MI5 Chief Faces Contempt Threat Over Agent Lies

MI5 Director-General Sir Ken McCallum faces potential contempt of court proceedings after the security service acknowledged providing false evidence to three courts concerning a neo-Nazi informant. The informant, identified only as "X," allegedly exploited his role with MI5 to violently threaten his girlfriend, known as Beth.

Beth claims the agent attacked her with a machete and used his connection to MI5 to silence her. She filed a complaint with the watchdog overseeing MI5. In July, Deputy Investigatory Powers Commissioner Sir John Goldring concluded there were "serious and systemic failings" by MI5, finding that one senior officer repeatedly lied and another misled colleagues about the case.

When the BBC sought to report on the abuse, MI5 initially confirmed Agent X's informant status to dissuade the journalist, fearing for the informant's safety. However, in subsequent court proceedings involving Beth and the BBC, the agency publicly stated it could "neither confirm nor deny" its relationship with him, adhering to its standard policy.

MI5 has since paid compensation and issued a public apology to settle the case. The identity of Agent X, a foreign national involved in neo-Nazi movements, remains unknown, and he is believed to have left the UK.

Lawyers for Beth are seeking contempt of court proceedings against Sir Ken McCallum and the officers involved. Penalties for contempt can include up to two years imprisonment or a fine.

Charlotte Kilroy, KC, representing Beth, argued in written submissions that the false evidence was not isolated but "sustained and long-lasting." She stated that MI5 made "repeated efforts to prevent the truth emerging," and the extent of the dishonesty only became apparent when MI5 was presented with "incontrovertible proof of its wrongdoing."

Kilroy further claimed that an MI5 officer knew his dishonesty was likely to interfere with justice. She added that other officers aware of the false evidence either failed to ensure correct evidence was provided or their superiors ignored the truth when it was presented.

She asserted there was "strong and cogent evidence" that MI5 officers may have committed contempt and that the service benefited from their actions.

However, Tim Otty, KC, representing MI5, argued that there was "no basis" to hold Sir Ken vicariously liable and contended that there was no "strong case" for MI5 to be held corporately liable for criminal contempt. Otty stated that the agency is committed to reforms and that proceeding with contempt proceedings is "not now necessary or appropriate."

The three High Court judges have indicated they will deliver their judgment at a later date.