Olly Robbins, the former top civil servant at the Foreign Office who was sacked by Prime Minister Keir Starmer over the Peter Mandelson security vetting scandal, has launched a legal challenge against his dismissal. Robbins has applied to the High Court for a judicial review of the decision, the FDA union representing him announced in a statement.
The legal action comes three months after Starmer dismissed Robbins following a Guardian report revealing that Robbins had overruled a recommendation from UK Security Vetting (UKSV) to deny clearance for Mandelson, who was later appointed as ambassador to the US. The dismissal sparked widespread concern within Whitehall, with senior civil servants believing Robbins was effectively fired for doing what Downing Street wanted—swiftly passing Mandelson through vetting—and that scrutiny should instead focus on the prime minister's initial decision.
Legal Basis of the Challenge
Robbins's submission argues that Starmer had no statutory authority to dismiss him as head of the diplomatic service. It contends there was "no fair procedure" and "no process at all" in the dismissal, and that the reasons given for firing him were "irrational." The FDA union stated that the sacking damaged the core values of professionalism and impartiality within the civil service, suggesting that senior officials could be dismissed on a "prime ministerial whim" without a fair process or proper understanding of the issue.
In a statement, Robbins 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."
Background of the Scandal
Downing Street had stated that Robbins lost the confidence of Starmer and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper due to his handling of Mandelson's vetting. Mandelson was ultimately sacked over his links to convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. However, the Guardian later revealed that UKSV's concerns included Mandelson's associations with senior figures in China, Russia, and Israel, and that his relationship with Epstein was not among the reasons for the initial denial of clearance.
The FDA argued that Starmer should admit the sacking was a mistake, based on a misunderstanding of how the security vetting system works, and described it as a "rash response" to the Guardian's revelations. The union emphasized that Robbins was under an obligation not to inform ministers about the vetting process until the final outcome, a position confirmed in a letter from the foreign secretary on 16 September 2025, which was drafted and approved by No 10.
Parliamentary and Institutional Reactions
The Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee concluded last week that Robbins believed he was "delivering the outcome that was wanted" and that his dismissal "seems to have been taken without full due process and the establishment of the facts." Questions remain about the defence Robbins mounted regarding his own actions and the security vetting system, as well as the lack of mitigations to address security concerns.
Additionally, the Foreign Office refused to hand over a summary of Mandelson's security vetting to the official tasked with compiling documents for his appointment as ambassador to the US, despite a Commons motion forcing the release of documents linked to the process.
