‘Beth’, the victim of serious domestic abuse by a paid MI5 informant, has responded to a decision by the Divisional Court today (3 November 2026) not to pursue contempt of court proceedings against officers who misled the courts. However, the Court did consider that lies told by MI5 officers may amount to criminal offences.
In March of this year, MI5 settled a claim brought by CWJ’s client, ‘Beth’, arising from its recruitment of agent ‘X’, a man with an allegedly violent past who was known to hold extreme and misogynistic views, and who abused Beth while he was providing intelligence to MI5. Beth received a substantial pay-out from MI5.
That settlement followed revelations last year that MI5 had repeatedly provided false evidence in court, both in Beth’s case and in injunction proceedings about ‘X’ brought previously by the Government against the BBC. In a statement, and in subsequent submissions, MI5 claimed it could not respond in open proceedings to allegations about X because it had always adhered to a ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ (‘NCND’) policy when questioned about X. This, in fact, was false, as MI5 had disclosed details of X’s deployment in the course of multiple conversations with the BBC.
A damning judgment by the Divisional Court in July last year led the then Prime Minister to task the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office with an investigation to determine how the false evidence had come about. Judicial Commissioner Sir John Goldring’s report (“the Goldring report”) published in July of this year found that two officers in particular had played a significant role in the provision and continued reliance on false evidence by MI5 in three court proceedings. He found that one of those officers (known as ‘Officer 2’) had knowingly lied – throughout his investigation too – and that those lies had “formed the foundation of MI5’s false account” to the Court.
In a decision handed down today, the High Court’s most senior judges considered the findings of dishonesty in the Goldring report – which have been accepted by MI5, but not by the two officers concerned – but concluded it was not appropriate for the Court itself to take any criminal action. However, the Court questioned whether those officers’ conduct might amount to criminal offences of misconduct in public office and/or perverting the course of justice – potentially justifying a referral to the police.
The Court underlined again the seriousness of the Commissioner’s findings, and warned that “they will inevitably affect the confidence that we and other courts and tribunals can have in corporate evidence from MI5. They may justify a more searching approach to such evidence, including where it contains national security assessments”. The Court’s remarks suggest that covert operations could be subject to greater scrutiny in future, even where authorities seek to respond with ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ – a shift in attitudes that could have widespread implications for members of the public wanting to hold police forces, as well as security services, accountable for wrongdoing.
The Court’s judgment also comes after the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the Rt Hon Lord Leveson, said last week in a report to the Prime Minister that “the case of Agent X is as serious as anything I have dealt with as Commissioner”. His report added: “Failings of candour undermine the entire basis of oversight and accountability: that rightly attracts my full attention”.
Reflecting on today’s judgment, Kate Ellis of Centre for Women’s Justice, who represents ‘Beth’, said:
“The findings of the Goldring report are clear: two senior MI5 officers knowingly allowed the courts to be misled in witness evidence, and then refused - at every opportunity - to admit what they had done. It is surprising, in these circumstances, that the Court has decided not to launch proceedings for contempt of court against those individuals.
“MI5 has said that it is undertaking a programme of reforms to ensure that this never happens again, overseen by the Home Office as well as the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. But the Home Office should also seriously consider referring the accused officers to the police. As senior officers of our Security Service, they were in a position of the utmost public trust.
“At the heart of this case is the fact that MI5 took significant steps to conceal the identity of a violent misogynist with a past: whom it chose to recruit as an agent, and who has so far escaped prosecution. The public has to be reassured that when public authorities face scrutiny for putting women and girls at risk – especially those operating in secrecy – they cannot simply lie their way out of trouble.”
‘Beth’ said:
“I am deeply disappointed that, the Court has decided not to pursue contempt proceedings. The Goldring report found that senior MI5 officers knowingly misled the courts, and that those lies formed the foundation of MI5's false account. These are extremely serious findings which should demand consequences.
“The Court has suggested that the officers' conduct may amount to criminal offences and could be referred to the police. But I cannot help feeling sceptical about whether that will lead to meaningful action. I have already experienced what it is like to put substantial and compelling evidence of X's crimes before the police only to then see no effective action taken. Unfortunately, I know first-hand how difficult it can be to secure accountability when the person responsible appears to be protected by powerful institutions.
“My abuse was not an incidental part of an intelligence operation. It was the result of MI5’s decision to put its interests ahead of my safety. They chose to recruit a man with a known history of violence and extreme misogyny, and he went on to subject me to horrendous abuse while working as their agent. Instead of being properly protected, I found myself fighting not only for recognition of what had happened to me, but against an institution that appeared determined not to help and instead, to conceal the truth.
“I have had to fight for years to get to this point. The fact that MI5 has accepted the findings of the Goldring report is important, but acceptance is not accountability. Nor is an internal programme of reform enough. The officers responsible should be held to account, and there should be independent scrutiny of how such serious wrongdoing was allowed to happen and continue.
“I hope the Home Office and the police take the Court's observations seriously. But, above all, I want a clear assurance that no woman should ever be put at risk in this way again, and that the secrecy surrounding national security operations will never be allowed to become a shield for violence towards women or the abuse of public power.
“I should never have had to fight this hard and for this long to be believed. And no woman should ever have to endure abuse at the hands of a man enabled by a state institution, only to find herself fighting that same institution to expose what happened. It's disgraceful that as things stand, national security has been used as a shield for abuse, dishonesty and evading accountability. This must stop now.”
ENDS
Notes:
You can read more about Beth’s case here
You can read the High Court judgment of 2 July 2025 which prompted the Prime Minister to direct the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to initiate the investigation here
You can find Rt. Hon Sir John Goldring’s report here and also read CWJ’s press statement on Sir Goldring’s report here
You can read the BBC’s report on Sir John Goldring’s report here
You can read Sir Ken McCallum, the Director General of MI5’s statement following today’s (3 November 2026) High Court judgment here
You can find today’s (3 November 2026) High Court judgment here