A panel of three senior judges – England and Wales’ most senior judge, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, President of the King’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain – is considering what action to take over the false evidence.
In particular, the judges will decide whether to initiate contempt of court proceedings against certain MI5 officers or MI5 itself.
Any such move would be unprecedented.
The hearing follows a damning official report, published in July, which concluded that MI5 gave evidence based on “lies” to three courts while defending a violent neo-Nazi spy whose abuse was uncovered by the BBC.
The report, by the then deputy investigatory powers commissioner Sir John Goldring, heavily criticised a series of senior MI5 figures and their organisation.
He found that one senior MI5 spy – known as Officer 2 – lied repeatedly, while another – Officer 3 – misled his own colleagues and lied about what he was told.
He also found there were “serious and systemic failures in MI5’s conduct” throughout the case.
Sir John’s investigation was ordered by the prime minister in September 2025 after MI5’s explanations about what happened were rejected as deficient and unreliable by the High Court.
In court early on Friday, Otty announced that “MI5 accepts without reservation” the findings of Sir John, including about the actions of individual officers and “systemic failure” within the organisation itself. Until now, MI5 had only offered apologies for giving “incorrect” evidence.
He said MI5 “fully accepts and acknowledges the gravity of the issues raised” and they must never happen again.
He added that MI5 had committed to a major programme of reform under the leadership of director general Sir Ken McCallum.
Otty argued against contempt of court proceedings being brought, saying it would not be in the public interest given the detailed Goldring investigation, MI5’s apologies, and its commitment to a programme of reform.
He said Officer 2 had resigned from the service and that Officer 3 had been suspended and was facing disciplinary proceedings, which could lead to his dismissal.
The court will hear legal submissions later on Friday from barristers for the BBC and Officers 2 and 3.
The case centres around an MI5 informant known as Agent X, a foreign neo-Nazi misogynist who used his security service role as a tool of abuse.
He coercively controlled his partner, known by the alias Beth, and attacked her with a machete. MI5 then helped him go abroad to continue intelligence work while under police investigation.
The government took the BBC to court in 2022 in a failed attempt to block its investigation into X, but won him legal anonymity. Beth then sued MI5 at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and in 2024 she sought a review of a ruling at the High Court.
Arguing for secrecy in all three courts, the security service told judges that it had always stuck to its core secrecy policy and never told anyone whether X was an agent, including me – as the BBC journalist who had investigated him. The courts were told this in a sworn statement from a senior officer, a deputy director called Witness A.
The courts accepted MI5’s arguments. This meant Beth and everyone else was banned from ever officially being told X was an agent and denied access to the key evidence. She was left at a serious disadvantage and may have lost the case.
But what MI5 said was untrue.
MI5 had in fact disclosed the man’s agent status in phone calls to me, as it tried to persuade me not to investigate him in 2020.
Officer 2 had tried to cover up for the man, falsely saying he was not an abusive misogynist nor a real extremist.
Following the court decision, in late 2024, I challenged MI5 and said they had lied to the courts. MI5 aggressively maintained its position that its “neither confirm nor deny” policy (known as NCND) had been maintained until I produced evidence proving it was untrue, including a recording of one of the calls with Officer 2.
Because of the BBC’s revelations, two official inquiries took place which absolved MI5 and its officers of deliberate wrongdoing, claiming the false evidence was down to mistakes and poor memories.
But, in July 2025, a panel of senior High Court judges ruled that the investigations carried out by MI5 suffered from “serious procedural deficiencies” and that “we cannot rely on their conclusions”, leading to Sir John’s investigation and Friday’s hearing.
