MI5 accepts it gave evidence based on lies in neo-Nazi spy case

MI5 concedes court evidence in neo-Nazi informant case was founded on false claims

Ninoda.com – MI5 has formally accepted that misleading evidence was put before three courts during litigation connected to a violent neo-Nazi informant who abused his partner while working for the security service.

The concession, made at a High Court hearing in London on Friday, marks the first occasion on which MI5 has acknowledged that lies were presented to the courts. It follows a major investigation into the conduct of senior officers and the handling of information about the informant, known as Agent X.

Three senior judges are now considering whether the matter should lead to contempt of court proceedings against individual officers or against MI5 itself. Such action would be without precedent.

Senior judges consider possible sanctions

The panel includes Baroness Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales; Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division; and Mr Justice Chamberlain. Their decision will focus on the consequences of false evidence used in proceedings involving secrecy claims.

Timothy Otty KC, representing MI5, told the High Court that the service accepted the findings of Sir John Goldring, then deputy investigatory powers commissioner, without qualification. Those findings included criticism of named officers and of wider failures inside the organisation.

“MI5 accepts without reservation” the findings made by Sir John Goldring.

Until this hearing, MI5 had apologised for evidence it described as incorrect. Its latest position goes further, accepting both the seriousness of the conduct and the need to ensure it is not repeated.

Otty said the service had begun a substantial reform programme led by its director general, Sir Ken McCallum. He argued that contempt proceedings would not serve the public interest because Sir John’s inquiry had already examined the events in detail, MI5 had apologised, and internal reform work was under way.

Findings of the Goldring investigation

Sir John’s report, published in July, concluded that MI5 relied on lies in evidence submitted to three separate courts. His investigation had been ordered by the prime minister in September 2025 after the High Court rejected MI5’s earlier explanations as inadequate and unreliable.

The inquiry found that a senior officer identified as Officer 2 repeatedly lied. A second official, Officer 3, was found to have misled colleagues and to have been dishonest about information received. Sir John also identified serious, systemic shortcomings in MI5’s conduct across the case.

Officer 2 has left the security service. Officer 3 has been suspended and is subject to disciplinary proceedings that could result in dismissal, the court was told.

Barristers representing the BBC, Officer 2 and Officer 3 were due to make further legal arguments later on Friday.

Agent X and the impact on Beth

The dispute arises from the treatment of Agent X, a foreign neo-Nazi and misogynist who was used as an MI5 informant. He coercively controlled his partner, who is known publicly by the alias Beth, and attacked her with a machete.

While he was under police investigation, MI5 assisted Agent X in travelling overseas to continue intelligence work. The case later raised questions not only about the service’s relationship with him, but also about whether legal proceedings were conducted fairly when key information was withheld.

The government unsuccessfully attempted in 2022 to prevent publication of an investigation into Agent X. It did, however, obtain legal anonymity for him. Beth subsequently brought a case against MI5 at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. In 2024, she also sought a High Court review of an earlier decision.

Across the three legal proceedings, MI5 argued that secrecy was required. The service told judges it had consistently followed its policy of neither confirming nor denying whether a person was an agent. It said it had not revealed Agent X’s status to anyone, including the journalist investigating him.

That position was supported by a sworn statement from a senior official, a deputy director referred to as Witness A. The courts accepted the secrecy case presented by MI5.

As a result, Beth and others could not officially be told that Agent X had worked for the service, and they were denied access to evidence central to the dispute. The restriction placed Beth at a substantial disadvantage in her legal challenge and may have affected the outcome.

Disclosure that contradicted MI5’s position

The evidence later showed that MI5 had disclosed Agent X’s informant status in telephone conversations in 2020 while attempting to discourage further investigation into him. Officer 2 was also found to have sought to shield Agent X by falsely portraying him as neither an abusive misogynist nor a genuine extremist.

In late 2024, MI5 was challenged over the apparent contradiction between those contacts and the evidence it had given in court. The service initially continued to defend its position forcefully. The lies were exposed in February 2025, though MI5 denied them at the time.

The High Court’s deliberations now carry implications beyond the actions of the officers involved. Courts depend on accurate, candid evidence, particularly in cases where national-security claims prevent one side from seeing material relied upon by the other. The judges must decide whether the accepted failures require a further legal response in addition to disciplinary action and institutional reform.