Robbins says through the FDA union:
‘The FDA represents Sir Oliver Robbins. Olly has today issued proceedings requesting a Judicial Review of his dismissal as Permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Head of the Diplomatic Service.
The Prime Minister has acknowledged that his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States in December 2024 was a mistake. He should also admit that sacking Olly was a mistake, based on a grievous misunderstanding of how the National Security Vetting (NSV) system worked and a rash response to a media story.
A point of principle is at stake, which affects all FDA members. It damages the core values of a professional and impartial civil service if its most senior officials can be dismissed on a Prime Ministerial whim, without even the semblance of a fair process or considered understanding of the core issue.
Olly’s submission to the Court is that:
The Prime Minister has asserted publicly that it was his decision to dismiss Olly, however the Prime Minister has no statutory authority to dismiss the Head of the Diplomatic Service;
Not only was there no fair procedure involved in his dismissal, there was no process at all; and
Insofar as Olly has been given reasons for his dismissal, they are irrational. Rather than being under a duty to tell ministers about the process leading up to the vetting decision, Olly was under an obligation not to. The process is independent of government ministers, who are only informed of the final outcome. This position was confirmed in a letter of 16 September 2025 that was signed by the Foreign Secretary, using text both drafted and approved by No.10.
Following the request for Judicial Review of his dismissal, Olly said:
“I bring this action reluctantly. It would have been unnecessary if the Prime Minister had simply apologised for his mistake and made amends for the distress and cost it has caused me and my family. Instead, I now have to ask the Courts to determine that the Prime Minister’s decisions were unlawful, unreasonable and to quash them.”’
Will Burnham hand him a new job next week?
Statement by Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers Limited, following Harry’s loss in court today:
“Prince Harry wrote a sad book which boasted about his killing of 25 Taliban, his drug-taking and, in cringe-making detail, how he lost his virginity. There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family. For him, to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes, not just the biscuit, but the whole tin. Poor Harry. I feel sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case. The bitter irony is that his mother, Diana, liked the Mail. We were her paper. We took her side in her acrimonious break up with Charles. She and I would speak and meet. The Mail’s superb royal reporter was her friend and confidante. The truth is that this trumped-up action – which has cost well over £50 million and wasted a huge amount of valuable court time – should never have been brought to trial. That it did, raises profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession. Today’s verdict is not just a victory for Associated’s magnificent journalists – several of whom have had a terrible toll imposed on their health and lives – but a free press generally. Make no mistake. This was a conspiracy, supported by Hacked Off, to destroy a paper. Financed by the orgy-loving, racist Max Mosley and involving the actor Hugh Grant, it was also a sinister bid to resuscitate Leveson Two and impose statutory regulation on the press which, even now, is rearing its ugly head in Labour’s Media Green Paper.”