MI5 court evidence based on lies, report says

MI5 gave evidence based on "lies" to three courts while defending a violent neo-Nazi spy whose abuse was uncovered by the BBC, a damning official report has found.

The report, by the deputy investigatory powers commissioner Sir John Goldring, heavily criticises a series of senior MI5 figures and their organisation.

He finds that one senior MI5 officer lied repeatedly, while another misled his own colleagues and lied about what he was told.

The conclusions confirm the BBC's revelation in February last year that MI5 lied to the courts, something the security service vehemently denied.

Sir John's investigation was ordered by the prime minister in September after MI5's explanations about what happened were rejected as deficient and unreliable by the High Court.

His new report will plunge MI5 into crisis and could result in contempt of court proceedings or even a criminal prosecution.

"MI5 recognises without hesitation the seriousness of our failings in these proceedings," said MI5 Director General Sir Ken McCallum.

"I repeat my previous apologies to both courts for the incorrect evidence that was provided, and for our slowness in recognising what had happened."

The investigation examined how MI5 gave false evidence to three courts about having kept to its core secrecy policy - known as 'neither confirm nor deny' (NCND) - about the agent status of the violent neo-Nazi informant.

MI5 claimed it had maintained NCND and, consequently, the courts allowed it to keep information secret from a woman who was abused by the informant.

But what MI5 said was untrue.

MI5 had in fact disclosed the man's agent status in phone calls to me, as it tried to persuade me not to investigate him in 2020.

A senior MI5 officer, known as Officer 2, had tried to cover up for the man, falsely saying he was not an abusive misogynist nor a real extremist.

He even wanted me to meet the agent. In doing so, he repeatedly departed from the NCND policy.

The new report finds:

• The senior MI5 officer, Officer 2, repeatedly told "lies" and these "formed the foundation of MI5's false account" to the three courts. He "put forward a wholly fictitious account" in which he denied ever telling me that X was an MI5 agent.
• A separate senior MI5 officer, Officer 3, "misled" his own colleagues and did not act in good faith. The report concludes that he "bears considerable responsibility for the continuation of MI5's falsehood" because he "misrepresented" what Officer 2 had said to him. He was not "truthful" about warnings he received from colleagues.
• An MI5 deputy director, Witness A, who gave his organisation's witness statements to the courts "overstated" matters during a key internal meeting and a note of his comments was "misleading". He therefore "contributed to MI5's continued reliance on the false account".
• Various people in MI5 knew NCND had been departed from and there was "cogent evidence" in case files showing it had been, but the falsehood was nevertheless "allowed to take hold and persist". Afterwards, "opportunities to correct the position were missed" by MI5.
• Even MI6 and a foreign intelligence agency were told that NCND had been departed from. Despite this, MI5 repeatedly told the courts it had not been, and supposedly 'independent' reviews of what happened said no one beyond Officer 2 knew what had happened and that he had forgotten.
• There were "serious and systemic failures in MI5's conduct" throughout the case.

The case centres on an MI5 informant known as Agent X, a foreign neo-Nazi misogynist who used his security service role as a tool of abuse.

He coercively controlled his British partner, known by the alias Beth, and attacked her with a machete. MI5 then helped him go abroad to continue intelligence work while under police investigation.

The government took the BBC to court in 2022 in a failed attempt to block our investigation into X but won him legal anonymity. Beth then sued MI5 at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), and in 2024 she sought a review of a ruling at the high court.

Arguing for secrecy in all three courts, the security service told judges it had always stuck to its NCND policy and never told anyone whether X was an agent, including me - as the BBC journalist who had investigated him. The courts were told this in a sworn statement from a senior officer, a deputy director called Witness A.

The courts accepted MI5's arguments. This meant Beth and everyone else was banned from ever officially being told X was an agent and denied access to the key evidence. She was left at a serious disadvantage and may have lost the case.

Following this decision, in late 2024, I challenged MI5 and said they had lied to the courts. MI5 aggressively maintained its position that NCND had been maintained until I produced evidence proving it was untrue, including a recording of one of the calls with Officer 2.

Because of the BBC's revelations, which were published in February 2025, Sir Ken apologised for the false evidence.

Two official inquiries then took place which absolved MI5 and its officers of deliberate wrongdoing, claiming the false evidence was down to mistakes and poor memories. One of the inquiries falsely said other people in MI5 were not aware that NCND had been abandoned by Officer 2.

But, in July 2025, a panel of senior high court judges ruled that the investigations carried out by MI5 suffer from "serious procedural deficiencies" and that "we cannot rely on their conclusions".

The new investigation by Sir John Goldring, which lasted 10 months, has now made a series of damning findings. Sir John is the deputy head of Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office (IPCO), MI5's watchdog and regulator.

MI5 gave false evidence, based on lies, to three courts. It also misled IPCO when it examined MI5's handling of Agent X and concluded the service had departed from NCND with the BBC – something that MI5 then falsely claimed did not happened.

He finds that Officer 2, a senior spy who worked as MI5's director communications, was "untruthful" throughout and always remembered his "comprehensive departures from NCND" with me.

The report says he was at first vague with Officer 3 about whether he had departed from NCND, before later firmly telling colleagues and lawyers that he had not done so.

"He has not told the truth. He has been untruthful from his first conversation with Officer 3. His lies formed the foundation of MI5's false account," the report finds.

Sir John finds that Officer 3, an experienced agent handler who took over the communications role from Officer 2, "misrepresented what Officer 2 had said to him" on multiple occasions while MI5's evidence was being prepared – a process he largely oversaw. Sir John concludes he did not act in good faith.

The report states: "He continued to say nothing about Officer 2's initial uncertainty regarding NCND. He, as a pivotal and senior player in these events, was content for matters to proceed as they had before. Officer 3 bears considerable responsibility for the continuation of MI5's falsehood".

Sir John also concludes that Officer 3 "effectively shut down" the MI5 officer who led the agent handling team which managed Agent X.

That team knew NCND had been departed from, which was also evident from internal documents, but the team leader felt like he had been "put back in his box" by Officer 3 after warning senior MI5 officers about what had really happened.

Officer 3 had said he could "categorically state" that it did not happen, which was wholly false. The report finds he has not been "truthful" about the warnings he received.

It also shows that, in an internal email, Officer 3 accepted that MI5 misleading the court in the way then alleged would amount to the criminal offence of perjury.

Sir John also finds that Witness A, an MI5 deputy director who made a series of statements to the courts on behalf of MI5, Witness A "overstated the position" of what he knew about the NCND issue during an internal legal meeting.

The report concludes that a note of what was said was "misleading" and "to that extent, Witness A played a part in the continued promulgation of the false account."

With regards to the supposedly thorough reviews last year, which absolved MI5 and its officers of any wrongdoing, Sir John concludes they did not amount to an "independent review" and were fundamentally flawed.

A panel of senior high court judges, including the Lady Chief Justice, will now have to decide whether to initiate contempt of court proceedings against any MI5 offices or MI5 itself. Given the find that lies were told, there is also the potential for a criminal inquiry.