The High Court orders a "robust and independent" investigation into how MI5 gave false evidence to multiple courts
The ruling comes after the BBC revealed MI5 had lied to three courts in a case concerning a neo-Nazi state agent who abused women
A panel of three senior judges also "commended" the BBC for "bringing these matters to light"
MI5 boss Sir Ken McCallum issues a "full and unreserved apology" after the ruling, and commits to a programme to "ensure this does not happen again"
Today's judgment concludes that the "investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies"
The three judges said they would not make a decision on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against individuals until "further investigation" was carried out
Our investigations correspondent Daniel De Simone has summarised today's judgement, and the history of this case, in this piece. You can read a brief recap of the judge's ruling in our previous post.
We are ending our live coverage now, thank you for joining us. This page was edited by Emily McGarvey and written by Imogen James, with Cachella Smith and Daniel De Simone reporting from court.
Following today's judgement, a BBC spokesperson says: "We are pleased this decision has been reached and that the key role of our journalist Daniel De Simone in bringing this to light has been acknowledged by the judges.
"We believe our journalism on this story has always been in the highest public interest."
In a damning ruling, the High Court has delivered a judgement after the BBC revealed MI5 had lied to three courts in a case concerning a neo-Nazi state agent who abused women. Here's a recap of the judgement:
Cachella Smith
Reporting from the High Court
As a reminder, this case revolves around MI5's handling of a violent neo-Nazi misogynist, known as agent X, who used his Security Service role to coerce and terrify his former girlfriend, known publicly as "Beth".
Speaking to the BBC outside court, Beth's lawyer Kate Ellis says today's ruling was a "common sense judgement".
Although she is "not overly surprised", she points out that the judgement is very "critical" of both the government and MI5.
It's still unclear what it means for Beth's own proceedings, but the fact X has been confirmed as an informant already is "real vindication" for her, she adds.
Ellis says "Beth really wants an end to all this" - she "wants answers" but she's had "delays after delays".
Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court
As a reminder, the case began in 2022 with an attempt to block the BBC from publishing a story about the neo-Nazi agent known as X. It has become a major test of how the courts view MI5 and the credibility of its evidence.
The government took the BBC to court to stop a story about the agent, who had used his role to coerce his partner, known as ‘Beth’, whom he also attacked with a machete. The government failed to stop the story but won him legal anonymity. Following this, ‘Beth’ made a claim against MI5, which saw two further courts become involved.
MI5 gave evidence to all three courts, saying that it had never breached its core secrecy policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) that X was a state agent.
But in February, the BBC was able to prove with notes and recordings of phone calls with MI5 that this was false.
A senior MI5 officer told me about the agent's status as he tried to persuade me to drop an investigation into X, a violent neo-Nazi misogynist.
Image source, PA MediaMI5 director general Sir Ken McCallum says the agency will "implement changes to ensure this does not happen again"
Reacting to the judgement, director general of MI5, Sir Ken McCallum, has repeated a "full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings".
It comes after the High Court ruled that a “robust and independent” investigation is needed after MI5 provided incorrect witness evidence in legal proceedings.
The MI5 boss adds: “We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. Resolving this matter to the court’s satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to cooperating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office and the court.
“MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress.
“MI5’s job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.”
Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court
The judgment says that a “major” failing by the official reviews is that they did not contact me, despite the fact I was the other person involved in the key events.
The judges say that, having “considered carefully” further evidence I submitted in response to the reviews, which included records and notes which showed both reviews made false statements, that it “paints a significantly different picture” to the one relied on and presented by MI5.
They add: “We accept that both the internal investigators and Sir Jonathan later considered Mr De Simone’s new material and that they did so in good faith.
“But the fact remains that investigators who had already reached final conclusions that there had been no deliberate attempt to mislead the court would inevitably find it difficult to reappraise those conclusions fairly in the light of evidence which fundamentally affects the basis on which their earlier conclusions were reached.”
Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court
Today’s highly critical judgment also finds:
Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court
The judgment also finds that MI5’s director general strategy, who is the organisation’s third-in-command, gave misleading assurances to the court in a witness statement when he said its original explanations were “a fair and accurate account” of secret material which, at that point, had not been disclosed.
The court subsequently forced the government and MI5 to hand over the secret material.
The judges say, having since read the material, they consider that MI5’s original explanations were not “fair or accurate” and “omitted several critical matters”, including that IPCO had been misled and what was known by several MI5 officers at relevant times.
Their judgment states that it is “regrettable that MI5’s explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way - and only following the repeated intervention of the court".
They add: “The impression has been created that the true circumstances in which false evidence came to be given have had to be extracted from, not volunteered by, MI5.”
Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court
Two official inquiries were criticised by the High Court - an internal MI5 inquiry and an “external” investigation by the government’s former chief lawyer, Sir Jonathan Jones KC. The latter was commissioned by the home sectary and MI5’s director general Sir Ken McCallum.
But the judgment says that “there was in our view a fundamental incoherence in Sir Jonathan’s terms of reference”.
The ruling says he was asked to establish the facts of what happened but not to “make findings about why specific individuals did or did not do certain things”.
However, the judges note that Sir Jonathan nevertheless “did make findings” to the effect that there was no deliberate attempt by anyone to mislead the court, without himself ever having spoken to an MI5 officer at the centre of the case and without considering key additional BBC evidence about what took place.
Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court
The three judges said that, because of MI5’s deficient inquiries, “we consider that it would be premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual".
“We accordingly adjourn consideration of that question pending the outcome of a further investigation which we anticipate will not suffer from the defects that we have identified.”
Their judgment says the new investigation should be carried out under the auspices of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner Sir Brian Leveson, who has oversight of MI5’s surveillance activities.
His office, IPCO, was also provided with false evidence by MI5 in the case.
Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court
Two reviews took place after the BBC revealed MI5 had lied to three courts in a case concerning a neo-Nazi state agent who abused women.
In a damning ruling for MI5, a panel of three senior judges also “commended” the BBC for “bringing these matters to light”.
“It is to be hoped that events such as these will never be repeated”, the judgment adds.
The two official inquiries, one of which was commissioned by the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, absolved MI5 and its officers of deliberate wrongdoing.
But today’s judgment concludes that the “investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies” and that “we cannot rely on their conclusions”.
Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court
The high court has ordered a “robust and independent” investigation into how MI5 gave false evidence to multiple courts after rejecting two official inquiries provided by the security service as seriously “deficient”.
Cachella Smith
Reporting from the High Court
Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr tells the court of the actions MI5 has taken, including an internal and external investigation.
She explains the conclusion reached by those MI5 investigations was that false evidence was given "because of a series of mistakes" with "no deliberate attempt" from any MI5 staff member to mislead court.
Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court
The judges are now in court, delivering a short oral summary of their ruling.
The full ruling is to be handed down afterwards.
Cachella Smith
Reporting from the High Court
The court has just risen for the three judges to enter.
As a reminder, on this panel is the head of the judiciary Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr – it’s a sign of just how important this case is being taken.
There are plenty of spare seats both on the benches where the barristers are sitting and those dedicated for the press.
Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court
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 was able to keep much of the evidence secret, including from Beth herself, which had impacted her ability to have fair trial of her claim.
At a hearing last month, it was confirmed MI5 had abandoned the NCND policy in relation to X – they accepted he was an agent and this means Beth will now have a much fairer hearing of her case.
But there is a big outstanding issue: what to do about MI5’s false evidence.
Today, the court will decide what, if any, further action should be taken.
Cachella Smith
Reporting from the High Court
Barristers, the court clerk and members of the press have now entered the court room.
It's far from being busy - there aren't many journalists here who are not part of the BBC. There is some low chatter while we wait for the judges to enter.
As a reminder, proceedings are due to begin at 14:00 BST when we will hear details of the judgement which will also be provided in written form.
Daniel De Simone
Investigations correspondent, reporting from court
Image source, EPAAn 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.
While we wait for proceedings to begin at 14:00 BST, let’s have a look back at what the court heard on 3 June:
You can read our investigations correspondent Daniel De Simone’s full story from the time.