Sir Olly Robbins, the former top civil servant at the Foreign Office sacked by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer over Lord Peter Mandelson's security vetting, has submitted a legal challenge against his dismissal. The FDA Union, representing Robbins, announced that he is requesting a judicial review, arguing that Starmer had no statutory authority to remove him as head of the diplomatic service.
Legal Grounds of the Challenge
According to the FDA Union's statement, the submission contends that there was "no fair procedure" and "no process at all" in the dismissal, and that Robbins was given "irrational" reasons for being fired. The union asserted that the sacking was based on a "grievous misunderstanding" of how vetting works.
The FDA clarified that Robbins was under an obligation not to inform ministers about the vetting process, as it is independent of government. "Rather than being under a duty to tell ministers about the process leading up to the vetting decision, Olly was under an obligation not to. The process is independent of government ministers, who are only informed of the final outcome," the union said. This position was confirmed in a letter in September 2025 signed by the Foreign Secretary and using text drafted and approved by Downing Street.
Background of the Mandelson Vetting Row
In April 2025, questions arose over the vetting of Lord Mandelson for his post as ambassador to the United States after The Guardian reported he had failed a background check. Officials in the Foreign Office took the rare step of overruling this to clear his appointment. Starmer subsequently sacked Robbins, stating he had not been aware that the former Labour grandee was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting.
Robbins expressed reluctance in taking legal action, stating: "I bring this action reluctantly. It would have been unnecessary if the Prime Minister had simply apologised for his mistake and made amends for the distress and cost it has caused me and my family. Instead, I now have to ask the Courts to determine that the Prime Minister’s decisions were unlawful, unreasonable and to quash them."
Government Response
Downing Street declined to comment on the specifics of the case now that legal proceedings have begun. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "I think you’ve got the Prime Minister’s own words on that. I just refer you back to his previous statements, but I’m just not going to comment on that particular case now that legal proceedings have begun."
The Conservatives warned of the potential cost of the judicial review. Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Alex Burghart said: "This Judicial Review will likely cost taxpayers a fortune – once again Labour’s failure in government comes at a price. The Mandelson scandal has been a humiliation for Labour from start to finish, and the cover-up still continues."
Impact and Implications
The legal challenge raises questions about the statutory authority of the Prime Minister to dismiss top civil servants and the independence of the security vetting process. The outcome of the judicial review could set a precedent for future dismissals and the handling of vetting procedures within the Foreign Office.
