The guardian view of the Afghan leak super instructor: A dangerous precedent is set | Editorial

ONe from many extraordinary characteristics of the data injury, which put tens of thousands of Afghan life into danger, the time between the original leak and the government, the measures taken. The e -mail with a highly sensitive data record was sent by a Department of Defense in February 2022. The ministers were only aware of the problem in August 2023.

The fact that the Mod Lax systems were enough to make the mistake is worrying enough. The delayed reaction is still more alarming. And then there is the annoying mechanism through which the entire scandal was held out of the public.

There was an argument for security reasons to keep the existence of the leaked list secret. Applicants from Afghan moving and auxiliary politics (ARAP), an acceleration of the asylum for people who had worked with British armed forces in the country, would be natural goals for vengeful Taliban squad. A judge thought the risk was serious enough to provide the mods's request for an injunction to report the violation, and improved it to a “superinjunction” – a ban on reporting on the existence of reporting restrictions.

This powerful oppressive tool is usually associated with cases of celebrities who guard their privacy, and even then it is controversial. It is not a precedent for your commitment to protect the government from the examination in the obvious public interest. Mr. Justice Robin Knowles took the view that the right of the ARAP applicants should have priority from press freedom to report the leak.

That may have been a worthy argument in 2023 – but not in the long run. However, the ministers regularly tried to renew the super instructor and cited exciting rooms again and again. It was almost removed in May 2024, but was restored in the appeal procedure. It was only lifted this week after a review of the internal government, which was commissioned by Defense Minister John Healey that the determination of the data injury identified in the data injury should no longer be regarded as a matter of life and death. It would be “just another factor in tightening the existing security of a person”.

How, why and when the risk shift has shifted is unclear. It happened for many years among several defense secretaries and spanned a change of government. During the same period, hundreds of millions of pounds were spent on an emergency scheme for people affected by the data injury – an expensive policy for great political sensitivity that is completely under the radar of parliamentary examination or another mechanism of accountability.

In the meantime, many of the legal arguments that led to the renewal of the super instructor were recorded in front of a closed court. The reasons to keep the confidential ceiling on the spot was wrapped in an additional duty of confidentiality. Such a process violates fundamental principles of open justice. In an era of exhausted trust in politics, the commitment to prevent a serious scandal from the public perspective is also corrosive. A dangerous precedent was determined.

The overturning of the super instance does not bring transparency. But at least overdue questions enables the data injury to be done, which uptake and effectiveness of the reaction of the mod was not taken into account. The current Labor government was not responsible for keeping the public in the dark for so long, but it is assessed according to its willingness to let the light in.

• Do you have an opinion on the questions given in this article? If you would like to submit an answer from up to 300 words by e -mail that should be considered for publication in our “Letters” section, please click here.