For nearly three decades reporting from the Royal Courts, nothing quite matched the sheer disbelief that filled the room when Mr Justice Chamberlain looked up, stunned.
The British government, he had just learned, was allegedly preparing to actively mislead Parliament and the public about a massive secret immigration scheme.
Not only that, but they were also spending an eye-watering £7 billion of taxpayers’ money in the process.
The Fallout From a Dangerous Data Breach
At the heart of it all was a massive Ministry of Defence data breach in 2023 that exposed the identities of thousands of Afghans who had helped British forces.
This leak left them vulnerable to brutal Taliban retribution.
Instead of coming clean, the government scrambled to hide the fallout—including the launch of an emergency immigration scheme to relocate these individuals to the UK.
The Superinjunction Nobody Knew About
To bury the story, ministers secured an extremely rare and powerful legal tool: a superinjunction.
Traditionally used by celebrities to hide personal scandals, this was the first time it had ever been used by a UK government to block a national security-related news story.
It not only banned reporting on the scheme, but also made it illegal to mention that the injunction even existed.
How the Daily Mail Fought Back
The Daily Mail, having discovered the breach, chose initially not to publish out of concern for the safety of the Afghans involved.
However, as time passed and the injunction dragged on, the newspaper, along with other media outlets, fought back in court to lift the gag order.
Over 20 secret hearings were held over nearly two years, with journalists attending locked-door sessions under threat of imprisonment.
A Judge Expresses His Doubts
Justice Chamberlain, who took over the case, was increasingly disturbed by the government’s refusal to allow any public debate or parliamentary oversight.
He pointed out that hiding a £7 billion spending scheme was no small matter.
When he was told that ministers planned to issue a vague public statement while keeping the real reason for the Afghan arrivals hidden, he called it “a very, very striking thing.”
From Protecting Lives to Controlling the Narrative
Initially, the government justified the secrecy as necessary to protect lives. But by late 2024, their focus seemed to shift.
Officials admitted they planned to “control the narrative” with a carefully crafted statement that would explain the scale—but not the cause—of Afghan migration to the UK.
The judge and media barristers called this what it was: misleading Parliament and the public.
Mounting Costs and Waning Justifications
While the courts were kept in the dark, so too were MPs and even the Intelligence and Security Committee.
The government didn’t even inform these trusted officials.
Meanwhile, the projected costs of the scheme ballooned to £7 billion, with concerns that 10% of arrivals might become homeless and contribute to civil unrest in certain areas.
Government’s Legal Gymnastics
Despite the judge’s ruling in May 2024 to lift the injunction, the Ministry of Defence appealed and succeeded in keeping it in place with the help of top legal minds.
Labour, who had taken over from the Conservatives, continued the secrecy after winning the July 2024 election, even expanding the scheme behind closed doors.
A Secret Becomes Public
Then came the U-turn. Suddenly, the government declared that the threat wasn’t as severe as they had claimed and that maintaining the injunction might have actually made things worse by drawing attention to the list.
After 683 days, the superinjunction was lifted.
Finally, the public and Parliament could know the truth.
What Happens Now?
The government has since acknowledged that the media’s fight to lift the gag order served an important public interest.
But serious questions remain.
Why was secrecy maintained for so long? Why were billions spent without scrutiny? And how close did we come to letting a government control the narrative without accountability? Now that the truth is out, it’s time for MPs and the public to demand answers.
