MI5 Admits It Gave Evidence Based on Lies to Three Courts in Neo-Nazi Spy Case
The security service accepts it gave evidence based on lies to three courts and that senior officers were repeatedly dishonest, as judges consider whether to bring contempt proceedings.
MI5 has accepted, without reservation, that it gave evidence based on lies to three courts and that senior officers were repeatedly dishonest while defending a violent neo-Nazi spy whose abuse was uncovered by the BBC.
The concession, announced at a High Court hearing in London on Friday, marks the first time the security service has admitted that falsehoods were told to the courts. Timothy Otty KC, representing MI5, confirmed the position to a panel of three senior judges: the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Sue Carr; Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King's Bench Division; and Mr Justice Chamberlain. The panel is weighing what action to take over the false evidence, and will decide in particular whether to initiate contempt of court proceedings against certain MI5 officers or the service itself. Any such move would be unprecedented.
Otty said MI5 fully accepted and acknowledged the gravity of the issues raised, adding that they must never happen again. He told the court the service had committed to a major programme of reform under the leadership of its director general, Sir Ken McCallum. He argued against contempt proceedings on the grounds that they would not be in the public interest, given the detailed investigation already conducted, MI5's apologies and its commitment to reform. Officer 2, he said, had resigned from the service, while Officer 3 had been suspended and faces disciplinary proceedings that could lead to his dismissal. Lawyers for both officers also argued against contempt action.
Matthew Butt KC, for Officer 2, said the report was sufficient, but that any further action would be better handled by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. In written submissions, he said his client accepted that his conduct fell below the standard expected of him, for which he apologised and expressed regret. He denied acting dishonestly or interfering with the administration of justice, and did not accept the report's findings. Aaron Watkins, for Officer 3, apologised and accepted that his conduct undoubtably contributed to the courts and parties being misled, but denied dishonesty. He said the evidence fell short of the threshold for contempt and that proceedings would not serve the public interest. The court was also due to hear legal submissions from barristers for the BBC.
At the heart of the case lies a foreign neo-Nazi misogynist, an MI5 informant known as Agent X, who used his security service role as a tool of abuse. He coercively controlled his partner, known by the alias Beth, and attacked her with a machete. MI5 then helped him travel abroad to continue intelligence work while he was under police investigation.
The government took the BBC to court in 2022 in a failed attempt to block its investigation into X, but secured him legal anonymity. Beth subsequently sued MI5 at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and in 2024 she sought a review of a ruling at the High Court. Arguing for secrecy in all three courts, the security service told judges it had always adhered to its core secrecy policy, known as neither confirm nor deny, and had never told anyone whether X was an agent, including this correspondent. That assurance came in a sworn statement from a senior officer, a deputy director identified as Witness A. The courts accepted MI5's arguments, with the result that Beth and everyone else were banned from ever officially being told X was an agent and denied access to key evidence. She was left at a serious disadvantage and may have lost her case.
Officer 2 had tried to cover up for the man, falsely claiming he was neither an abusive misogynist nor a real extremist. The falsehoods were revealed by the BBC in February 2025, when the security service vehemently denied them. After the court decision in late 2024, this correspondent challenged MI5 directly, saying it had lied to the courts. The service aggressively maintained that its NCND policy had been upheld until evidence proving otherwise was produced, including a recording of one of the calls with Officer 2.
Two official inquiries followed, both of which absolved MI5 and its officers of deliberate wrongdoing, attributing the false evidence to mistakes and poor memories. In July 2025, however, a panel of senior High Court judges ruled that the investigations carried out by MI5 suffered from serious procedural deficiencies and that their conclusions could not be relied upon. Sir John Goldring's investigation, ordered by the prime minister in September 2025, concluded that MI5 had given evidence based on lies about having kept to its core secrecy policy, and found serious and systemic failures in the service's conduct throughout the case.