Former top civil servant argues his sacking over the Mandelson vetting scandal was unlawful and irrational.
Sir Olly Robbins, the former permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office, has formally launched a legal challenge against the government over his dismissal, escalating a row that has already done serious damage to Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership.
On Monday, Sir Olly filed papers seeking a judicial review of the decision to remove him as head of the Diplomatic Service. He is being represented by the FDA, the trade union for senior civil servants.
Background to the Sacking
Sir Keir dismissed Sir Olly in April, accusing him of failing to alert Downing Street that Lord Peter Mandelson had not cleared his security vetting before being appointed ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister described the failure as “unforgivable” at the time.
Number 10 has maintained that UK Security Vetting advised against Lord Mandelson’s appointment in early 2025, and that officials at the Foreign Office overruled that advice without informing the Prime Minister, then foreign secretary David Lammy, or chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.
Sir Olly has disputed that account. In an appearance before the Commons foreign affairs committee shortly after his dismissal, he said his office had come under “constant pressure” from Downing Street throughout January 2025 to push Lord Mandelson’s clearance through ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration. He told MPs there was “never any interest, as far as I recall, in whether, but only an interest in when” the appointment could be confirmed, and said he faced a “very, very strong expectation” that Lord Mandelson be installed as quickly as possible.
He has also rejected the characterisation that Lord Mandelson “failed” vetting outright, saying he was told verbally that the peer was a “borderline case” for Developed Vetting, and that Foreign Office officials argued the associated risks, including his links to the lobbying firm Global Counsel and its clients in China and Russia, could be managed.
The Legal Case
In his submission to the court, Sir Olly argues that Sir Keir had no statutory authority to remove him as head of the Diplomatic Service, that there was no fair process, or indeed any process, followed in his dismissal, and that the reasons given for sacking him were irrational.
The FDA has gone further, arguing that Sir Olly was under no obligation to inform ministers of the vetting process at all. In a statement, the union said the vetting process operates independently of government ministers, who are informed only of the final outcome, a position it says was confirmed in writing by the Foreign Secretary in September 2025, using language drafted and approved by Number 10.
The union added that the Prime Minister has already conceded his decision to appoint Lord Mandelson was a mistake, and called on him to also admit that sacking Sir Olly was wrong, describing it as the product of “a grievous misunderstanding” of the vetting system and “a rash response to a media story.”
In a personal statement, 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.”
Downing Street’s Response
Number 10 has stood by Sir Keir’s decision, while insisting it did not place explicit pressure on the Foreign Office to wave through the appointment. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman previously drew a distinction between “the idea of pressure and being kept informed about the process and the progress of the appointment.”
Part of a Wider Crisis
The dismissal followed a turbulent period for Downing Street. Sir Keir initially stood by Lord Mandelson last September despite the emergence of private messages in which the peer referred to Jeffrey Epstein as his “best pal.” He sacked Lord Mandelson as ambassador on September 11, after further emails surfaced showing he had urged Epstein to fight for early release following his conviction for child sex offences.
That same day, Sir Keir admitted under questioning from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch that official vetting documents had in fact referenced Lord Mandelson’s continued relationship with Epstein beyond his conviction, prompting the Prime Minister to later apologise publicly for having believed Lord Mandelson’s denials.
A backbench revolt led by Sir Keir’s former deputy, Angela Rayner, subsequently forced the release of more than 1,500 pages of documents relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment, though messages exchanged over WhatsApp by Sir Keir, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Mr Lammy, some of which were set to auto delete, were not included in the disclosure.
The judicial review will now test whether Sir Keir acted lawfully in making Sir Olly a casualty of a scandal that has already reshaped his top team and, by his own admission, damaged trust in his handling of one of the most senior appointments of his premiership.
