MI5 Misled Courts on Neo-Nazi Informer Ties, Director-General Acknowledges Failings
Damning report details how senior officers fabricated accounts and suppressed evidence regarding Agent X.
Image: Eddie Pollard / AI
Carla Rooney
MI5 deliberately misled courts about its relationship with a neo-Nazi informer, a severe breach of established protocol that Director-General Ken McCallum has now acknowledged.
Deputy Investigatory Powers Commissioner Sir John Goldring's report delivers a scathing critique of MI5 and several senior figures within the organization.
The informer, known as Agent X, exploited his security service role, abusing his British partner, Beth, including a violent machete attack.
Beth received compensation earlier this year, a payment for the harm she endured from Agent X's actions and MI5's conduct.
The Ipco report, in two versions, reached both the Prime Minister and Keir Starmer.
Beth had previously claimed her abusive ex-partner boasted about being a paid informer for MI5; the official inquiry now substantiates this claim.
Sir John Goldring confirmed one senior MI5 officer, identified as Officer 2, repeatedly lied, while another, Officer 3, misled colleagues and fabricated information.
Officer 2 told repeated 'lies,' which 'formed the foundation of MI5's false account' presented to three separate courts.
MI5 had maintained it upheld its NCND policy, allowing courts to withhold crucial information from the woman abused by the informant.
Officer 2 falsely claimed he was neither an abusive misogynist nor a genuine extremist, Sir John Goldring asserted.
Officer 2 told repeated 'lies,' which 'formed the foundation of MI5's false account' presented to three separate courts, Sir John Goldring confirmed.
He put forward a 'wholly fictitious account,' denying he ever told a BBC journalist that X was an MI5 agent, despite evidence to the contrary.
Beyond the legal debate, Officer 3 'misled' his own colleagues and did not act in good faith throughout the process, Sir John Goldring stated.
Officer 3 'bears considerable responsibility for the continuation of MI5's falsehood' because he 'misrepresented' what Officer 2 had told him, Sir John Goldring claimed.
Furthermore, Officer 3 was not 'truthful' about warnings he received from colleagues regarding the veracity of the information.
Witness A, an MI5 deputy director, 'overstated' matters during a key internal meeting, according to Sir John Goldring's findings.
A note of Witness A's comments was 'misleading,' and Witness A 'contributed to MI5's continued reliance on the false account,' Sir John Goldring claimed.
Various individuals within MI5 knew the NCND policy had been departed from, with 'cogent evidence' in case files demonstrating this, yet the falsehood 'was allowed to take hold and persist,' Sir John Goldring stated.
MI5 missed opportunities to correct the position, allowing the deception to continue unchecked.
This strategic shift follows revelations that even MI6 and a foreign intelligence agency learned NCND had been departed from.
Supposedly 'independent' reviews of what happened concluded no one beyond Officer 2 knew what had occurred and that he had forgotten; Sir John Goldring dismissed this claim as fundamentally flawed.
Officer 2 was 'untruthful' throughout and always remembered his 'comprehensive departures from NCND' with the BBC journalist, Sir John Goldring asserted.
Officer 3 'misrepresented what Officer 2 had said to him' on multiple occasions and did not act in good faith, actively contributing to the cover-up.
He continued to say nothing about Officer 2's initial uncertainty regarding NCND and was content for matters to proceed as they had before, effectively enabling the deception.
Officer 3 'effectively shut down' the MI5 officer who led the agent handling team managing Agent X, silencing internal dissent.
He had said he could 'categorically state' that it did not happen, a claim Sir John Goldring found to be wholly false.
Moreover, Officer 3 has not been 'truthful' about the warnings he received, further solidifying his role in the sustained misinformation.
In an internal email, Officer 3 accepted that MI5 misleading the court in the way then alleged would amount to the criminal offense of perjury, a stark admission of potential legal ramifications.
The supposedly thorough reviews last year did not amount to an 'independent review' and were fundamentally flawed, failing to uncover the full extent of the misconduct.
A note of what was said during an internal legal meeting was 'misleading,' and Witness A played a part in the continued promulgation of the false account, extending the deception's reach.
The supposedly thorough reviews last year did not amount to an 'independent review' and were fundamentally flawed, failing to uncover the full extent of the misconduct.
MI5 officers attempted to suppress a potential BBC report by telling reporter Daniel de Simone that X was 'not a real extremist, but was pretending to be so at the behest of MI5,' as detailed in the Ipco report.
Officer 2 told his successor, Officer 3, that he 'thought he had not' confirmed to the BBC that Agent X was an informant, initiating a chain of misdirection.
Officer 3 then reported to colleagues that his status 'had not been breached,' cementing the false narrative within the agency.