The Commons: Press Freedom In The UK Has A Silent Enemy
Planet Volumes
Injunctions in the United Kingdom have been used for a wide range of reasons, often to protect the privacy of public figures. For example, when Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs was involved in a controversy over an alleged affair, his identity was initially shielded by an injunction. However, Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming used parliamentary privilege to name him publicly, a move protected by his position in Parliament. A similar instance occurred when Phillip Green was revealed to be behind another injunction in the House of Lords. Green in fact went to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that his privacy had been breached. The court ruled against him. A win for parliamentary sovereignty but also a recognition that privacy law and injunctions carry serious weight. After the most recent scandal that has shocked the British people, questions are now starting to arise regarding freedom of the press.
According to prominent British journalist Lewis Goodall, he became aware of a data leak from the Ministry of Defense (MoD) in August 2023. He contacted the MoD and was the second journalist to do so. The data leak concerned the personal information of over 19,000 Afghan nationals who had applied to move to the UK after the Taliban regained power in Afghanistan. A lawyer acting for the MoD then reached out to Goodall where an ‘interim injunction’ was put in place banning any reporting of the story until December 2023. After that, a superinjunction was then introduced which further banned any reporting or mentioning of the leak.
The difference between an injunction and a superinjunction is that a superinjunction is completely secret. With a regular injunction, the media can usually report that an injunction exists, even if they cannot share the details. But with a superinjunction, no one is allowed to mention it at all, not even that it exists. The superinjunction was lifted on July 15, 2025, after multiple media representative argued for it to be lifted in court. Goodall said that “Every time there was difficult question or a piece of evidence we wanted to ask about, we were made to leave because the government said it can’t address that in the open.”
Goodall is also co-presenter of the News Agents podcast. In a TikTok posted to the account, Goodall speculated about whether this was really in the interests of national security or whether it was ultimately about politics. Over £850 million (approximately $1.1 billion) was spent of rehousing 7000 Afghan nationals which the UK was forced to take in after the leak. Many of these individuals had legitimate cases, but there were concerns that if the Taliban became aware of the list, none of them would be safe. The British Government saw this as a risk it could not afford to take.
As noise grows surrounding immigration with the recent release of Tommy Robinson and an increase in protests happening outside hotels housing migrants, the lack of transparency from the government over the issue has simply inflated apathy amongst those protesting the changes.
Goodall said that the continued superinjunction over the matter became “no longer about getting people out [of Afghanistan] but keeping the story in.” The government attempted to keep control of the narrative and limit the damage. However, in doing so they have given fuel to the fire of their political opponents and led to frustration within the media. By using a superinjunction, they denied anyone to scrutinise their work or hold them accountable. MP’s within Parliament were unaware of the data leak thus meaning that Parliament could not work in the very way that it was designed to do.
Goodall spoke to Press Gazette adding that “if this becomes part of the furniture of the British state, we will have become less of a democracy than we were two years ago.
“This cannot be allowed to become part of the way the British media is allowed to operate, because we are already in a system where we do not have those [American] constitutional protections.”
After frequent attacks from Vice President, J.D Vance regarding free speech in the UK, this latest incident will simply add fuel to the fire. Since Vance’s speech at the Munich Security conference in February where he accused European countries of retreating “from some of its most fundamental values”, he has repeatedly attacked the UK for its perceived limits on free speech. This has been a topic which opposition political parties have jumped on, keen to drive a knife into the government with the backing of the White House.
Prime Minister, Keir Starmer has been keen to distance himself and his government from the superinjunction. Given it started during the previous Conservative government, Starmer has also looked to use the opportunity as a stick to beat the opposition with. The government initially learned of the breach when a man in Afghanistan posted nine names on the list, something which has been ridiculed by politicians and the media. Sir Ben Wallace who was defense secretary during the time of the data leak said that he makes “no apology” for applying for the injunction.
Starmer said: “There's always been support across this House for the United Kingdom fulfilling our obligations to Afghans who served alongside British forces.
"We warned in opposition about Conservative management of this policy and yesterday, the defense secretary set out the full extent of the failings that we inherited: a major data breach, a superinjunction, a secret route that has already cost hundreds of millions of pounds.”
The real danger that remains with superinjunctions and the media is that there is no way to hold those accountable until after the fact. In their very nature, they are unable to be reported on when they happen. As a result, until arguments have been prepared and made by the government, often by a government who are no longer even in power, a superinjunction means a press can never truly be free. Whilst there exist legitimate reasons for a superinjunction, if the government is simply able to cry national security, then a slippery slope begins to form.