Afghan journalists in High Court fight after bids to relocate to UK fail

They have taken legal action against Defence Secretary Ben Wallace and Home Secretary Suella Braverman after being told they were not eligible.

Members of the British armed forces 16 Air Assault Brigade disembark a RAF Voyager aircraft after landing at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, following their return from helping in operations to evacuate people from Kabul airport in Afghanistan in 2021 (Alastair Grant/PA) (PA Archive)

Eight Afghan journalists who worked for British media companies in Afghanistan are embroiled in a High Court fight with ministers after failing in bids to relocate to the UK.

They have taken legal action against Defence Secretary Ben Wallace and Home Secretary Suella Braverman after being told they were not eligible for relocation.

A judge is considering evidence at a High Court hearing in London and lawyers representing ministers are fighting the case.

Lawyers representing the journalists told Mr Justice Lane on Thursday that they had worked in “high-profile roles for the BBC and other media agencies” and are at risk of “being killed by the Taliban”.

“As a result of their work in support of HM Government, the claimants and their families are at high risk of being killed by the Taliban

Adam Straw KC

Adam Straw KC, who is leading the journalists’ legal team, told the judge, in a written case outline, that they had worked alongside British troops.

“The claimants are Afghan nationals who worked in high-profile roles for the BBC and other media agencies in Afghanistan,” said Mr Straw.

“They worked alongside HM Government, including alongside British troops and for organisations funded by HM Government.

“Their work closely supported HM Government’s objectives in Afghanistan; for example, by providing it with information, developing popular support for the British mission, undermining support for the Taliban, and playing an important role in the development of a free media and accountable democracy.

He added: “As a result of their work in support of HM Government, the claimants and their families are at high risk of being killed by the Taliban.”

Mr Straw said the journalists had applied for relocation to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, but officials had decided they were not eligible for relocation under that scheme.

He said the journalists had been told they “did not meet the eligibility criteria” but had not been given give “any or adequate reasons” why.

Mr Straw said their applications under a discretionary policy had also been refused.

He said that decision was “unreasonable and unfair”.

Mr Straw said: “The claimants submit that the defendants acted unlawfully.”

The journalists are being represented by law firm Leigh Day.

A Leigh Day spokeswoman said, before the start of the hearing: “The eight journalists worked for the BBC and other agencies supporting the British military in Afghanistan, exposing Taliban corruption and abuse, distributing information, and promoting media freedom, democracy and human rights.”

She added: “After the military withdrawal, Kabul fell to the Taliban on 15 August 2021, putting these journalists at escalated risk.”

Leigh Day lawyer Erin Alcock said outside court before the hearing: “Our clients feel that by refusing to relocate them and their families to safety in the UK, HM Government has turned its back on them.”

She said the Government is defending the case and arguing that, because the BBC is independent of the Government, the journalists are “not eligible” under the relocation scheme.

David Blundell KC, who is leading the Government legal team, argued the claim should be dismissed.

He said, in a written case outline, that the “reasoning in the decision letters” was “adequate and rational”.

Mr Blundell said ministers had a “very broad discretion” when “setting and applying” the criteria for acceptance under the relocation policy.

He added: “In sum, the beneficiaries of the scheme are those who worked hand-in-glove with a UK Government department, working towards its military or national security objectives and thereby making an important positive contribution towards the realisation of those objectives.”

Journalists were not “expressly included for eligibility” and would not,  “without additional evidence”, qualify, he said.

He went on: “The claimants were not, for example, engaged with the Ministry of Defence to carry out work on its behalf, even if they themselves saw that as their mission.

“They were at all times acting independently of the Ministry of Defence (and, for that matter, any other manifestation of the UK Government).

“Crucially, and boiled down to the essentials, they were acting at all times as independent journalists.”

The judge said the journalists could not be identified in media reports of the case.