News Agents podcast co-host Lewis Goodall has warned that the wide-ranging super injunction used to silence UK media for two years sets a “profoundly dangerous” precedent.
Goodall was the first journalist to become aware of a Government data leak which put thousands of Afghan nationals who had supported the British military at risk.
After receiving a text from a Whitehall source about the story in August 2023, Goodall contacted the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to confirm that details of thousands of people who applied to Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy programme, which included interpreters and military assistants, had found its way into hands of someone “who ought not to have it”.
Goodall was then contacted by a lawyer at the MoD who imposed an “interim injunction” until December 2023. This then led to the implementation of a super injunction banning the sharing of any information about the data leak.
This week, it was finally revealed that the details of nearly 19,000 people who had applied to move to the UK after the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan had been leaked in a government data breach.
The blunder has led to almost 7,000 Afghan nationals being relocated to the UK, costing around £850 million, according to the MoD.
The information has been reported after the lifting of a two-year-old super injunction, which was imposed on a number of publishers, including Global, PA Media, the Daily Mail and The Independent.
Usually, the fact that an injunction exists can be reported, with the privacy of those involved protected by law. However, a superinjunction’s very existence is supposed to be unreportable – journalists involved at that point could not even inform their editors of the story, or the reason for their court attendance.
Unprecedented use of super injunction
“A super injunction has never been applied in this way before, and for such a long period,” Goodall told Press Gazette. “They are [normally] applied with regards to matters of individual privacy. You can argue that they are controversial as a limitation on press freedom.”
The privacy injunction, initially granted on 1 September 2023, was finally discharged on 15 July 2025 after a number of hearings involving media representatives.
“There was no argument for an injunction beyond that initial four-month period [to December 2023], where they were arguing that they were using secrecy to get people out of Afghanistan. They didn’t intend to actually remove many people from Afghanistan, and only later did so as a result of the court action.”
In court, journalists “had at least one hand tied behind [their] back”, Goodall said.
The process took place in “a secret court within a secret court”, while “at least a third to half of the proceedings took place in closed session,” Goodall added.
Journalists were faced with the threat of prison if they revealed anything that went on within court.
A lack of cooperation from the government meant journalists were challenged with not receiving the full story.
“Every time there was a 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.”
‘Wouldn’t have happened’ to US press
For two years, the power was “in the government’s hands”, Goodall said, “because the press does not have what the US has: first amendment rights.”
Goodall added this would “never have happened in the US”.
“Press freedom is already deeply circumscribed in the UK by comparison to other jurisdictions.”
Goodall said the proceedings were “deeply disturbing” and he has concern for the future of press freedom – especially as Secretary of State for Defence John Healey did not “rule out the use of super injunctions in future”.
“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,” he said.
“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 constitutional protections.
“It is profoundly dangerous not just for the media, but for parliament.”
Journalist collaboration
One “positive” takeaway from the court proceedings was the collaboration of publishers, according to Goodall.
“We started off being injuncted alone, then different journalists came at it from various angles.”
Goodall added some weren’t even aware of the leak, but would be slapped with the super injunction after filing an application for information.
“And thank God for that, because it would have been very lonely – over time, the scale did start to rebalance,” he said. “It’s a great example of the press working together, which doesn’t happen very often.”
He added: “We managed to get through decades without ever using [super injunctions] before, so why do we need them now?” he asked. “They should never be in place for more than a limited period, and this could be put into legislation.
“There should be parliamentary limits on executive power to impose or to request super injunctions, which strengthens press freedom. The legal framework needs tidying up, because right now it is shrouded in darkness.”
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
