The High Court today (2 July 2025) refused to accept the findings of two investigations into MI5 following an acknowledgment earlier this year that it had materially misled several courts in relation to its controversial informant known as ‘X’.
X has been accused of seriously abusing two women, including one, known as ‘Beth’, to whom he bragged about his secret MI5 role.
In injunction proceedings brought by the Attorney General against the BBC in 2022, aimed at blocking a BBC broadcast about X’s dangerous behaviour, a senior MI5 officer falsely claimed that the Security Service had never ‘confirmed nor denied’ – to BBC journalists or to anyone outside of MI5 – whether ‘X’ really was an MI5 source.
The BBC was however able to reveal to the public in February this year that this was entirely untrue. In fact, a senior MI5 officer had repeatedly and voluntarily discussed with a journalist at the BBC the fact that X was an MI5 informant, in an attempt to shut down a story aimed at alerting women to the threat that X poses.
The false evidence provided by MI5 in 2022 had also been relied upon again in separate proceedings brought by ‘Beth’ against MI5 – arising out of X’s abuse – and had put Beth at a serious disadvantage in those proceedings, which are still ongoing.
At a hearing in February, the Attorney General assured the Court that the Government and MI5 were taking these revelations seriously and had already launched two investigations to examine the circumstances which led to the courts being misled. The Attorney General informed the Court that a thorough investigation would be carried out by MI5 itself, and that the Home Secretary had also commissioned an external, ‘independent’ review by the former Head of the Government Legal Department, Sir Jonathan Jones KC.
These investigations went on to find that the senior MI5 officer who had repeatedly disclosed X’s informant status to the BBC had subsequently forgotten he had done so – and that a series of errors, including poor record-keeping, had prevented the error from coming to light. Both investigations concluded there appeared to be no ‘deliberate’ dishonesty from any individual officer concerned.
At a hearing on 3 June, the Court invited submissions from the BBC and from ‘Beth’s’ representatives regarding the findings and recommendations of these reports, and any further investigative steps the Court might need to take.
The Court’s findings in detail
In its judgment handed down today by the Lady Chief Justice, alongside the President of the King’s Bench Division and Mr Justice Chamberlain, Judge in Charge of the Administrative Court, the Court noted that the question before it was ‘whether we are satisfied with the investigations conducted to date and their conclusions’. It concluded: ‘We are not.’
The Court’s judgment finds that the investigations conducted both by MI5 and by the former Head of the Government Legal Department were tainted by ‘major’ and ‘serious’ procedural deficiencies and that as a result ‘we cannot rely on their conclusions.’
As a result, the Court has specifically recommended that there should be ‘a further, robust and independent investigation’, possibly by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, after which the Court will consider whether to launch contempt of court proceedings against any MI5 officers.
In its damning judgment the Court criticised the evidence that had been provided to the Court since February, which it said had not always been ‘fair and accurate’, and had created the impression MI5 was (still) not providing information voluntarily. ‘It is regrettable that MI5’s explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way—and only following the repeated the intervention of the court’, the Court observed, noting that this had only ‘compounded’ an already serious set of failures.
The Attorney General and MI5 has also been criticised by the judges for refusing to confirm, officially, whether X was an MI5 agent or not until May this year – a position which was ‘patently unrealistic’ given their acceptance in January that MI5 had previously volunteered this information to the BBC.
The impact of these developments on ‘Beth’s’ case against MI5
MI5’s recent confirmation that it will no longer rely on ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ in legal proceedings about X is expected to mean that ‘Beth’ can participate more fully in her own proceedings against MI5 – and receive fuller answers about his recruitment by MI5. She has also received official confirmation, finally, that X was working for MI5 in the course of their relationship.
Today’s judgment may also mean that MI5 are held to a higher standard in her ongoing legal proceedings, at least when providing ‘corporate’ witness evidence about its conduct.
In response to today’s judgment, Kate Ellis of Centre for Women’s Justice, who represents ‘Beth’, said:
“The Divisional Court has been highly critical of MI5, the Attorney General – and indeed the investigators who were tasked with reviewing how MI5 seriously misled multiple courts. What today’s judgment amounts to is a clear rejection of the explanations that have been provided by MI5 reports to date, and a very serious warning to MI5 to cooperate with any further investigations.
“It is important vindication for ‘Beth’, to see that the Courts have not accepted MI5’s unsatisfactory explanations at face value, and are taking these matters so seriously.
“The Court’s conclusions today may also have wider implications. Notably, the judges have expressed concerns about the ease with which authorities like MI5 have been able to hide behind a ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ policy in legal proceedings, as demonstrated by this case – and recommended that wherever this policy is relied upon that is properly interrogated by the courts. The Court has also warned that none of the safeguards in place to hold the security services accountable can operate properly without “high standards of candour” and compliant witness evidence from the agencies’ representatives.”
ENDS