MI5 gave false evidence to three courts
An inquiry found MI5 gave three courts false evidence to protect a neo-Nazi informant who abused his partner, as ministers promise 'urgent action'.
MI5 gave false evidence to three British courts, an official inquiry has found, to protect a neo-Nazi informant who attacked his partner with a machete and used his status as an agent to keep her silent.
The MI5 neo-Nazi informant inquiry, ordered by the prime minister and led by Sir John Goldring, spent 10 months examining how the security service handled the case. Goldring’s report, published on 16 July, found the failings “serious and systemic” and described a “cascade of dishonesty” running through MI5’s evidence to the High Court, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and a third proceeding.
MI5 neo-nazi informant inquiry: what MI5 told the courts, and what it knew In each hearing, MI5 swore it had strictly followed its “neither confirm nor deny” policy on whether the man, referred to only as Agent X, was one of its informants. Judges accepted that account from a senior deputy director named in the report as Witness A. Goldring found it was untrue.
A separate MI5 officer, Officer 2, had already confirmed X’s status as an agent in 2020, telling BBC reporter Daniel De Simone that X was “not a real extremist, but was pretending to be so at the behest of MI5”, in a bid to stop the BBC publishing. Goldring found Officer 2 “repeatedly told lies” that “formed the foundation of MI5’s false account”, that his successor, Officer 3, misled colleagues and “did not act in good faith”, and that Witness A overstated what he knew before swearing it to a judge.
The woman MI5’s lies were told to protect
The partner at the centre of the case, identified only as Beth, has described how X invoked his links to MI5 to frighten her out of going to the police, before attacking her with a machete in an assault captured on video. MI5 helped X leave the country to continue intelligence work while he remained under police investigation. In March, the service settled Beth’s damages claim with a confidential sum and a private apology from the director general, Sir Ken McCallum.
Beth said the apology changed little. “I feel very strongly that, in spite of this apology, MI5 are still protecting this violent misogynistic predator, as for years now they have refused to answer any questions about him.” Her solicitor, Kate Ellis of the Centre for Women’s Justice, said a full hearing of Beth’s allegations “would, in my view, have been highly embarrassing for MI5, who have already been heavily criticised for misleading the courts”, and called on the state to stop “using women as collateral in covert operations”.
MI5’s defence, and what happens next
MI5 has argued its secrecy policy exists to protect agents’ lives, and that officers feared for X’s safety if his status were disclosed. Goldring’s own language cuts against treating this as a fear that got out of hand in isolated cases: “serious and systemic” and “group self-deception” describe a service, not two officers.
McCallum said MI5 “recognises without hesitation the seriousness of our failings”. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood told Parliament the findings were “stark” and promised “urgent action” and tighter oversight. The High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal must now decide whether to pursue contempt-of-court proceedings against individual officers or MI5 itself; a criminal inquiry remains possible. No officer has yet been charged.
Three courts were told lies, under oath, to keep a violent man’s secret. A woman he abused is still waiting to find out if anyone will answer for it.
