send emails to all 18k affected individuals historic email
addresses at once they might as well have painted a target on their
backs!
Traffic analysis can glean a lot of useful information if you don't do
that right even when the material is (hopefully) end to end encrypted.
But given their track record it could have been sent in the clear.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:31:54 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,948 |