Witness IIA126, R (on the application of) v Chair of the Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan

In an interim judicial review concerning closed material, the High Court exercises its own inherent Haralambous jurisdiction. It is not bound to reproduce the statutory powers or open/closed assessment of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. The Act’s section 19(4) factors are relevant pragmatic considerations within a broader public-interest balance, but do not define the High Court’s jurisdiction. The court must assess the balance itself, giving appropriate respect to the decision-maker where expertise warrants it. National-security material remains governed by the Justice and Security Act 2013 and Part 82 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, without a balancing exercise under section 8(1)(c). A confidentiality ring is fact-specific and risk-based. Security clearance and professional experience do not eliminate the risk of inadvertent disclosure.

The claimant, whose identity was protected by reporting restrictions, brought judicial review proceedings against the Chair of the Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan. He challenged rulings that excluded him and the Witness Legal Team from sensitive Green evidence and Green Hearings. The claim alleged unfairness, inadequate consideration of less restrictive measures, irrelevant considerations, procedural impropriety and inadequate reasons.

At this interim stage the court considered applications for further disclosure, the relationship between a statutory closed material procedure under the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the inherent Haralambous jurisdiction, and a confidentiality ring. Earlier case-management decisions were given by Steyn J in [2025] EWHC 3514 (Admin), [2025] EWHC 3515 (Admin) and [2025] EWHC 2842 (Admin), and by Bourne J in [2026] EWHC 525 (Admin). Permission and the merits of the judicial review remained outstanding.

Disposition. The claimant’s disclosure applications were refused, with DA4 dismissed for reasons given in the CLOSED judgment. The claimant received the agreed disclosure, but no further material was opened and no confidentiality ring was ordered.

1. For Issue 1, the court applied the necessity test for specific disclosure under CPR 31.12(1), stated in Tweed v Parades Commissioner for Northern Ireland [2006] UKHL 53. Disclosure had to be necessary for the fair and just resolution of the judicial review. The duty of candour had not been breached. Broad requests, requests concerning unchallenged decisions or unpermissioned grounds, and requests that would require the court to micro-manage the Inquiry were not necessary.
2. For Issue 2A, the court held that the Haralambous jurisdiction is an exercise of the High Court’s own inherent jurisdiction. The court does not assume the statutory powers of the inquiry chair or simply adopt the statutory framework governing the Inquiry. The section 19(4) factors in the Inquiries Act 2005 were relevant and pragmatic considerations within a broader public-interest test, but were not jurisdictional limits. The court had to assess the balance for itself, while giving appropriate respect to the defendant’s assessment where the nature of the material or institutional expertise justified it.
3. For Issues 2B and 2C, national-security material had to be dealt with under the Justice and Security Act 2013 and Part 82 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Section 8(1)(c) required non-disclosure where disclosure would damage national security, without balancing competing interests. Part 82 was not automatically carried across to non-national-security material. The two procedures could be considered in the round rather than in a strictly chronological sequence.
4. For Issue 3, the court applied a risk-based approach to confidentiality rings, following the approach in R (Hoareau and Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2018] EWHC 3825 (Admin). The claimant’s asserted knowledge was insufficiently evidenced, and his status as a litigant created a risk that sensitive information might be disclosed, even inadvertently. The Witness Legal Team were trustworthy and experienced, but were not immune from inadvertent disclosure. A ring could also hobble the lawyer-client relationship. Special Advocates and Counsel to the Inquiry provided adequate procedural protection for the essentially legal fairness issues.
5. The court did not decide whether section 8 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 permits differential disclosure through a confidentiality ring. That question was unnecessary to resolve the present application. The interim conclusions were not a determination of the merits of the judicial review, which remained for a future rolled-up hearing.

This was a first-instance interim judgment in an ongoing judicial review, not an appeal.

• Earlier High Court case management. Steyn J gave judgments concerning the proposed amendment, joinder and the jurisdictional basis and procedure for the closed material proceedings in [2025] EWHC 3514 (Admin), [2025] EWHC 3515 (Admin) and [2025] EWHC 2842 (Admin) .
• Further directions. Bourne J adjourned or directed the remaining preliminary issues in [2026] EWHC 525 (Admin) .
• Present stage. The present judgment determined interim disclosure and closed-material issues. Permission and the merits of the judicial review had not yet been determined.