Lawyer to Appeal Court Order Rubber-Stamping Police Access to Legally Privileged Work Phone

London - The High Court has today denied interim relief, granting police access to the work phone of solicitor Fahad Ansari - a clear violation of legal privilege and confidential client material. This is an egregious violation of privacy rights and an unprecedented assault on the legal profession, striking at the very foundation of legal privilege and the public’s trust in the justice system. 

The decision follows a secret hearing held under the UK’s discredited closed material procedure, from which Mr. Ansari, his lawyers, and the public were excluded while so-called “evidence” was presented in private. The use of this system - which is long condemned by rights groups and even senior judges, means that the state was able to make allegations that Mr. Ansari could neither see nor challenge. 

The court’s ruling to uphold this process and deny interim protection sends a clear and concerning message to lawyers and human rights defenders across the UK: that the state can violate professional confidentiality under the guise of “national security.” The claim that a barrister appointed by the police can somehow safeguard privileged material is an illusion of oversight. In reality, this sets a dangerous precedent where the state is effectively given licence to access, review, and exploit a lawyer’s confidential communications - a line that must never be crossed in a democratic society. 

A disclosure hearing has been set for January, and a rolled-up hearing, to decide permission and the full judicial review, will follow in May 2026. Mr. Ansari’s legal team are seeking permission to appeal today’s decision regarding interim relief to the Court of Appeal.

In a statement given following this afternoon’s decision, Mr. Ansari said:

"I will never know what secret material is being used against me. I have only fulfilled my professional duty to provide access to justice. But the fact that the judge has again made reference to my representation of Hamas in his decision suggests that the state is identifying me with my client. The British state has a sinister history of such tactics, the high end of which was its collusion in the assasination of human rights lawyer Pat Finucane in Ireland. While this is not Belfast in the 1980s where such messages were delivered with bullets, the intention is the same: to harass and intimidate lawyers of clients the state does not like to deter others from representing them. In such circumstances, it is deeply concerning that the court is prepared to compromise legal privilege based on an unproven and secret assertion of national security against an officer of the court."

Anas Mustapha, Head of Public Advocacy at CAGE International said:

“The judiciary today has failed to protect a lawyer's legally privileged work-phone, in a brazen assault on protections afforded to lawyers and the clients they represent. This all stemming from a Schedule 7 stop, underlines the extensive abuses this power affords the authorities with little to no safeguards against violations of privacy. Secret evidence played a crucial role, which perfectly encapsulates the symbiosis between dragnet powers, rule of law violating policies and a compliant judiciary in eroding our collective freedoms.”