Witness IIA126 v Chair of the Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan: judge refuses wider disclosure in closed hearings challenge

The High Court has refused an application for further disclosure and for a confidentiality ring in an ongoing judicial review brought by an anonymised former senior military officer, Witness IIA126, against the Chair of the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan.

In R (Witness IIA126) v Chair of the Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan [2026] EWHC 2143 (Admin), Mrs Justice Farbey considered three preliminary issues ahead of a future rolled-up permission and substantive hearing. The claimant, who received a request for evidence under the Inquiry Rules 2006 and is represented by the Witness Legal Team, challenges two rulings made in June 2025 that excluded him from what has become known as "Green" hearings and evidence, a category of closed material subject to tighter restrictions than the inquiry's other closed procedures. The inquiry, chaired by Sir Charles Haddon-Cave, is investigating allegations of unlawful activity by British armed forces during detention operations in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013, including an incident in which an individual was allegedly shot while asleep.

The claimant's five grounds of challenge broadly contend that his exclusion, and that of his legal team, from the Green hearings breached the inquiry chair's statutory duty to act fairly, lacked an adequate evidential basis, and was procedurally improper. He argues that without access to the relevant evidence he cannot respond to any criticism the chair might ultimately make of him, criticism that could expose him to future criminal investigation.

On disclosure, the judge worked through nineteen specific requests, ordering none of the disputed items to be provided. Several were found to relate to a proposed sixth ground of challenge, concerning the timing of the Green hearings relative to the fourteen-day judicial review time limit, which an earlier judge had already refused permission to add. Others sought details of arrangements made for Ministry of Defence lawyers to access the same evidence, which the judge found had already been adequately answered through prior correspondence, or concerned unrelated closed hearings that she considered irrelevant to the pleaded grounds.

A more significant ruling concerned how the court should approach the interaction between the statutory closed material procedure under the Justice and Security Act 2013, which applies to national security sensitive material, and the separate common law jurisdiction recognised in Haralambous for other sensitive material considered by the inquiry. The claimant argued that the scope of closed material in the High Court proceedings should simply mirror the divide drawn by the inquiry chair under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005. The judge rejected that approach, holding that the court exercises its own independent jurisdiction and must conduct its own balancing exercise, treating the statutory factors relevant to restriction orders as useful but non-binding guidance rather than a fixed framework inherited from the inquiry.

On the confidentiality ring, the judge rejected proposals to include the claimant personally, citing his position as an interested party to litigation rather than a neutral observer, and rejected a lawyer-only ring for members of the Witness Legal Team, citing the acute risk of inadvertent disclosure given the claimant's seniority and prior access to sensitive material. She found that the appointed Special Advocates, together with Counsel to the Inquiry's duties to the court, provided sufficient protection against unfairness in the closed sessions from which the claimant remains excluded.

The claimant will therefore receive only the disclosure already agreed with the Special Advocates for the Afghan Families, pending the substantive hearing of the claim.