Thomas Mackintosh
Reporting from the High Court

Eadie now faces a series of questions from two of the three judges, about the situation which led to MI5 giving false information to three courts.

"There may have been a taking an eye off the ball," Eadie says - adding "there was no intent".

Asked if there's anything more he wants to say about individual responsibility in the case, Eadie touches on Officer 2 - the senior MI5 figure who called the BBC's Daniel De Simone and said that X was an MI5 agent.

He says the officer underwent "15 hours of questioning" and "six interviews" from an experienced panel.

Eadie says "everyone was well aware of their credibility" and they concluded there had been no attempt from Officer 2 to lie.

Thomas Mackintosh
Reporting from the High Court

Next, James Eadie KC - representing the attorney general for MI5 - tells the panel of judges about conclusions which have come from the spy agency's own investigations.

Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr interrupts to ask Eadie whether he will draw on criticism from both the BBC and Beth, the girlfriend of agent X who brought a legal case against MI5.

The barrister says he will.

"The first and most obvious conclusion is that it led to the unequivocal apology at the beginning," Eadie says, referring to the top of the hearing.

But "there have been failings and errors", he goes on, saying these "have been properly identified by the investigations" in the submissions he's given to the court.

Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court

We're now hearing about MI5's long-standing approach to neither confirm nor deny the identity of agents - a policy known by the initials NCND.

The government’s lead barrister says there is "plainly" no way that MI5’s core secrecy policy can still be applied to the man at the centre of this case.

Within the three relevant legal cases, including the one involving the BBC, the security service has been permitted to apply its NCND policy.

This has meant significant amounts of evidence have been confined to secret closed hearings.

Thomas Mackintosh
Reporting from the High Court

The outcome of MI5's internal investigation is going to be looked at by a more senior panel within the spy agency, James Eadie KC now tells the court.

"They will consider both reports," he says.

Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr interrupts the barrister to ask: "Does that senior panel accept the conclusions?"

"We don’t know that yet," Eadie replies.

Carr: "So they may disagree?"

Eadie: "It is theoretically possible."

Thomas Mackintosh
Reporting from the High Court

The barrister representing the attorney general for MI5 says once this matter had been drawn to the attention of MI5’s director general, Ken McCallum, he immediately informed the home secretary.

"It was accepted that two separate strands of investigation should be carried out", James Eadie KC continues, saying the first strand included an internal investigation within MI5.

"On top of that, it was considered appropriate to introduce an external set of eyes to try and identify appropriate lessons which could be learned to make sure this sort of thing could never happen again," he says.

That led to reports being made, he tells the court.

Helena Wilkinson
Reporting from the High Court

Eadie is going through the background to the case.

The barrister, representing the attorney general for MI5, says "the bombshell drops, as it were, in December 2024".

He continues, saying the BBC raised a question about the variation of the injunction to permit the reporting of a paragraph of Witness A’s statement on the basis that it was inaccurate.

• For context: This hearing comes four months after a BBC investigation revealed MI5 had lied to three courts about a misogynistic agent known only as X. The agent used his MI5 role to coerce and terrorise his girlfriend, attacking her with a machete.

Thomas Mackintosh
Reporting from the High Court

James Eadie KC, who is representing the attorney general for MI5, sets out the 10-minute delay for reporting today’s proceedings (there's more on that in our last post), followed by the bundles of legal documents that he will be referencing today.

He starts with an "unreserved apology on behalf of MI5" and says this is to the parties and to the courts.

"Everyone from the director general downwards acknowledges the seriousness caused," he continues.

Eadie says the government and MI5 pride themselves on compliance, including "accuracy and fairness of information applied to courts".

Helena Wilkinson
Reporting from the High Court

The court has heard that there's a reporting delay order.

What that means is there must be 10 minutes between what's said inside court and what's reported out of it.

It's to make sure that in the unlikely event there's reference to "closed material", those details can be protected, we in court are told.

Thomas Mackintosh
Reporting from the High Court

"Court rise," the clerk bellows across the courtroom.

Everyone stands up as the panel of three High Court judges walk in and each take a seat on three big red chairs.

Sitting in the middle of the panel is the most senior judge in England and Wales, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr.

To her left is Dame Victoria Sharp, the President of the King’s Bench Division, and on the right is Mr Justice Chamberlain. We've a bit more about the judges in our earlier post.

Proceedings are close to getting under way - stay with us as we bring you the latest updates this High Court case involving MI5 and the BBC.

Thomas Mackintosh
Reporting from the High Court

I am sat in a crammed courtroom where I have just about been able to get a seat on the press bench.

We are still waiting for the hearing to begin, but already the court has filled up with journalists, barristers, legal teams, law students and legal observers.

The public gallery is also packed and there are various huge suitcases propped up against the walls of courtroom 72.

Inside them are folders, ring binders and legal documents presumably key to the case.

As we wait for the panel of judges to enter, barristers for each side are in position.

Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court

The judges who'll be hearing submissions today (check out our last post) have a range of options available:

• They could accept any explanations produced by official investigations into what happened
• They could request further enquiries by MI5 and the government
• They could decide to start their own investigation, with a view to deciding whether contempt of court may have been committed
• Or they could decide that, on the evidence already available, contempt of court may have been committed and initiate such proceedings against MI5 itself or individual officers - or both

In the event the last option were to happen, it would be an unprecedented situation.

Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court

In the High Court of England and Wales, a divisional court means a court sitting with at least two judges. It is not a separate court but refers to the fact that more than one judge is overseeing a case.

Typically, a court of the division comprises two judges, namely one Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal and one high court judge. Most high court cases are heard by a single judge.

Until now, the MI5 v BBC case has been overseen by one high court judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain.

Today he will be joined by the most senior judge in England and Wales, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, and another very senior judge, the President of the King's Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp.

A panel of three judges, and the identities of the panel, demonstrates how seriously the judiciary is taking this case and the issues that need to be decided.

Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court

"Where's my apology?"

That's what the woman at the centre of this case said when she spoke out - for the first time - after MI5 issued an "unreserved apology" for giving false evidence.

Beth - not her real name - told me she believes she only matters to the spy agency because she is "kicking up a fuss" by taking a legal case against it, and "throwing a spotlight on the way that they behave".

"But otherwise, if I were to just go quietly away, they'd never think about me again," she told the BBC earlier this year.

The legal process is re-traumatising but necessary, Beth said, adding: "I've already lost years of my life to X and his abuse - there seems to be no end to it. But it seems like it's the only way that I might, potentially, get some sort of reasonable justice."

There is "so much violence carried out on women by men," she told me. "Whatever we can do as a society against it needs to be done".

Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court

Image source, EPA

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.

Image source, PA Media

Daniel De Simone
Investigations 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:

• Whether MI5 will be able to continue its NCND secrecy policy in relation to the man’s agent status
• What, if anything, to do about the false evidence given by MI5

The case has become a major test of how the courts view MI5 and the credibility of its evidence.

Thomas Mackintosh
Reporting 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.