Latest news with #JamesEadieKC
Yahoo
7 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
MI5 ‘deliberately and repeatedly lied' in agent's identity case, court told
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. 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. The judgment was reserved and will be handed down at a later date. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Prince Harry's 'Unique' & 'Unusual' Exit From Royal Life Sparked Protocol Shake-Up Over Downgraded Security
Prince Harry's unconventional decision to step back from royal duties and spend most of his time abroad prompted RAVEC to deviate from standard protocol when deciding to cut his publicly funded security. The barrister representing the Home Office, Sir James Eadie KC, made the argument during the second hearing for the Duke's appeal. Prince Harry's lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, had previously stated during her opening argument that RAVEC failed to obtain a risk analysis from the Risk Management Board before making the decision, which is a standard procedure in determining such matters. On the second day of Harry's appeal over his downgraded security, the Home Office lawyer, James Eadie KC, shared more insight into why the decision was made without consulting a Risk Management Board. "RMB risk analysis is the usual approach in usual cases," the barrister told the High Court during the proceedings," per the Daily Mail. "But there is nothing about the appellant's [Prince Harry's] announcement in January 2020 that he was to step back from his role in the Royal family and spend most of the time abroad, that was usual." The barrister also remarked that it was "hard to imagine" anyone more suitable than the chair of RAVEC to sign off on how the Duke's security arrangements should change to accommodate "the unique and unusual circumstances." He went on to refute the claim from Harry's lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, that the former senior royal was being "singled out" for "inferior treatment." "He was not being singled out - on the contrary, the process being adopted had positive advantages for him," Eadie KC told the court. Arguing for Harry, Fatima KC insisted that RAVEC should not have deviated from their original guidelines of obtaining a risk analysis. She also noted that the Duke doesn't see the new "bespoke" arrangement as something better but rather as a vindictive act seemingly implemented in response to his decision to quit senior royal life. She said, "The appellant [the Duke of Sussex] does not accept that bespoke means better – in fact, in his position, it means he has been singled out for different, inferior treatment." Meanwhile, Fatima KC reiterated her stance that the judge who previously ruled in favor of RAVEC acted wrongly. She had earlier argued in the first hearing that the judge did so by "wrongly and inappropriately" deferring to the committee on the basis of their decision-making and failing to "appreciate the role of the RMB," per the Daily Mail. At the time, the high-profile lawyer also noted that "the judge erred in finding that the terms of reference granted Ravec the discretion to simply not use the terms of reference in certain cases." The latest proceedings in Harry's case were held behind closed doors for the most part due to some of the evidence presented being deemed "highly confidential." "Some of the evidence in this case, which is being placed before the Court of Appeal, has been agreed between the parties to be highly confidential," the judges, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean, and Lord Justice Edis, ruled during the first proceedings. They added, "That evidence relates to security arrangements and threat levels and assessments for the claimant and other public figures" and "would be of interest to anyone wishing to harm a person within the scope of the security arrangements." For today's hearing, Harry arrived shortly after 10 am, which was later than his arrival time for the first day. He also dressed in a suit similar to yesterday's attire but opted for a different wine-colored and dark blue patterned tie. Once again, he was flanked by his security and was seen greeting his fans as he made his way to the courtroom. He also took an active part in the proceedings by writing detailed notes during the Home Office's lawyer's argument against his appeal. His notes were then passed forward via his team of lawyers to his lead barrister, Fatima KC. A decision on Harry's appeal will be provided in writing at a later date but most likely won't happen before Easter.
The Guardian
14-03-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Apple's UK encryption legal challenge heard behind closed doors
A hearing in Apple's legal battle with the UK government over access to customer data was held behind closed doors on Friday after the press failed to gain entry to proceedings. The US tech firm has launched an appeal with the investigatory powers tribunal after the Home Office demanded access to encrypted data stored remotely in Apple's cloud servers. UK media organisations including the Guardian, the BBC, the Financial Times and Computer Weekly made a submission to the tribunal asking for press access on public interest grounds but they failed to gain entry. Sir James EadieKC, who represents the government in high-profile cases, was seen entering the courtroom at the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday. Apple is fighting a technology capability notice issued under the Investigatory Powers Act, which requires companies to assist law enforcement in providing evidence. The notice demanded access to Apple's Advanced Data Protection (ADP) service, which heavily encrypts personal data stored remotely in its servers. Apple refused and has challenged the order at the tribunal, which investigates whether the domestic intelligence services have acted unlawfully. It also withdrew ADP from the UK last month, saying: 'We have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will.' ADP uses end-to-end encryption, which means only the account holder can decrypt the files. Messaging services like iMessage and FaceTime remain end-to-end encrypted by default. The government's secret legal demand is officially known as a technical capability notice. Recipients of a TCN cannot reveal the existence of an order unless they are given permission from the home secretary. The tribunal's website states that hearings should be closed to the public only when 'strictly necessary', but its rules declare there must be no disclosure of information that is 'prejudicial to national security'. On Thursday, a group of Democratic and Republican lawmakers in the US called on the tribunal to 'remove the cloak of secrecy' around the UK government's order and to make Friday's hearing, as well as any further proceedings, public. Bloomberg reported on Thursday that British officials had initiated talks with their US counterparts over the order. The UK has reportedly assured the US that it is not seeking blanket access and would only seek data related to serious crimes such as terrorism and child sexual abuse. The Home Office has been asked for comment.
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Apple encrypted data row hearing begins in secret
Apple's encrypted data case against the UK government has begun in secret at the Royal Courts of Justice. The Home Office has demanded the right to access data from Apple users that have turned on Advanced Data Protection (ADP), a tool that prevents anyone other than the user - including the tech giant - from reading their files. Apple says it is important for privacy - but the UK government says it needs to be able access data if there is a national security risk. The BBC - along with civil liberties groups and some US politicians - argue the case should be heard in public. But Friday's session of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal - which is hearing the matter - was held behind closed doors. It is not clear whether later phases of the case will be opened to the public - the BBC has submitted a written argument that it should be. As well as the BBC, journalists from the Guardian, the Telegraph, PA, Bloomberg, and Computer Weekly attended the Royal Courts of Justice but were not admitted into the court room. Sir James Eadie KC, who previously represented the government in significant cases such as Shamima Begum's citizenship appeal, was seen entering the hearing. On Thursday, five US politicians from across the political divide urged the court to remove what they call the "cloak of secrecy" surrounding the row - which they say has major security implications. A group of civil liberties groups made a similar plea, saying barring the media would be an "affront to the global privacy and security issues that are being discussed." The case is about balancing national security against privacy rights. ADP is end to end encrypted, meaning no-one can access files that have been secured with it apart from their owner. Other end to end encrypted services in the UK include Signal, Meta's WhatsApp, and Apple's iMessage. In February, it emerged the UK government was seeking the right to be able to access data protected in this way using powers granted to it under the Investigatory Powers Act. The Act allows it to compel firms to provide information to law enforcement agencies. Apple responded by pulling ADP in the UK and then launching legal action to challenge the government's demand. Apple says agreeing to what the UK is asking for it would require the creation of a so-called backdoor, a capability critics say would eventually be exploited by hackers. "As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will," Apple says on its website. The Home Office has previously told the BBC: "The UK has a longstanding position of protecting our citizens from the very worst crimes, such as child sex abuse and terrorism, at the same time as protecting people's privacy. "The UK has robust safeguards and independent oversight to protect privacy and privacy is only impacted on an exceptional basis, in relation to the most serious crimes and only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so." Pressure grows to hold secret Apple data privacy hearing in public Secret hearing on Friday in Apple and UK government data row
BBC News
14-03-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Apple encrypted data row case begins in secret
Apple's encrypted data case against the UK government has begun in secret at the Royal Courts of Home Office has demanded the right to access data from Apple users that have turned on Advanced Data Protection (ADP), a tool that prevents anyone other than the user - including the tech giant - from reading their says it is important for privacy - but the UK government says it needs to be able access data if there is a national security BBC - along with civil liberties groups and some US politicians - argue the case should be heard in Friday's session of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal - which is hearing the matter - was held behind closed doors. It is not clear whether later phases of the case will be opened to the public - the BBC has submitted a written argument that it should well as the BBC, journalists from the Guardian, the Telegraph, PA, Bloomberg, and Computer Weekly attended the Royal Courts of Justice but were not admitted into the court James Eadie KC, who previously represented the government in significant cases such as Shamima Begum's citizenship appeal, was seen entering the Thursday, five US politicians from across the political divide urged the court to remove what they call the "cloak of secrecy" surrounding the row - which they say has major security implications.A group of civil liberties groups made a similar plea, saying barring the media would be an "affront to the global privacy and security issues that are being discussed." Security v Privacy The case is about balancing national security against privacy is end to end encrypted, meaning no-one can access files that have been secured with it apart from their end to end encrypted services in the UK include Signal, Meta's WhatsApp, and Apple's February, it emerged the UK government was seeking the right to be able to access data protected in this way using powers granted to it under the Investigatory Powers Act allows it to compel firms to provide information to law enforcement responded by pulling ADP in the UK and then launching legal action to challenge the government's says agreeing to what the UK is asking for it would require the creation of a so-called backdoor, a capability critics say would eventually be exploited by hackers."As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will," Apple says on its Home Office has previously told the BBC: "The UK has a longstanding position of protecting our citizens from the very worst crimes, such as child sex abuse and terrorism, at the same time as protecting people's privacy."The UK has robust safeguards and independent oversight to protect privacy and privacy is only impacted on an exceptional basis, in relation to the most serious crimes and only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so."
