‘Premature' to decide whether MI5 should face contempt probe, judges rule
In 2022, then-attorney general Suella Braverman went to the High Court to stop the broadcaster airing a programme that would name a man who has allegedly abused two women and is a covert human intelligence source.
An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme and the key issues, without identifying him.
But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false.
Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals, for not being fully transparent with the court, had been met.
In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'.
The senior judge said that the new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies.
'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.'
The written witness evidence, now accepted to have been false, said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) the identities of intelligence sources.
However, MI5 disclosed X's status to a BBC reporter, but then said it had kept to the NCND policy.
Lawyers on behalf of MI5 apologised earlier this year and carried out two investigations, which concluded the false evidence was given due to a series of mistakes with no deliberate attempt by any staff member to mislead.
In Wednesday's 26-page ruling, the three judges said they were not 'satisfied' with the investigations or their conclusions.
They added: 'It is regrettable that MI5's explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way — and only following the repeated intervention of the court.'
In the programme about X, the BBC alleged the intelligence source was a misogynistic neo-Nazi who attacked his girlfriend, referred to by the pseudonym Beth, with a machete.
Beth is bringing related legal action in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), with the judges finding on Wednesday that the specialist tribunal – which investigates allegations against the UK intelligence services – was also misled.
Baroness Carr later said: 'Whilst we accept the genuineness of the apologies proffered on behalf of MI5, the fact remains that this case has raised serious issues.
'MI5 gave false evidence to three courts. This was compounded by inadequate attempts to explain the circumstances.'
Following the ruling, MI5 director-general Sir Ken McCallum said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings.
'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness.
'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court.
'MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress.
'MI5's job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.'
A BBC spokesperson said: 'We are pleased this decision has been reached and that the key role of our journalist Daniel De Simone in bringing this to light has been acknowledged by the judges.
'We believe our journalism on this story has always been in the highest public interest.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer to give major press conference after Rachel Reeves seen crying
Keir Starmer will give a press conference on the Government's NHS plans - a day after Chancellor Rachel Reeves was seen crying in the chamber at PMQs. The PM last night insisted her tears were "nothing to do with politics" and said she would remain in post for "many years to come". Mr Starmer has admitted though that it has been a tough week for his government after a massive Labour rebellion saw flagship welfare reforms torn up. The Prime Minister is expected to appear alongside Health Secretary Wes Streeting to unveil a new 10 year NHS strategy. He will unveil his vision for the NHS in a major speech, which will see him pledge to "fundamentally rewire" the health service. The plan, to be published today, will set out how the NHS will move from analogue to digital, treatment to prevention, and from hospital to more community care. By 2035, the intention is that the majority of outpatient care will happen outside of hospitals, with less need for hospital-based appointments for things like eye care, cardiology, respiratory medicine and mental health. It comes near the end of a torrid week for the PM. In an interview with the BBC he admitted: : "I'm not going to pretend the last few days have been easy, they've been tough. "I'm the sort of person that then wants to reflect on that, to ask myself what do we need to ensure we don't get into a situation like that again, and we will go through that process. "But I also know what we will do and that's we will come through it stronger." He was taunted by Kemi Badenoch about Ms Reeves' future, with the Tory leader suggesting the Chancellor was "toast". But hours after failing to back her in the Commons, he told the BBC: "She's done an excellent job as Chancellor and we have delivered inward investment to this country in record numbers. "She and I work together, we think together. In the past there have been examples - I won't give any specifics - of chancellors and prime ministers who weren't in lockstep. We're in lockstep." The PM said Ms Reeves's tears were to do with a personal matter, on which he would not elaborate. He said it had "nothing to do with politics" or this week's dramatic welfare U-turns. Pressed on whether it was, Mr Starmer said: "That's absolutely wrong. Nothing to do with what's happened this week. It was a personal matter for her, I'm not going to intrude on her privacy by talking to you."
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Cash Isa bickering masks the real crisis for savers
The debate about whether Rachel Reeves should or should not limit the amount that people can save into a cash Isa has been heated. A good argument can be made that too much money has sat in low-yielding cash accounts that could be working harder in the stock market. But many people still feel, with some justification, that this is just another raid on prudent people trying to do the right thing. The problem with this debate is that most people expressing an opinion have a dog in the race. The Chancellor says she wants people to earn more on their savings – of course she does. But she also has her eye on £300bn of idle cash that would provide a useful boost to the growth promise on which she was elected if it were redirected towards UK-listed companies. That cash would also raise a useful amount of fresh revenue if, as is more likely, it simply moves from a tax-free cash account to a taxable one. You may not be surprised to learn that banks and building societies view that same money as a funding source for the mortgages and other loans they offer. They, therefore, make the case for precautionary saving, and they highlight the danger of putting money to work in the market that you might need soon to pay for a wedding, school fees or a house move. It is no surprise that their counterparts in the asset management and investment platform industry (full disclosure: that's me) prefer to focus on the historical outperformance of stock market investments over cash. We warn that holding too much cash for too long poses a different kind of threat to your financial security. We are all right, of course. There is a place for both cash and investments in our financial lives. The bigger problem is that most people don't understand financial risk. So they don't know how much importance to attach to the arguments on either side of this debate. Or what the right balance of cash and shares should be for them. Reeves highlights one risk of holding too much cash. Doing so usually means you are paying too high a price for certainty. You prefer a return of your money to a return on it. Which is reasonable for some of your savings, but not for all of them. Everyone should set aside a cash buffer before they start to think about investing in the stock market. But once they have done that, there is no reason to park any more in cash. How big that cushion should be is harder to say – it will vary according to your age, your ability to find new work if you lose your job and many other factors. Most people don't know how much cash they should sensibly hold. Consequently, some will hold too little and others far too much. But there is a long list of other risks over which they don't have a good grasp either. And, until they do, tweaking contribution limits may make less of a difference than the Chancellor hopes. You can lead a horse to water, as they say. There are a few things we, as an industry, have not done a great job of explaining. The first is the difference between volatility and risk. Volatility is the natural ups and downs of the market. This is only ever a risk if we sell our investments in response to a fall in their value and crystallise the loss. The stock market fell 20pc between February and April. But unless you sold at the bottom, you won't care now because it quickly recovered. Another point of the cash buffer is to prevent the next risk – being a forced seller. You should always have enough cash in the bank to be able to ignore short-term market volatility. Or to actively desire it as a chance to buy assets at a discount to their real value. Holding that cash is a first step towards avoiding another poorly understood risk: putting our eggs in too few baskets. One of the reasons I have been able to shrug off the market's change of heart on US assets this year is that America is only a part of my portfolio. Yes, there have been times in the past 10 years when I wished it was a bigger part than it was, but broad diversification has felt like a pretty good strategy in the first half of 2025. The biggest risk for most people when it comes to investing (or saving, come to that) is to put it off. I often tell a story about twin sisters, one who starts saving young and one who for too long finds other things to spend her money on. The prudent sister gets to a point in mid-life when she has so much capital that further saving is largely pointless. The other, meanwhile, can never catch up, no matter how long she keeps putting money aside. The point rightly made by the pro-investment lobby is that achieving the first sister's happy state is really only possible by tapping into the stock market's superior returns. The final risk that very few people properly understand is the ravage of inflation. Even those of us who think about how much we might need to fund our retirement fall into the trap of thinking about this in today's money. What we need to understand is that even at the Bank of England's 2pc target for inflation, the pot we manage to accumulate will buy us half as much in 36 years' time as it does today. At 3pc inflation, our purchasing power will halve in just 24 years. This is the strongest argument for shares over cash, which in the long run tends only to match, not beat, inflation. So while I support the Chancellor's desire to get people more focused on their investment returns than the return of their investments, this is just the start of it. Informing people how to save and invest sensibly is more important than bickering over whether they should do so via cash or the stock market.
Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Tragedy as body of teenage boy is pulled from river after 'entering with pals' as heatwave continues
The body of a teenage boy has been pulled from a river after he reportedly entered the water with friends. Police rushed to Beccles Quay, off Fenn Lann in Suffolk, after the teenager failed to resurface from the River Waveney just before 7.30pm last night. A huge multi-agency search was launch involving police, paramedics and the fire service. But sadly the boy's body was found and pulled from the water, police said just before 11pm last night. The death is not being treated as suspicious and a file with be prepared for the coroner in due course. The teenage boy's family has been notified, Suffolk Police have said. A spokesperson for the force said: 'Officers were called to Beccles Quay, off Fen Lane, just before 7:30pm, following concerns for the safety of a teenage boy who had entered the river with friends but had not resurfaced. 'A multi-agency operation was launched, with police, Suffolk Fire & Rescue, East of England Ambulance Service, air ambulance crew and HM Coastguard all in attendance to the incident. 'Searches were conducted and sadly the body of a teenage boy has now been located and recovered from the water. 'The death is not being treated as suspicious and a file with be prepared for the coroner in due course. 'The boy's next of kin have been notified.'
