High Court refuses further disclosure and rejects a proposed confidentiality ring in Afghanistan inquiry case
Green Hearings disclosure has been refused by the High Court in a judicial review concerning the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan (IIA), with Mrs Justice Farbey ruling that the public interest weighs heavily against releasing further sensitive material to the claimant or his lawyers.
The judgment in Witness IIA126, R (on the application of) v Chair of the Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan was handed down on 11 August 2026. The claimant, whose identity remains protected by reporting restrictions, held a senior military position in Afghanistan and had previously responded to a Rule 9 request from the Inquiry. He has been represented in the Inquiry by the Witness Legal Team (WLT), comprising solicitors from the Government Legal Department and independent counsel.
The case concerns two rulings made by the Chair of the Inquiry on 21 June 2025 relating to so-called “Green” Hearing Restriction Orders. These restrictions excluded the claimant and his WLT lawyers from accessing Green evidence and attending Green Hearings. The Inquiry had concluded that restrictions were necessary to protect witnesses and national security and to ensure the witnesses could give evidence.
For solicitors, the key point is the court’s treatment of disclosure under the common-law Haralambous jurisdiction. Mrs Justice Farbey rejected the proposition that the High Court should simply replicate the statutory disclosure framework governing the Inquiry. Instead, the court must exercise its own jurisdiction according to established public law principles.
The judge held that the factors in section 19(4) of the Inquiries Act 2005 — including public concern, harm and confidentiality — are relevant considerations when assessing the public interest. However, they are not mandatory jurisdictional requirements for the High Court. The court must assess for itself where the public interest lies, while giving appropriate respect to the Inquiry Chair’s assessment where the nature of the material warrants it.
The judgment also distinguishes between sensitive material and material specifically protected on national security grounds. Where the Justice and Security Act 2013 applies, the court must follow the statutory scheme in CPR Part 82 and cannot order disclosure where it considers disclosure would damage national security. The judge concluded that the Haralambous jurisdiction does not apply to national security material where Parliament has established the statutory regime.
Applying those principles, Mrs Justice Farbey declined to order any further material to be moved from the CLOSED case to the OPEN case beyond disclosure already agreed with the Special Advocates. She said the public interest in non-disclosure outweighed the competing interest in open justice in relation to the remaining material.
The court also rejected an application for a confidentiality ring that would have allowed either the claimant or selected members of the WLT to see the sensitive material. The judge accepted that the WLT were experienced and skilled in handling CLOSED material, but concluded that they were not immune from inadvertently disclosing information to their client or others. The risk was considered particularly significant because of the claimant’s former senior military position and his asserted insider knowledge.
The judge concluded that the combination of Special Advocates and the duties of Counsel to the Inquiry provided protection against unfairness during CLOSED sessions. The court would also retain oversight of the OPEN/CLOSED divide and use its case-management powers to ensure the claim was dealt with fairly.
The judgment is an interim decision on disclosure and does not determine the claimant’s substantive judicial review challenge. The permission question has not yet been considered, and the substantive claim will be heard at a future rolled-up hearing.
The court ordered that the claimant receive the agreed disclosure, but no further material. The judgment also records that disorganised hearing bundles had considerably increased the time required to complete the judgment and warns that deficiencies in bundles lodged for the future hearing could potentially have costs or other sanctions consequences for the claimant’s solicitors.