MI5 misled three courts while defending its handling of a violent neo-Nazi informant, in a failure described by the intelligence watchdog's head as among the most serious matters he has dealt with in office.
Lord Leveson, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, said the case exposed a fundamental breakdown in the honesty required between the security service, the courts and those responsible for supervising intelligence activity. His office investigated how MI5 gave inaccurate evidence about the way it had applied its policy on confirming or denying whether an individual was an informant.
“Oversight depends on candour. Failings of candour undermine the entire basis of oversight and accountability.”
Investigation found repeated deception
The Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office, known as IPCO, published its findings earlier this year. It concluded that one senior MI5 officer lied repeatedly, while another misled colleagues and gave an untruthful account of what he had been told. The report also criticised other senior figures within the service and identified what it called serious and systemic failures in MI5's conduct during the case.
Lord Leveson said his investigation had been ordered by the Prime Minister after false evidence was supplied to the High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. He said the inquiry found that both IPCO and the courts had been misled. The findings raise questions not only about the actions of individual officers but also about the systems through which information was passed within MI5 and presented to judges.
| Element of the case | Finding or consequence |
|---|---|
| Courts involved | False evidence was given to three courts |
| MI5 conduct | Senior officers were found to have lied or misled colleagues |
| Watchdog conclusion | Serious and systemic failures were identified |
| Next legal step | The High Court is expected to decide what action, if any, should follow |
Informant's conduct and legal challenge
The informant, referred to as agent X, was a violent neo-Nazi whose identity has not been made public. He coercively controlled his partner, known by the alias Beth, and attacked her with a machete. Despite being under police investigation, MI5 helped him travel abroad so that he could continue intelligence work.
The dispute centred on the agency's policy known as “neither confirm nor deny”, or NCND. MI5 told the courts that it had maintained that position over agent X's status. On that basis, the courts permitted him legal anonymity. The IPCO inquiry examined how the agency came to give evidence that was later found to be false, and how information about the case was handled by senior officers and their colleagues.
The BBC first exposed the case. In 2022, the Government took the broadcaster to court in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent its investigation into agent X from proceeding, although the informant secured anonymity. Beth subsequently brought proceedings against MI5 at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. In 2024, she sought a review at the High Court of an earlier ruling.
High Court decision awaited
MI5 accepted the IPCO report's findings “without reservation” last month. The High Court is now due to consider what action, if any, should be taken against the agency or its staff. The source material does not indicate when that decision will be issued or what sanctions may be available.
Lord Leveson's comments underline the wider importance of the case. Intelligence agencies depend on secrecy to protect their operations, but their work is also subject to judicial and independent scrutiny. Where information given to courts is inaccurate, the mechanisms intended to provide accountability cannot operate properly. The commissioner said the case was “as serious as anything I have dealt with as commissioner”, stressing that the issue went beyond the treatment of one informant and reached the foundations of oversight.
- IPCO found that MI5 misled three courts about its handling of agent X's status.
- Senior officers were found to have lied or misled colleagues during the case.
- The High Court will decide what action, if any, should follow against the agency or its staff.
The case leaves the courts to assess the consequences of the evidence failures, while the intelligence watchdog's findings place renewed emphasis on candour as a condition of effective scrutiny. For MI5, accepting the report does not resolve the outstanding legal questions. Those will depend on the High Court's forthcoming decision and on how the service addresses the failures identified by its independent overseer.
