A High Court inquiry into the UK’s handling of Afghan special forces resettlement exposes systemic failures, including a covert UKSF veto and misleading of Parliament, raising urgent questions about the MoD’s accountability and the fate of Afghan allies.
The ongoing inquiry into the UK's resettlement process for Afghan special forces personnel has revealed alarming shortcomings that critics have likened to a "disaster area." In the High Court, legal representatives for former members of elite units CF333 and ATF444—collectively known as the Triples—have illustrated the gravity of the situation, describing the decision-making process as akin to a "crime scene."
The Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) handling of approximately 2,000 applications from Afghans who fought alongside British forces has come under fierce scrutiny, especially after significant media investigations unearthed that many applications were denied without adequate review. The court heard testimony from Thomas de la Mare KC, representing a senior commander from the Triples, highlighting systemic failures in the current process, which appears to have operated under a de facto blanket ban. This has resulted in Afghans who risked their lives for UK troops facing potentially fatal retributions in their home country.
Allegations surfaced that UK Special Forces (UKSF) had effectively exercised veto power over these resettlement applications. Internal documents and leaked communications indicate that decisions were not merely about approval or denial but were fraught with conflicts of interest, particularly because some applicants could serve as witnesses in ongoing war crimes investigations. These concerns were compounded when it was revealed that the MoD had previously misled Parliament about the level of influence exerted by UKSF personnel over the applications process—initially denying their veto power before later acknowledging its existence.
The stark contrasts unveiled during the court hearings paint a grim picture of a flawed system. According to the evidence presented, political pressures within the MoD led to rushed decisions during so-called "sprints" to process applications, which were typically made without thorough assessments. De la Mare referenced an internal review that recognised a disturbing trend of blanket refusals pending further scrutiny, suggesting an urgent need for transparency and accountability.
Political figures have also expressed their disquiet about the handling of these cases. Former veterans affairs minister Johnny Mercer raised his own concerns, characterising the involvement of UKSF in decision-making as "deeply inappropriate." His letter to Oliver Dowden in January 2024 highlighted the significant potential for bias and conflict of interest, particularly given the charged context in which these decisions were formulated.
The implications of these findings extend beyond individual applications. They underscore a broader failure by the UK government to honour its commitments to those who served alongside British forces in Afghanistan. Many of these former commandos are not just facing peril in their homeland; their experiences intersect unsettlingly with allegations of unlawful killings and other war crimes concerning British military actions in Afghanistan—investigations that might implicate some of these individuals as potential witnesses.
With the judicial review underway, there is potential for significant changes to the resettlement process. If granted, the case could expose profound flaws in how the MoD administers life-and-death decisions impacting those who stood with British soldiers during the conflict. As the inquiry progresses, observers remain watchful, aware that the outcomes will affect not just the lives of the Afghan commandos involved but may also signal a shift in the UK's approach to its responsibilities postwar.
As the hearing awaits its conclusion, public trust in the MoD and government processes hangs in the balance. There is a palpable sense of urgency for restorative measures that could perhaps begin to mend the frayed ties between the UK and those it once enlisted as allies in combat, in a region marked by considerable bloodshed and betrayal.
Reference Map
1: Paragraph 1, 2
2: Paragraph 2
3: Paragraph 2, 5
4: Paragraph 3
5: Paragraph 5
6: Paragraph 4
7: Paragraph 6
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative presents recent developments in the UK's resettlement process for Afghan special forces personnel, with the High Court hearing on 21 May 2025. Similar reports have emerged since February 2024, notably from the BBC, detailing the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) handling of resettlement applications and the involvement of UK Special Forces (UKSF). ([bbc.com](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68332923?utm_source=openai)) The Independent's report provides updated information, including the High Court's assessment of the MoD's decision-making process. The presence of a press release indicates a high freshness score, as press releases are typically recent and directly from the involved parties. However, the narrative's reliance on earlier reports suggests some recycled content. The inclusion of updated data, such as the High Court's assessment, justifies a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. The earliest known publication date of substantially similar content is February 2024. The narrative includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. ([bbc.com](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68332923?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative includes direct quotes attributed to Thomas de la Mare KC, representing a senior commander from the Triples, and former veterans affairs minister Johnny Mercer. A search for the earliest known usage of these quotes indicates that they have appeared in earlier material, suggesting potential reuse. The wording of the quotes varies slightly across sources, indicating possible paraphrasing or selective quoting. No online matches were found for some of the quotes, raising the possibility of original or exclusive content. However, the reuse of quotes from earlier reports suggests a lower originality score.
Source reliability
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative originates from The Independent, a reputable UK news outlet known for its investigative journalism. The report is based on a High Court hearing, providing direct insights into the MoD's decision-making process regarding Afghan special forces resettlement applications. The involvement of legal representatives and references to official documents enhance the credibility of the information presented.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims regarding the MoD's handling of resettlement applications and the involvement of UKSF align with previous reports from the BBC and other reputable sources. The High Court's assessment of the MoD's decision-making process as a 'disaster area' is consistent with earlier criticisms. The narrative provides specific details, such as the involvement of Thomas de la Mare KC and Johnny Mercer, which are verifiable and add to the plausibility. However, the lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets on some specific claims slightly reduces the score.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative presents updated information on the UK's resettlement process for Afghan special forces personnel, incorporating recent developments from the High Court hearing. While the source is reputable and the claims are plausible, the reuse of quotes from earlier reports and the inclusion of recycled material suggest a need for further verification. The presence of a press release indicates a high freshness score, but the reliance on earlier reports and the lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets on some specific claims slightly reduce the overall confidence in the narrative's originality and accuracy.
