A major investigation by the Daily Mail has uncovered that government ministers misled the High Court during the Afghan super-injunction scandal, deliberately concealing the truth from the public and Parliament for two years.
Court Kept in the Dark on Crucial Review
The revelations show that even the judge overseeing the draconian gagging order, Mr Justice Chamberlain, was not given the full picture. While ministers were secretly signing off on a £7 billion scheme to airlift migrants to Britain, they were legally obliged to keep the judge strictly informed. He was the only person outside government permitted to know the details, as MPs were told nothing.
The judge had granted the unprecedented super-injunction despite grave concerns it was ‘completely shutting down’ democratic accountability. Now, it can be revealed that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) misled him about the timing of a critical internal review that was key to the entire covert operation.
At a secret hearing on 20 February 2025, senior MOD official Natalie Moore stated in a written submission that Defence Secretary John Healey was ‘considering whether to’ launch a review. In fact, the so-called Rimmer Review, led by retired civil servant Paul Rimmer, had been commissioned by Mr Healey at least a month earlier, on 23 January 2025.
A Two-Year Battle for Open Justice
The scandal originated from a catastrophic data breach in which UK defence officials lost a database of Afghans who had applied for sanctuary after serving British forces. This blunder put an estimated 100,000 people at risk of death from Taliban reprisals.
When the Daily Mail discovered the breach in 2023, the Government obtained the super-injunction to conceal it and launched the secret rescue mission, Operation Rubific. The Mail then fought a two-year legal battle in closed courtrooms, attending more than 20 hearings where the MOD repeatedly sought to extend the injunction.
Throughout, Mr Justice Chamberlain insisted he be kept fully informed, warning that the secrecy was ‘corrosive to the public’s trust in government’. The Rimmer Review was pivotal; its conclusions eventually allowed the judge to lift the injunction in July 2025, triggering a national outcry and four parliamentary probes.
‘A Duty to Be Honest with the Courts’
The MOD denies misleading the court, claiming the February statement referred to ongoing work to finalise the review's scope. However, it has not explained why the judge was given incorrect information about whether the review had even been commissioned.
Tan Dhesi MP, chairman of the House of Commons Defence Committee investigating the scandal, stated: ‘Secrecy understandably breeds suspicion. Ministers have a duty to be open and honest with the courts, and this duty applies all the more so in situations such as this, where Parliamentary and public scrutiny were absent.’
This is not the first time the MOD's conduct has been questioned. In a shocking behind-closed-doors hearing in November 2024, the court heard how ministers planned to ‘control the narrative’ by making a statement to Parliament that did not tell the whole truth, a plan described by the judge as ‘very, very striking’. The judge appeared incredulous when told the government intended to ‘deliberately mislead the public’.
The lifting of the injunction finally allowed the Daily Mail to publish photographs it had long held of unmarked government-chartered jets landing at Stansted Airport in Essex, disembarking hundreds of migrants whose arrival had been kept secret from the British taxpayers who funded it.
