Latest news with #SuellaBraverman
The Independent
2 days ago
- General
- The Independent
MI5 apologises unreservedly to High Court for ‘failings and errors'
MI5 has offered an 'unreserved' apology to the High Court saying there had been 'failings and errors' in legal proceedings related to an alleged source accused of abusing two women. In 2022, then-attorney general Suella Braverman went to the court in London to stop the BBC airing a programme that would name him. An injunction was made 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. At a hearing in February, the court heard that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. On Tuesday, lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and number of individuals – for not being fully transparent with the court – had been met. Earlier Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Attorney General, made an 'unreserved apology and contrition on behalf of MI5' to the court and parties for the incorrect evidence that was provided. He added: 'I am not here to seek to excuse or diminish the seriousness of that position. 'Everyone from the Director General onwards acknowledges the seriousness of what has occurred.' The written witness statement said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) the identities of intelligence sources. However, the BBC said MI5 disclosed X's status to one of its reporters, but then said it had kept to the NCND policy. Sir James said there had been internal investigations since, and the 'first and most obvious conclusion' led to the 'unequivocal apology'. He added that there had been failings that have been 'properly identified' by the investigations. Sir James also said that criticism had been made that records of conversations with the press, about this subject matter, had not been created and maintained 'despite the obvious, clear and serious importance of doing so'. He added that the creation of contemporaneous documents was the 'best guard' against errors being made and that lessons had been learned. Sir James said the court can be 'properly satisfied' a full investigation had taken place, and it had concluded that the 'errors had not been deliberate' and that 'there had been no deliberate misleading or lying'. He also said there had been proper accountability for the errors, including in public, 'to the maximum extent possible'. Jude Bunting KC, for the BBC, told the court on Tuesday that the person – person B – who gave the false evidence did 'deliberately and repeatedly lie'. He continued that the evidence also suggests that there was a 'widespread' understanding within MI5 that this person had departed from NCND. Mr Bunting added that person B had departed from NCND in a way which was 'detailed and surprising, and that he had only been authorised to stray from the policy when talking to a 'trusted MI5 source'. Mr Bunting further said the 'threshold' for contempt proceedings against two officers, a witness and MI5 had been met. He added: 'All of these individuals and the corporate body were aware of the true position. 'Person B seems to have deliberately lied.' Mr Bunting continued: 'We say it was also a particularly serious breach in this case because it had a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.' Mr Bunting said there was a real concern that the court is not being given the 'full explanation as to what went wrong'. 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. Charlotte Kilroy KC, representing Beth, who brough a related case to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, said: 'Beth agrees with the BBC that the threshold for contempt has been met.' She added that 'there are copious signs of dishonesty' that have not been acknowledged at all. Ms Kilroy said Beth was not making her own application, as her other case is still ongoing.
BBC News
2 days ago
- General
- BBC News
MI5 in High Court over false evidence it gave in case of violent neo-Nazi spy
Update: Date: 10:35 BST Title: The attorney general's unique role in this case Content: Daniel De SimoneInvestigations correspondent, reporting from court An unusual feature of this case is that false evidence was given in a case brought on behalf of MI5 by the attorney general - the government's chief legal adviser. The case was first brought by Suella Braverman, who was attorney general in 2022, but has since been inherited by the current occupant of the role, Lord Hermer. In cases where false evidence has been given, and the initiation of contempt of court proceedings is a possibility, there would often be a referral to the attorney general - who would normally be well placed to bring such proceedings. But in this case the attorney general is the claimant on whose behalf false evidence was given. This makes it hard, if not impossible, for the attorney general to be involved in bringing any further proceedings, should that be where the case goes next. Update: Date: 10:20 BST Title: What is this case actually about? Content: Daniel De SimoneInvestigations correspondent, reporting from court At its heart, this case is about violence against women and girls. A misogynistic neo-Nazi MI5 agent used his role as a tool of coercion against his girlfriend, known publicly as 'Beth', who he even attacked with a machete. Three years ago, the government took the BBC to court to stop an investigative story about the agent. It failed but did win him legal anonymity. Following this, Beth made a legal claim against MI5, which led to two further courts becoming involved. Earlier this year, the BBC revealed that MI5 had given false evidence to all three courts. A senior MI5 officer had falsely said MI5 had stuck to its core policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) the man was MI5 agent, when in fact it disclosed that fact to me when seeking to prevent me investigating him in 2020. By applying an NCND position in the legal cases, MI5 has been able to keep much of the evidence secret, including from Beth herself, which has impacted her ability to have fair trial of her claim. The hearing today will see a panel of senior judges consider two issues: The case has become a major test of how the courts view MI5 and the credibility of its evidence. Update: Date: 10:10 BST Title: MI5 faces High Court scrutiny over neo-Nazi spy Content: Thomas MackintoshReporting from the High Court MI5 representatives are due at London's High Court this morning, months after the BBC revealed the spy agency had given false evidence to three courts in the case of a misogynistic neo-Nazi agent who attacked his girlfriend with a machete. The man - a paid informant - is known only as agent X. After the BBC revealed MI5 had lied, the agency - in an unprecedented admission - issued an "unreserved apology" and described what had happened as a "serious error". The case has become a major test of how the courts view MI5 and the credibility of its evidence. Mr Justice Chamberlain, one of the judges presiding over the case, has said he has "no confidence" in MI5's account of how a senior officer gave false evidence. He, along with two of the most senior judges in England and Wales, will today hear submissions from the attorney general, on behalf of MI5, the BBC and the woman at the centre of the case. They'll then decide what action, if any, should be taken against MI5. We'll be bringing you all the details live from the High Court - stick with us.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Robert Jenrick has been on a bizarre political journey. It's made him incredibly dangerous
The shameless opportunism of a scandal-hit political climber could have profound consequences for our democracy. The British public still knows little about Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary who was seen off by Kemi Badenoch in last year's race for the Tory crown. That will soon change, because the implosion of the hapless Conservative incumbent is safely filed under 'when, not if' – and Jenrick will almost certainly succeed her. Jenrick's political evolution reflects the trajectory across the west of the so-called centre right, which has either been eclipsed by the radical right or adopted its positions. When Jenrick won the Newark byelection in 2014, he was – in the words of then nearby Tory MP Anna Soubry – a 'full-fat subscriber to David Cameron'. Having defeated Nigel Farage's then rising party, the now virtually extinct Tory wets hailed his victory at the time as evidence that the party must resist becoming 'Ukip lite'. It was a conclusion that Jenrick – who avoided campaigning on either immigration or the EU – endorsed, declaring: 'You win elections at the centre.' At the time of the referendum, Jenrick was a staunch opponent of Brexit, signing a letter that declared that leaving the EU would 'lead us into dystopia'. Even as recently as 2022, when demagogic then home secretary Suella Braverman declared that southern England faced an 'invasion' of illegal migrants, Jenrick rebuked his own boss. 'It's not a phrase that I've used,' he said when asked if she'd used the wrong term, adding: 'I think in this job you do have to use your language carefully.' Well, Jenrick has managed to drastically outbid Braverman on extreme language. Britain has imported 'hundreds of thousands of people from alien cultures who possess medieval attitude towards women', he declares. Where his former mentor Cameron once dismissed Ukip as 'fruitcakes, loonies or closet racists', Jenrick declares he would welcome Farage into Tory ranks. The once passionate remainer now demands that Britain leave the European court of human rights. And when Britain was in the grip of racist, Islamophobic riots, Jenrick called for anyone shouting 'Allahu Akbar' to be arrested – in other words, criminalising the most common phrase used by observant Muslims. Is this all a ruse to get elected leader before shifting in a completely different direction – a Tory Keir Starmer, if you will? Braverman certainly wasn't convinced last year, declaring that Jenrick hails 'from the left of the party' and looked 'horrified' when she floated leaving the European court. But Jenrick is hardly unique. Consider Liz Truss, a former monarchy-trashing Liberal Democrat activist who also campaigned for remain. She now denounces the 'deep state', shares platforms with far-right US strategist Steve Bannon as he praises Tommy Robinson as a 'hero', and this weekend attended a rightwing conference in Hungary, a quasi-dictatorship, where she talked about the 'free speech crisis in Britain'. What Jenrick truly believes is a secondary consideration: you would hardly call Donald Trump a natural ideologue, and yet he operates as a faithful executor of far-right causes. Jenrick's allies claim he was 'radicalised' by his experience at the Home Office. Alarmingly, in leaked correspondence last year with an anonymous far-right Twitter account that demands 'mass deportations' and banning the Qur'an, Jenrick declared himself 'a great admirer' of its tweets, saying: 'We agree however on what needs to happen.' Like Trump, Jenrick will undoubtedly style himself as a man of the people, despite all evidence pointing in a different direction. Among his multiple properties are a £2.6m central London townhouse and a stately home: in 2020 he was accused of (but never prosecuted for) breaking lockdown rules after driving to the latter during the pandemic. The same year, he overruled civil servants to rush through a £1bn property deal backed by Tory donor Richard Desmond, who had lobbied him to speed up the development to save him £40m in tax. The decision was later to be found to be unlawful. But adopting rightwing populism offers cynical aspiring demagogues protection from such scrutiny, which they present as a conspiracy to silence them. Here's why a Jenrick leadership will be dangerous. Across the west, there is an obvious political direction: a drift towards rightwing authoritarianism. In Hungary, democracy was destroyed by Fidesz, a supposedly centre-right party and one-time member of the Liberal International, which radicalised in power. Its leader, Viktor Orbán – like Jenrick – was a lawyer who was presented as a moderate. The Tory faction Jenrick once hailed from is largely gone, and the prevailing Conservative wisdom is that only by lurching rightwards can the Farageist threat be dispelled. Unlike Badenoch, who seems allergic to anything resembling a cut-through message, Jenrick will ruthlessly communicate his demagoguery, as the latest video of him chasing after fare dodgers underlines. And here's the big problem. Labour under Starmer has shown it will raid the policies and rhetoric of Farageism rather than offer an alternative to a broken economic model that is the key driver of disillusionment. When Jenrick has the top job, Britain will have two high-profile rightwing agitators spraying political discourse with incendiary rhetoric. Labour will respond by echoing their bile, legitimising a rightwing lurch rather than seeing it off. If – like the US – Britain falls into an authoritarian mire, then Jenrick's cynical political manoeuvring may well accelerate the descent.' Owen Jones is a Guardian columnist
Telegraph
5 days ago
- General
- Telegraph
Calls for Lord Hermer to quit over role in Lucy Connolly prosecution
On Saturday night, Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, called on Sir Keir Starmer to sack his legal chief, saying: 'His judgment is a national embarrassment. After Southport, facts were buried while ministers ranted about far-Right thugs. 'Starmer should sack Hermer, or admit he's not really in charge. It speaks volumes that our Attorney General is content to keep people like Lucy Connolly behind bars for a tweet as violent criminals are released early.' 'Connolly should never have been prosecuted' Suella Braverman, who served as attorney general between 2021 and 2022, said: 'Lucy Connolly should never have been prosecuted, and should now be freed from prison. The charges brought against her were not in the public interest, and if I was attorney general I would not have granted consent to prosecute. 'The CPS has a woeful track record of prosecuting rapists and domestic abusers, yet the Attorney General considered Lucy's Twitter post sufficiently serious to justify prosecution. The Government is recklessly letting out dangerous criminals early, yet this Attorney General thought the costs and resources required to prosecute Lucy for her message were proportionate. 'This Attorney General is enforcing two-tier Britain under two-tier Keir. No wonder the UK has become a global byword for free speech in crisis, our reputation tarnished by political prosecutions and lawfare.' Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: 'Lord Hermer has shown consistently poor judgment in a number of areas. 'From cheerleading the Chagos Islands giveaway to smearing political opponents as Nazis, it is quite clear he is not an appropriate person to serve as Attorney General and should be removed. 'No one condones the contents of Lucy Connolly's post, but her two and a half year prison sentence seems duly harsh given that people who commit actual acts of violence receive far lower sentences.' Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, told The Telegraph: 'Lord Hermer sums up Starmer's Government. A group of detached two-tier human right lawyers. No wonder the public have given up on them all.' Attorney General consent for prosecution Connolly was jailed for inciting racial hatred, which is an offence under the Public Order Act (1986). That offence, along with 60 others, requires that the Attorney General give their consent to any prosecutions. The requirement was designed to act as a safeguard to prevent the criminal justice system unreasonably clamping down on free speech, The Telegraph understands. When deciding whether or not to give consent for a prosecution, the Attorney General must first determine whether a conviction is likely and if so, if it would be in the public interest, it is understood. Across last year, the Attorney General was presented with 32 prosecutions to consider relating to the offence of inciting racial hatred – 17 of which were to do with the Southport riots. It is rare for the Attorney General to refuse to give consent because, by the time it reaches their office, the Crown Prosecution Service will have itself determined that a successful prosecution is likely, it is understood. Last September, Connolly pleaded guilty to writing a social media post intended to stir up racial hatred to her 10,000 followers on X on the evening after three children were murdered in a knife attack in Southport. She wrote: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b------s for all I care, while you're at it take the treacherous government politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these [Southport] families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' Following the peak of the disorder in August, Lord Hermer described the jailing of individuals advocating for attacks on migrant hotels as 'a stark warning that you cannot hide behind your keyboard'.
The Independent
26-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Trump reignites free speech row with Starmer as US says it is ‘monitoring' Lucy Connolly case
Donald Trump has revived his explosive free speech row with Keir Starmer, with a decision to 'monitor' the case of Lucy Connolly, the woman jailed for an online rant about migrants on the day of the Southport attacks. The US State Department said it was 'concerned about infringements on freedom of expression'. It is examining the treatment of 42-year-old Connolly, the wife of a former Conservative councillor, who was sentenced to 31 months after she made the post on X in the hours after three girls were stabbed and killed at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class. She told her 9,000 followers: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care, while you're at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. 'I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it.' Judges threw out an appeal brought by her legal team last week. A spokesman for the US state department told the Telegraph, which first reported its interest: 'We can confirm that we are monitoring this matter. The United States supports freedom of expression at home and abroad, and remains concerned about infringements on freedom of expression.' Mr Trump has sent US officials to meet British pro-life activists over censorship worries, the paper also reported. British politicians who have hit out at Connolly's sentence welcomed the White House's intervention. Suella Braverman, the former Tory home secretary, said: 'Lucy Connolly is effectively a political prisoner and should be freed immediately. She made an ill-judged tweet, soon deleted. That the US is investigating this case is a sad indictment of the dire state of free speech... under Labour.' The move marks another escalation in an ongoing row between the White House and Sir Keir, just weeks after they appeared to reset the 'special relationship' with a new trade deal. The row between the two governments erupted during the summer riots which followed the Southport attack, when Trump ally Elon Musk launched a vitriolic social media campaign against Sir Keir and his government as people were arrested over tweets. It continued when Sir Keir visited the White House for the first time since Mr Trump took power. The Labour leader clashed with JD Vance on live television in the Oval Office as the vice-president claimed that free speech was being undermined in Britain and claimed that the UK's online safety laws were an attack on US tech giants. Most recently, the trial of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, for silently praying outside an abortion clinic, has become a major talking point in the US, and Mr Vance has criticised the UK legal system over the case. Last month, a Washington source told The Independent that Sir Keir must embrace President Trump's agenda by repealing hate speech laws. A senior Washington figure, who has provided advice for the administration, claimed that the vice president is 'obsessed by the fall of Western civilisation' – including his view that free speech is being eroded in Britain.
