When Sir Olly Robbins received word of his dismissal from Prime Minister Keir Starmer in April 2026, no hearing took place. No opportunity arose to respond. The FDA union put it plainly: not only was there no fair procedure involved in his dismissal, there was no process at all.
Now the former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office and head of the Diplomatic Service has taken the fight to the courts. On 13 July 2026 the FDA confirmed it is representing him in proceedings for judicial review, claiming the reasons supplied for his removal were irrational. The move marks the latest twist in the fallout from the botched attempt to install Lord Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
Olly Robbins, represented by the FDA, has today issued proceedings requesting a Judicial Review of his dismissal.
The union's statement, posted on X that same day, leaves little room for ambiguity about the government's conduct. Robbins had already appeared before parliamentary committees, first in November 2025 and again in April 2026, to describe the pressure emanating from No 10 as officials tried to push the Mandelson appointment through despite security vetting concerns. Those red flags, once ignored, became the pretext for Starmer to cut loose one of the most senior figures in the civil service.
A pattern of institutional strain
This is not an isolated error of judgement. It fits a broader picture of an administration prone to panic when its own choices unravel. Rather than accept responsibility for pressing ahead with a controversial appointment against established safeguards, ministers chose to scapegoat the official who had tried to navigate the demands coming from the centre of government. Robbins maintained before MPs that records did not fully capture the explicit instructions received, yet the dismissal followed swiftly once the story broke.
The FDA's intervention carries weight. As the union for senior civil servants and professionals in public service, it exists to uphold standards that protect both individuals and the integrity of the institutions they serve. Its insistence that no procedure whatsoever was followed stands in stark contrast to the expectations traditionally placed on the British civil service, where impartiality and due process have long been regarded as safeguards against political whim.
By pursuing judicial review, Robbins is not merely contesting his personal treatment. He is testing whether a Labour government can dispense with senior officials without rational grounds or basic fairness when political expediency calls. The case raises uncomfortable questions about the relationship between ministers and the permanent bureaucracy. If senior civil servants can be removed on irrational grounds simply to draw attention away from ministerial missteps, what remains of the independence that has defined the UK's administrative tradition?
