MI5 ‘deliberately and repeatedly lied' in agent's identity case, court told

Telegraph

2 days ago

An MI5 agent 'deliberately and repeatedly lied' after confirming to a journalist that a violent and misogynistic neo-Nazi was operating as an undercover source, a court has heard.
The security service apologised to the High Court on Tuesday after acknowledging that a senior official gave false information under oath when he denied such a confirmation had occurred.
A deputy director – identified only as Witness A – provided a sworn statement on behalf of MI5, insisting the agency had steadfastly maintained its policy to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) the identity of an informant.
But that testimony was exposed as false earlier this year when a BBC journalist produced a recording of an MI5 agent – identified as Officer 2 – confirming that a violent neo-Nazi did work for them as a covert human intelligence source.
Two investigations have since been launched to ascertain how MI5 came to provide false information to judges on three separate occasions.
At a hearing before the High Court on Tuesday, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Attorney General for MI5, reiterated an apology on behalf of the agency.
'Errors had not been deliberate'
He said: 'I am not here to seek to excuse or diminish the seriousness of that position. Everyone from the director-general downwards acknowledges the seriousness caused.'
But he insisted there had been 'no deliberate attempt to conceal or lie', suggesting that the 'failings and errors' had been down to poor recollection, a lack of accurate note-taking and communication issues.
Sir James said the court could be 'properly satisfied' that a full investigation had taken place, and it concluded that the 'errors had not been deliberate'.
He said the reviews found 'there had been no deliberate misleading or lying'.
But Jude Bunting KC for the BBC said Officer 2 – the agent at the centre of the case – had 'deliberately and repeatedly lied', adding that there had been 'widespread knowledge within MI5' that he had done so.
He said Officer 2 had been given authorisation from senior officials to 'deviate' from MI5's usual policy.
Mr Bunting also said Sir Jonathan Jones KC, who was commissioned by the Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, to carry out the external review, had not spoken to Officer 2 directly during the probe.
He said the conclusion was that Officer 2 appears 'to have consistently lied', adding that it was 'very troubling'.
The embarrassing episode dates back to December 2021 when a BBC journalist was investigating the activities of a far-Right extremist.
After emailing the man to put the allegations to him, the reporter was surprised to be contacted by an MI5 official saying the claims were not accurate.
During several subsequent telephone conversations, the MI5 officer confirmed to the journalist the man, identified only as agent X, did indeed work for them as a paid informant and even offered to arrange a meeting.
He also told the reporter he had been 'legally authorised' to disclose agent X's role, suggesting the decision had been signed off at a higher level.
Sir Ken McCallum, the head of MI5, attempted to get the BBC to drop the story but, when the corporation refused, Suella Braverman, the Attorney General at the time, went to the High Court seeking an injunction.
During MI5's submissions Witness A insisted they had not deviated from their standard procedure of never confirming nor denying the identities of agents.
The same position was maintained in evidence given to two other courts as the man's ex-girlfriend sought to expose how he had used his MI5 cover to abuse and silence her.
The BBC was eventually permitted to run the story about the man's violent past and extremist mindset, but was banned from naming him.
Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, sitting with Mr Justice Chamberlain and Dame Victoria Sharp, the president of the King's Bench Division, are considering what action, if any, to take against MI5.
Mr Bunting said it was the BBC's position that the threshold for bringing Contempt of Court proceedings against the agency had been reached.