Ministry of Defence Used an unprecedented superstitious for Cover a data breech that put an estimated 100,000 Afghans at risk Taliban rebuked.
The worldwide superintendent was givenWhich means “against the world”, by courts.
Here you need to know about the legal order:
Read more about the exceptional violations of the government and kept it secret here:
What is a superinjunction?
An prohibition is a legal order that prevents a person or publication from reporting some information, which is called confidential or private.
A superintendent adds an additional layer by banning reporting the existence of order. Under a superinjunction, a person cannot propagate or inform others about the existence of order, or underlying legal proceedings.
Superinjunctions need to be kept under review It can be given by the court and only when they are strictly necessary.
If someone violates the superstar, they can be found in contempt of court and can be imprisoned, fined or their property can be confiscated.
The use of superinjunction, also referred to as a speech order in colloquial language, gained prominence 2000 after a string of celebrity scams.
In 2010, a committee was established in 2010 to check their use after cases of Trafigura and John Terry. In the case of Trafigura, an oil-trading firm was given a superinjunction against the Guardian so that a supertigration was given to prevent paper publication details of a report commissioned by the company in an toxic-dumping incident in the Ivory Coast.
In the John Terry case, the former England captain was initially given a superinjunction to stop a news of the world story about his personal life. Journalist Andrew Mara also took out an controversial superinity in 2011 on an extramarital affair, And later admitted that he felt “uncomfortable” about using such an order.
Superintendent is now rarely used. According to the answer to a written parliamentary question in April 2024, there is currently only one superinjunction made in the Kings Bench Division High court,
After checking the use of superinjunction in the 2000s, a mechanism was placed to enable Parliament to implement Parliament in the present. It is collected by HM Courts and Tribunal Service.
The Ministry of Defense told the court that it was not felt that there was no possibility that a superinjunction in parliamentary questions was used in the Afghan Afghan leak case. This is because Afghan Superintendent is related to national security and hence it is exempted from being reported. However, as Mode did not know whether a second superinjunction was in place, it could not be certain.
Why was this superinjunction without example?
This superinjunction was awarded ‘Contra Mundam’. Contra Mundam, Latin for ‘against the world’, means that it applies to everyone else.
The effect of this is that a person can be found in the contempt of the court if they share any information about prohibitory orders, whether they are participating in the proceedings or not.
Contra Mundam Prohibition has been previously used, but High Court judges believed that this is the first Contra Mundam Superinity.
It is also believed that this is the first superinity given to the British government.
How long is the superinjunction?
The superinjunction was given on 1 September 2023, meaning it was more than 21 months.
Did the government apply for this superstition?
No, the government did not initially apply for a superintendent. He applied for “time-limited” prohibition for a period of four months. Shri Justice Nolles, High Court Judge who heard the case for the first time, gave the Contra Mundam Superintendent continuously.
What has the judges said about this superinjunction?
When the matter came to light in September 2023 to Mr. Justice Nikinin, he commented on the extraordinary nature of the prohibition. He wrote that “such orders are completely extraordinary, requiring very clear and compelling justification, and must be placed under active review by the court.”
He said: “There is a superinjunction contrast Mundam given in the proceedings, I believe, unprecedented. The court would like to give anxious views as soon as possible whether there is a justification for such an order or some less restrictions should be imposed”.
This case was given to Shri Justice Chamberlain for all future hearing. In a request to the Attorney General for the appointment of security lawyers in the case, Justice Chamberlain wrote that “as far as the court is aware, this is the first Contra Mundam Superinity that has been given anytime”.
He described the impact of such a superinjunction in a judgment from November 2023 (but who can only be reported), writing: “The government is likely to give birth to a supertious doubt that the court processes are being used for sensorship purposes. Applicable”.
“In this case, the policy decisions in the question may be implications for the lives and safety of many individuals themselves. If the superinjunction is continued, they will be taken into a investigation vacuum. I work on the basis that the minister will work on the best to take those decisions in the national interest, but also to tell that the decisions are not in public and parliamentary subjects.
Why and when was the superinjunction raised?
The Afghan data breech superinjunction was removed by Shri Justice Chamberlain on Tuesday 15 July at 12 noon. He decided to raise the order after the idea of Defense Secretary John Heli that it was no longer necessary.
The Ministry of Defense told the court that he had considered the findings of data violation by the government and the commission reviewed in response to it. As a result of this review, the notion of the Ministry of Defense had changed at the risk given to the individuals nominated on the database.
Mr. Hele Decided to close the Afghan response route (ARR) Set to vacate the affected people and recommend the prohibition to give a holiday.
Rehabilitation invitations sent under the ARR scheme will still be honored, the estimated 2,400 people are still coming.