.jpg)
.svg)
MI5 will not face contempt of court proceedings despite admitting that false evidence was presented to three courts in a case involving a violent informant, after senior judges ruled that further action should be considered through a police investigation instead.
The High Court decision means neither the security service nor its director general will face corporate contempt proceedings. Two individual MI5 officers who received the most serious criticism in an independent investigation could, however, face further scrutiny by police.
The case concerns an informant known as Agent X, whose identity was protected during legal proceedings. The BBC previously investigated the agent, who was accused of abusing his partner, known by the alias Beth.
The ruling was made by a panel of three senior judges, including Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, alongside Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain.
They concluded that a contempt case would be too complex for the court to manage and would not serve a useful purpose beyond the findings already established by an independent investigation.
The judges said police had the appropriate investigative powers and resources to examine the conduct of individual officers. They also identified the Crown Prosecution Service as the appropriate body to decide whether any prosecution should follow.
The judgment noted that potential offences could include misconduct in public office or perverting the course of justice.
In July 2026, an investigation led by Sir John Goldring, commissioned following an order from the Prime Minister, concluded that a senior MI5 officer had repeatedly lied, while another had misled colleagues and provided false information about what he had been told.
The report also criticised other senior officials and identified what it described as serious and systemic failures in MI5's conduct.
MI5 accepted the findings without reservation in September. The two officers who faced the strongest criticism have denied dishonest conduct. One has resigned from the agency, while the other is facing internal disciplinary proceedings.
The dispute centred on MI5's claim that it had followed its policy of neither confirming nor denying whether an individual was an intelligence agent.
The agency made that claim in three separate court proceedings involving Agent X. However, the independent investigation found that MI5 had disclosed the man's agent status during telephone conversations with a BBC journalist in 2020, while attempting to discourage further reporting.
The government had taken the BBC to court in 2022 in an unsuccessful attempt to stop its investigation into Agent X. The informant was subsequently granted legal anonymity.
Beth later brought a claim against MI5 at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and sought a review of a ruling at the High Court in 2024. The false evidence meant information about the agent remained secret from her during the legal proceedings, leaving her at a disadvantage.
MI5 director general Sir Ken McCallum welcomed the court's decision and acknowledged the seriousness of the agency's failures.
He repeated his apology to Beth for the failures and the additional distress they had caused.
The judges said the findings would inevitably affect the confidence courts place in evidence provided by MI5. They also stressed that the seriousness of the case had been underlined in their judgment, despite the decision not to pursue contempt proceedings.
A possible police investigation into individual officers remains an option. Any decision on criminal charges would be for the relevant authorities, including the Crown Prosecution Service.
