Sir Keir Starmer dismissed Sir Olly Robbins over the Lord Mandelson scandal (Image: Getty)
The former top civil servant sacked by Sir Keir Starmer over Lord Peter Mandelson’s security vetting has submitted a legal challenge over his dismissal.
Sir Olly Robbins has requested a judicial review after he was removed as the top civil servant at the Foreign Office.
The FDA Union said Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer should “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”.
Sir 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.”
In April it emerged that Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment had gone ahead even though he failed the normal security vetting leading to accusations the Prime Minister had misled Parliament.
A furious Sir Keir blamed the Foreign Office for failing to tell ministers, sacking its most senior civil servant Sir Olly – prompting claims that yet another official had been made to pay the price for his mistake.
Downing Street defended Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to sack Sir Olly in April.
The Prime Minister’s spokesman told reporters: “What this comes down to at its core is a fundamental judgment by individuals who held overall responsibility for this process not to communicate the outcome of the UKSV (United Kingdom security vetting) recommendation about Peter Mandelson’s security vetting.
“As I say, the Prime Minister’s view is that this is fundamentally important information that should have and could have been shared, including on multiple occasions since.
The official said he had made “a serious error of judgment”, adding: “Olly Robbins has obviously had a distinguished career and is a man of integrity and professionalism, but the Prime Minister fundamentally disagrees with the sharing of the outcome of that security vetting, and that is why that decision was taken.”