In charge of assessing rehabilitation applications from the UK Special Force Officer Afghan Commandos may have been associated with ongoing inquiry War crime committed by British soldiersThe High Court has heard.
Thousands of applications from persons with reliable links up to two Afghan Elite Commando Units CF33 and ATF444 Dismissed by Ministry of DefenceDespite being paid and trained by the British. Some of the Afghan commandos applying for the sanctuary in Britain served with units of UK special forces which are at the center of investigation of war crimes.
Ex -servicemen were abandoned to the mercy of the Taliban, some of which were murdered due to their service with the British. Ministry of Defence Later, some 2,000 applications of Afghans associated with units are reviewing Independent, Lighthouse Report, with Sky News And the BBC revealed how they were being denied help.
Between 2010 and 2013, a review of alleged war crimes conducted on the raid of special forces of the UK was reviewed. UKSF members have been accused of killing unarmed Afghans and imposing weapons.
It has been revealed that the UK special forces had power on Afghan colleagues on British sanctuar applications that could have been a possible witness to investigation. MOD Cassworkers will refer to the application for a UKSF contact officer, who will further inquire about the connections of Afghans to the soldiers of special forces.
How a legal challenge is being brought to mode Assessing applications from these two units, known as triples. High court It was heard on Thursday that a UKSF contact officer, who had power on rehabilitation applications, was also associated with the cases being investigated by investigating Afghan war crimes.
In a summary of evidence heard at a closed hearing, the mod confirmed that “due to the role held on the relevant time, the UKSF contact officer may have some relations with cases within the scope of independent investigation related to Afghanistan”.
It continued: “He is taken through the nature of his role (s) in UKKF Operation Northmur“. Operation Northmur Ek was Royal Military Police The investigation that sees the raid of 11 separate special forces in Afghanistan.
Although the allegations of bias in the court case were raised, the mod stated that an internal investigation was “no evidence of bias or hidden objectives from the UKSF contact officer”.
Instead he said that the UKSF officer’s “approach to decide was loose and unprofessional”. They found that the officer would make more intensive inquiries in relation to some Afghan applicants, not others. He also told the UKSF units that if they do not respond to their inquiry about some Afghan applicants, they feel that the unit had no relevant knowledge and she would reject the application.
The UKSF officer also reached the “verdict” very early “, said MOD, and will focus on the seniority of Afghan soldiers rather than his eligibility.
Documents given to the High Court have revealed that the UKF contact officer was replaced after a meeting between a senior civil servants of January 2024 and the then-Viters Minister Johnny Mercer, who presented his concerns about prejudice in the process.
In February 2024, ministers announced a review How the triple application was handled After identifying the decisions, there were “inconsistent” and “not strong”.
Among the documents submitted by MOD to the High Court, it was discovered that by May 2022, those who assess the Casework Triple application were referring to them for UKKSF personnel for input.
The court heard that senior civil servants in charge of Afghan rehabilitation applications for mode were concerned about how decisions were being made in early October 2023. He began an internal review in the process, which identified failures in decision making, but did not find evidence of prejudice related to the investigation of Afghan war crimes.
In a witness statement, Ms. Moore said that she was “worried about the change in the change of decision making when an identified person became a UKSF contact officer”.
The contact officer inspected the verdict during a ‘sprint’ to clean the backlog of more than 5,000 applications in summer of 2023. During this period, 22 and 43 were to give input on the decision between the caseworkers and only one UKF contact officer, listening by the court.
Mr. Justice Dingman said in the mod stated that the process was “compulsory bound to fail” to deal with so many cases with just a UKF officer.
The court heard that some 1585 cases were rejected for speed through the application during ‘sprint’ during summer.
Ms. Moore also said that she was recently made aware of the internal concerns about UKSF’s handling from the UKSF’s early October 2022.
He told the court that “Lux procedures were being followed since 2022 from summer [of Triples cases] Being rejected ”.
MOD felt that his Cassworkers were “highly dependent” on UKSF personnel, and “were not constantly using their independent decision”. The government admitted that UKSF personnel determined and rejected rehabilitation applications.
However, Ms. Moore said that she was a wrong decision on triple matters instead of UKSF’s prejudice “faced by a poor decision -making process”.
Thomas de la mare for the claimant said that reject is the amount of “effectively a blanket exercise”.
The hearing is scheduled to end on Friday, in which a decision is expected in writing on the latter date.
