EXCLUSIVE: Following intense public backlash and falling poll support for Labour, ministers executed a significant retreat earlier this week.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (Image: PA)
A former British Army veteran believes his High Court judicial review may have played a pivotal role in forcing the UK Government to abandon its plans for a mandatory digital ID scheme. Charlie Proctor, 46, from Rossendale, who served in Iraq, launched the challenge in late 2025 against the Labour Government’s original proposal for a compulsory “BritCard” digital ID.
The scheme, announced by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on September 25, 2025, would have required every citizen and legal resident to obtain a free digital identity – stored in a GOV.UK Wallet on mobile phones and integrated with GOV.UK One Login – to prove their right to work by the end of the Parliament (around 2029). Sir Keir had declared: “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It’s as simple as that.” The policy aimed to crack down on illegal working, secure borders, and streamline bureaucracy, while benefiting the estimated 11 million people without traditional IDs like passports or driving licences.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves (Image: Getty)
However, following intense public backlash, privacy concerns, falling poll support for Labour, and opposition criticism, ministers executed a significant retreat earlier this week.
Right-to-work checks will still become mandatory and digital by 2029, using biometric and instant verification, but the single government-issued BritCard is no longer compulsory. Instead, workers can use multiple forms, such as biometric passports (with chips), eVisas, or other Home Office digital credentials.
Mr Proctor’s case – formally AC-2025-MAN-000496: The King (on the application of Proctor) v Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology – remains live at the permission stage.
It argues the original mandatory approach breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy), drawing on precedents like the 2008 S and Marper v UK ruling, and failed public sector equality duties under the Equality Act 2010 (Section 149), due to risks of digital exclusion for elderly and disabled people. A core element was the concept of “soft compulsion,” where a nominally voluntary system becomes unavoidable for work or services.
Protesters hold a sign against Keir Starmer during a rally in October (Image: Getty Images)
Mr Proctor suggested the judicial review influenced the change, noting that the Government abandoned the compulsory element while his live case was underway, and that the revised policy directly addressed the core legal issues he raised.
He argued the legal timeline indicated a formal High Court challenge prompted the department to avoid defending the original position in open court.
He stated: “I’m careful not to overstate it, but from a public law perspective, it’s hard to ignore the timing and substance. The policy was changed after the judicial review was issued, while it was live, and before the Government was required to defend its legality in open court.
“The elements that were removed are the exact ones challenged in the claim, which makes it difficult to see the change as coincidental.”
