Grant Shapps defends use of superinjunction to suppress Afghan data leak, says he would do it again
Sir Grant Shapps has defended his decision to keep an unprecedented legal gagging order in place over the Afghan data leak under the previous government, saying he would "do the same thing all over again."
Listen to this article
The former defence secretary said lifting the superinjunction, which was imposed while he was in post, may have endangered those whose personal information was released “in error” in February 2022.
As LBC exclusively revealed, the leaked Ministry of Defence (MoD) list exposed the details of thousands of Afghans who had applied for asylum under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) — a scheme that offers sanctuary in the UK to Afghans who supported British military operations during the 20-year war in Afghanistan.
Between 80,000 and 100,000 people, including the estimated number of family members of the ARAP applicants, were affected by the breach and could be at risk of harassment, torture or death if the Taliban obtained their data, judges said in June 2024.
The News Agents’ and LBC presenter Lewis Goodall was barred from reporting it and initially forbidden from even informing his editor. Court hearings were held in secret, with even media lawyers excluded from "closed sessions."
The MoD sought and was granted a contra mundum superinjunction - a rare legal order that not only barred publication of the story but also prevented anyone from revealing that an injunction even existed. In court, it was described as "constitutionally unprecedented."
Sir Grant had remained silent on the role he played in the aftermath as several Tory ex-ministers sought to distance themselves from the handling of the breach in recent days.
But speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday, the ex-MP for Welwyn Hatfield said his focus had been on "sorting out the mess and saving lives."
An injunction over the breach was sought by Sir Grant’s predecessor Sir Ben Wallace, and a wider-ranging superinjunction, which prohibits disclosure not just of the information but of the order itself, was granted when Sir Grant was in office.
"The judge himself decided it should be a superinjunction," he said.
"It is the case that I thought that once the superinjunction was in place, it should remain as a superinjunction."
This was to err "on the side of extreme caution," he said, adding: "I’d much rather now be in this interview explaining why a superinjunction was required, than being in this interview explaining why I failed to act and people were murdered."
The former minister said: "I would do the same thing all over again. I would walk over hot coals to save those lives."
Asked whether he supported calls from the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) for the publication of an intelligence assessment which formed the basis of the superinjunction, he said: "Yes, I would."
He added he knew the committee "won’t like" the fact the incident had been kept secret but "it was just so sensitive that if anything had got out at all, it would put those lives at risk."
Despite having kept the order in place during his tenure as defence secretary, which lasted just under a year, Sir Grant said he was "surprised" it had remained for "so long."
He added: "I don’t think it should have carried on as long as it had. I’m surprised that it has. Those questions are for others.
"But I came in, the problem was there, I dealt with it, and as a result I think that we saved lives."
