Judge Questions MI5 Over False Evidence in Court Case

This case comes after previous revelations that MI5 had not told the courts about an officer, referred to as Officer X, who allegedly used his powers to injure his girlfriend, including an assault with a machete. A hearing will be held to set the damages on MI5 or its officers. Potential courses of action include accepting the agency’s internal findings to pursuing contempt of court charges.

Doubts Regarding Testimony of Witnesses and Investigations
It emerged that they were signed out in error by an officer who was not authorized to do so, although Mr. Justice Chamberlain has questioned two investigations launched in the wake of the false evidence coming to light: both an internal MI5 inquiry and an external review by Sir Jonathan Jones KC. The results of these inquiries were summarised in a statement by an unnamed senior MI5 officer, identified only as Witness B. However the court received only the declassified, non-classified version of the external review, not the full findings or internal documents.

After reviewing the classified paper, the judge remarked that it contained essential details that were absent from the public report. He also queried whether Witness B had even viewed the entire review and expressed separate worries about the credibility of Witness B’s own evidence. The judge said the slow and piecemeal process of disclosure had created an atmosphere of distrust of MI5’s accounts.

Review of MI5 Policy and Legal Process
(There is also an unresolved legal battle over the "neither confirm nor deny" policy, practiced by MI5, which has so far prevented any disclosure about X’s agent status.) While MI5 conceded that it breached its own policy of NCND in private calls, it still deploys the strategy for legal defenses, including in cases relating to X’s ex-partner, referred to as Beth. Her lawsuit against the agency over its use of the NCND rule has worked its way through several courts, but the majority of the content of those filings has been kept out of closed hearings.

The next moves by the court could determine how accountable security services are held for handling evidence, secrecy, and internal conduct. The result of Tuesday’s hearing will also establish whether MI5 is in contempt, and if they will have to make any further disclosures.