Olly Robbins, the former chief of the Foreign Office, has initiated a judicial review to challenge his dismissal, which he contends was an 'irrational' act by outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The dismissal stems from the handling of the Peter Mandelson scandal concerning vetting procedures.
Robbins announced his decision to seek a court review of his sacking, stating that the situation could have been avoided if Starmer had offered an apology and compensation for the distress and costs incurred by him and his family. The FDA, a union representing senior public servants, is backing Robbins' move, setting the stage for a significant legal dispute.
The case involves the Foreign Office granting DV status to Peter Mandelson in late January 2025, under Robbins' tenure, despite advice against it from the specialist UK Security Vetting agency. Robbins maintains he was unaware Mandelson had failed security checks and accused Starmer of misunderstanding the vetting process.
Prime Minister Starmer, however, claimed Robbins was "wrong" not to inform him of the vetting outcome, characterizing it as a "serious error of judgment" that led to his dismissal this spring. The FDA has asserted that Starmer's decision to sack Robbins was a mistake, stemming from a "grievous misunderstanding" of the National Security Vetting system and a "rash response to a media story."
The union warned that dismissing senior officials without a fair process or a clear understanding of the issue could damage the "core values of a professional and impartial civil service." Robbins' legal submission argues that Starmer lacked the authority to dismiss him and that he was obligated to withhold vetting details from ministers to protect individuals' privacy, with only the final decision being disclosed to politicians.
In his statement, Robbins expressed reluctance in bringing the action, stating it would have been unnecessary had the Prime Minister apologized for his mistake and made amends. He is now asking the courts to rule that the Prime Minister's decisions were unlawful and unreasonable and to quash them.