The UK’s domestic security service has formally accepted that it provided evidence based on lies to three separate courts in the case of a violent neo-Nazi informant, marking the first time such an admission has been made while defending a spy whose abusive conduct was exposed by the BBC.
During a High Court hearing in London on Friday, Timothy Otty KC, representing MI5, announced that the agency “accepts without reservation” the findings of a critical report concluding that false testimony was given about its adherence to the core secrecy policy known as ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (NCND).
A panel comprising Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, President of the King’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp, and Mr Justice Chamberlain is currently deliberating on appropriate sanctions. The judges are considering whether to initiate contempt of court proceedings against specific MI5 officers or the organization itself, a move that would be unprecedented in British legal history.
The deception was originally uncovered by the BBC in February 2025. At the time, the security service strongly denied the allegations. However, it was later revealed that MI5 had actually disclosed the man’s status as an agent during phone calls with a journalist in 2020, attempting to dissuade him from investigating the individual.
The investigation was led by Sir John Goldring, the then deputy investigatory powers commissioner. His report identified significant misconduct by two senior officers. Officer 2, described as a senior spy, lied repeatedly, while Officer 3 misled his own colleagues and provided false accounts of what he had been told. Sir John also highlighted “serious and systemic failures” in MI5’s overall conduct throughout the case.
Otty stated that MI5 fully acknowledges the gravity of these issues and pledged that they must never recur. He noted that Director General Sir Ken McCallum has overseen a major program of reform within the service.
Arguing against contempt proceedings, Otty contended that pursuing such action would not serve the public interest given the thoroughness of Sir John’s investigation, the agency’s apologies, and its commitment to reform. He confirmed that Officer 2 has resigned from the service, while Officer 3 has been suspended and faces disciplinary hearings that could result in dismissal.
Legal representatives for both officers opposed contempt charges. Matthew Butt KC, for Officer 2, argued that the existing report was sufficient but suggested that if further action was required, it should be handled by the police and Crown Prosecution Service. He stated that while the officer’s conduct fell below expected standards, he denied acting dishonestly or interfering with the administration of justice.
Aaron Watkins, representing Officer 3, apologized on his client’s behalf and conceded that his conduct undeniably misled the courts and involved parties. However, he denied dishonesty and argued that the evidence did not meet the threshold for contempt, adding that such proceedings would not be in the public interest following a comprehensive investigation.
The case centers on Agent X, a foreign neo-Nazi and misogynist who utilized his position as an MI5 informant to abuse his partner, known as Beth. He subjected her to coercive control and attacked her with a machete. Despite being under police investigation, MI5 facilitated his travel abroad to continue intelligence work.
Beth sued MI5 at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and in 2024 sought a High Court review of a previous ruling. Throughout these legal battles, MI5 successfully argued for anonymity and secrecy, leading courts to ban Beth from knowing X was an agent or accessing key evidence, potentially costing her the case.
Following a court decision in late 2024, the BBC challenged MI5’s claims, producing a recording of a call with Officer 2 that proved the agency had breached its NCND policy. While two initial inquiries absolved MI5 of deliberate wrongdoing, attributing errors to mistakes and poor memory, a panel of senior High Court judges ruled in July 2025 that these investigations suffered from “serious procedural deficiencies.”
Consequently, Prime Minister Sir John Goldring’s investigation was ordered in September 2025 after MI5’s explanations were rejected as deficient and unreliable.
So they admitted it only after the BBC got the tape? Sounds like accountability is entirely reactive, not proactive. Reform seems hollow.
Unprecedented that MI5 would lie to courts about an informant. The severity of this admission is deeply alarming for civil liberties.