Olly Robbins, the former head of the Foreign Office who was sacked by Prime Minister Keir Starmer over the Peter Mandelson vetting scandal, has officially submitted a legal challenge over his dismissal. Robbins has demonstrated to Downing Street, and to Westminster more broadly, that Whitehall is willing to hold political leaders to account.

Robbins, who is represented by the FDA union for senior civil servants, has applied to the high court for a judicial review of Starmer’s decision to remove him from his post as chief of the Foreign Office.  

“I now have to ask the courts to determine that the prime minister’s decisions were unlawful”

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.” 

This move has come three months after Robbins’ dismissal following the Guardian’s revelation that he had overturned a recommendation from UK Security Vetting to deny clearance for Mandelson as Ambassador to the US. The sacking was heavily criticised by Whitehall, which holds the position that Robbins was fired for doing what Number 10 had wanted – namely, ensuring the swift passage of Mandelson through vetting and his establishment as ambassador. Senior civil servants are said to have expressed that the pressure should be on Starmer for appointing Mandelson in the first place, who has been involved in several high-profile controversies throughout his career, and announcing him as US ambassador before vetting had taken place.  

Mandelson, who was sacked due to his relationship with child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, had failed vetting due to his links to senior figures in China, Russia and Israel. His relationship with Epstein was not among the reasons.  

Robbins’ submission to the high court argues that Starmer had no statutory authority to dismiss him as head of the diplomatic service, that the reasons given were ‘irrational’, and that there was ‘no fair procedure’ and ‘no process at all’ for the dismissal.  

The FDA have said the sacking of Robbins has damaged the core values of professionalism and impartiality of the civil service since it has set the tone that the most senior officials could be dismissed on a ‘prime ministerial whim’.  

The FDA said: “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 union said. “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.” 

“Whitehall can and will hold political power to account”

The FDA have called on Starmer to admit his mistake, claiming that the firing was based on a ‘grievous misunderstanding’ of UKSV and a ‘rash response to a media story’.  

Robbins reviving public attention on his dismissal is an important reminder to Westminster that Whitehall can and will hold political power to account. If Robbins is successful in his proceedings, it could spell a cultural shift in how Westminster views Whitehall. With an incoming prime minister who is looking to devolve power away from the London-centric political circles, we could see a shift in what politicians, including prime ministers, believe they can control when it comes to the civil service.  

The impartiality of the civil service is something that must be strengthened rather than questioned and disrupted at the whim of politicians in the wake of media storms. Olly Robbins’ sacking looks, based on the available facts, to have been unfair – and his choice to bring this back into public conversation is important not just for his own political future but for the futures of generations of senior civil servants to come.