ADBRS0035

Written evidence submitted by Paul Lincoln.

There has been continued debate and speculation on the expected length of time that the super injunction might/should be left in place and how/should it be lifted. I thought it might be helpful, therefore, to set out my position on this matter to aid any consideration by the Committee. 

From my perspective, the reason that - in the view of officials - the super injunction was not expected to have lasted as long as it did (and would only likely be in place for a small number of months) was primarily as there was a significant expectation that knowledge of the data breach could have become public overseas. Given that the UK's court's jurisdiction cannot be enforced on that basis, if it had become widespread knowledge in that respect, the super-injunction would then be ineffective and would need to be lifted in the UK. This would be an uncontrolled break-glass event. 

That is separate to the question of proactively "breaking glass" by HMG. To be in a position to do that, I had personally applied the following four criteria as potentially acceptable thresholds that should be tested against - with advice to then be put to Ministers on that basis - during my time in office:

• If you knew or assessed that the Taleban already had the database, were not acting on it currently, and would not act on it once it became public that it existed;
• If you knew or assessed that the Taleban didn't have the database, but even if they were to get it when it did become public, they would not act on it;
• If there was a significant change in the security situation in Afghanistan that meant that the Taleban no longer posed the same threat as before. A hypothetical situation would be a change of government from the Taleban to someone else more supportive - whether through internal changes or e.g. (even if this seems highly unlikely) a reoccupation by US/allied forces; or
• A change in the assessment of the risk/threat that the information in the database itself actually posed. 

The final criterion/test is, in essence, what the Rimmer review did. 

In our earlier submission (ADBRS0034) David Williams and I included a personal lesson that relates to having criteria for keeping super-injunctions in place and continually testing against those. This is relevant in that regard.

29th May 2026