The President of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has today (30 July 2025) handed down a judgment on the implications of MI5 relying on false information in proceedings about its abusive agent, ‘X’ - and calling for ‘unannounced inspections’ of public bodies in future cases, to test if they are telling the truth.
This is the first time the specialist Tribunal has commented publicly on the revelation, aired by the BBC in February this year, that MI5 misled multiple courts into believing it had adopted ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny (NCND)’ in conversations about X with journalists. The Tribunal itself was misled about this in ongoing proceedings brought by a woman, ‘Beth’, about X’s abuse of her when he was an informant. Centre for Women’s Justice (CWJ) acts for ‘Beth’ in those proceedings.
The Tribunal’s judgment follows a decision already taken by the High Court on 2 July to request an independent investigation by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner into MI5’s conduct, having rejected the findings of an initial investigation.
The Tribunal’s unanimous decision concludes that not only did MI5 rely on false evidence, leading to a wrongful decision that their defence could be heard in secret, but it also failed to disclose the existence of multiple internal policies which undermined its evidence and submissions: a serious breach which the Tribunal calls ‘basic’, ‘surprising’, and ‘disappointing’.
The Tribunal’s important judgment today calls for closer scrutiny of evidence relied on by public authorities, and makes clear that they – together with their lawyers – owe an enhanced duty of candour and cooperation to the courts in cases that are heard in secret (in ‘closed’ session). The Tribunal’s guidance may have implications for any future evidence provided by MI5 in ‘Beth’s’ case – and will certainly impact on future cases brought against public bodies, who may face an unannounced inspection by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to fact-check their evidence.
CWJ welcomes this salutary guidance from the Tribunal – for the Security Services, and for other public authorities – and its efforts to restore public trust following MI5’s serious misleading of the courts. The Tribunal has also raised questions for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to consider in his investigation of this case, and has said that it will consider – after that investigation – whether to start formal ‘contempt of court’ proceedings against MI5.
Beth’s claim against MI5 continues.
ENDS