A public inquiry into allegations of war crimes by British armed forces in Afghanistan will be held partly in secret, the chair has decided.
Sir Charles Haddon-Cave ruled some evidence, witness identities and testimonies will be limited to closed sessions which the media and public are prohibited from attending.
It comes after the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Royal Military Police (RMP), which is accused of failing to investigate the claims, sought sweeping restrictions citing national security and privacy.
The reasons for the chair’s conclusions are laid out in a ruling that itself is private.
In his decision, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave said there are “cogent national security and other reasons why many hearings will need to be held entirely in closed [behind closed doors].” Sky News has asked the inquiry to explain what “other reasons” means.
The chair said he studied the evidence and concluded “for reasons set out in my closed ruling, it amounts to a strong and compelling case that there is a real risk that serious national security damage would be caused” if the MoD’s application for secrecy was not granted.
The order withholds from disclosure information relating to methods, tactics and equipment of UK and foreign partner operatives, as well as details of the identity of MoD and RMP witnesses. It prohibits public access to “risk of information,” though the chair himself seeks clarity on what that means.
More on Afghanistan
Related Topics:
The allegations of extrajudicial killings are part of a BBC and The Times investigation which claimed rogue SAS units executed innocent civilians during a campaign of night raids set up to capture Taliban fighters.
Evidence submitted to the inquiry claims as many as 80 people were killed in suspicious circumstances by three out of four SAS squadrons between 2010 and 2013.
Advertisement
The documents outlined the high kill rate of the squadrons, with one soldier shooting 35 people dead in a single six-month tour.
Image: Sir Charles Haddon-Cave is leading the inquiry
‘Blanket’ restrictions not in interest of open justice – victims’ families
The victims’ families had argued “blanket” restrictions were not in the interest of open justice. Public hearings may be painful and humiliating, they submitted, but “reputational damage is not a blanket justification for anonymity”.
In an unusual move, the chair has also denied the families access to special advocates whose roles are to examine material heard in closed sessions and to represent the excluded party’s interests.
Tessa Gregory, partner at Leigh Day solicitors, who is acting for the Afghan families, told Sky News: “We are carefully considering this ruling and its implications for the conduct of the inquiry.
“It is of utmost important to our clients, who alleged their relatives were murdered by UK Special Forces in Afghanistan, that the truth is uncovered and that they are able to participate fully in the inquiry.”
Sky News and other media outlets challenge application
Sky News is part of a number of media outlets that submitted challenges to the application for restrictive orders from the MoD and RMP.
An MoD spokesperson said: “The independent statutory inquiry relating to Afghanistan will investigate alleged unlawful activity by British Armed Forces during deliberate detention operations between mid-2010 to mid-2013.
“It is not appropriate for the MoD to comment on cases which are within the scope of the statutory inquiry and it is up to the statutory inquiry team, led by Lord Justice Haddon-Cave, to determine which allegations are investigated.”
Only a quarter of British adults think Sir Keir Starmer will win the next general election, as the party’s climbdown over welfare cuts affects its standing with the public.
A fresh poll by Ipsos, shared with Sky News, also found 63% do not feel confident the government is running the country competently, similar to levels scored by previous Conservative administrations under Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak in July 2022 and February 2023, respectively.
The survey of 1,080 adults aged 18-75 across Great Britain was conducted online between 27 and 30 June 2025, when Labour began making the first of its concessions, suggesting the party’s turmoil over its own benefits overhaul is partly to blame.
The prime minister was forced into an embarrassing climbdown on Tuesday night over his plans to slash welfare spending, after it became apparent he was in danger of losing the vote owing to a rebellion among his own MPs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:21
Govt makes last-minute concession on welfare bill
The bill that was put to MPs for a vote was so watered down that the most controversial element – to tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments (PIP) – was put on hold, pending a review into the assessment process by minister Stephen Timms that is due to report back in the autumn.
The government was forced into a U-turn after Labour MPs signalled publicly and privately that the previous concession made at the weekend to protect existing claimants from the new rules would not be enough.
More on Benefits
Related Topics:
While the bill passed its first parliamentary hurdle last night, with a majority of 75, 49 Labour MPs still voted against it – the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.
It left MPs to vote on only one element of the original plan – the cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:21
Govt makes last-minute concession on welfare bill
An amendment brought by Labour MP Rachael Maskell, which aimed to prevent the bill progressing to the next stage, was defeated but 44 Labour MPs voted for it.
The incident has raised questions about Sir Keir’s authority just a year after the general election delivered him the first Labour landslide victory in decades.
And on Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was “not going anywhere” after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister’s questions sparked speculation about her political future.
The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.
Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: “Labour rows over welfare reform haven’t just harmed the public’s view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.
“The public is starting to doubt Labour’s ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn’t end up going the same way.”
Image: Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves (right) crying as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks. Pic: Commons/UK Parliament/PA
It is hard to know for sure right now what was going on behind the scenes, the reasons – predictable or otherwise – why she appeared to be emotional, but it was noticeable and it was difficult to watch.
Her spokesperson says it was a personal matter that they will not be getting into.
More from Politics
Even Kemi Badenoch, not usually the most nimble PMQs performer, singled her out. “She looks absolutely miserable,” she said.
Anyone wondering if Kemi Badenoch can kick a dog when it’s down has their answer today.
The Tory leader asked the PM if he could guarantee his chancellor’s future: he could not. “She has delivered, and we are grateful for it,” Sir Keir said, almost sounding like he was speaking in the past tense.
Image: Rachel Reeves looked visibly upset behind Keir Starmer at PMQs. Pic PA
It is important to say: Rachel Reeves’s face during one PMQs session is not enough to tell us everything, or even anything, we need to know.
But given the government has just faced its most bruising week yet, it was hard not to speculate. The prime minister’s spokesperson has said since PMQs that the chancellor has not offered her resignation and is not going anywhere.
But Rachel Reeves has surely seen an omen of the impossible decisions ahead.
How will she plug the estimated £5.5bn hole left by the welfare climbdown in the nation’s finances? Will she need to tweak her iron clad fiscal rules? Will she come back for more tax rises? What message does all of this send to the markets?
If a picture tells us a thousand words, Rachel Reeves’s face will surely be blazoned on the front pages tomorrow as a warning that no U-turn goes unpunished.