The head of MI5 should be held in contempt of court after spies lied to judges about a violent neo-Nazi agent, a court has heard.
Sir Ken McCallum faces the prospect of contempt proceedings after MI5 accepted it had provided false evidence to three courts about a neo-Nazi informant who exploited his role with the agency to violently threaten his girlfriend.
The woman, known only as Beth, claims that she was abused by the agent who attacked her with a machete and used his status to terrorise her into silence.
She complained to the watchdog overseeing MI5 about the spy, known as X, who was being used by MI5 to infiltrate the far-Right.
In July, Deputy Investigatory Powers Commissioner Sir John Goldring found ‘serious and systemic failings’ by MI5 in the case, concluding that one senior officer lied repeatedly while another misled his colleagues and lied about what he was told about the case.
When the BBC sought to expose the abuse, MI5 initially confirmed that agent X was an informant in order to dissuade a journalist from running the story as they feared X’s life could be in danger.
But later in court proceedings with Beth and the BBC, the agency would only say in public that it could ‘neither confirm nor deny’ its relationship with him, in line with standard policy.
In an unprecedented move, MI5 has since paid compensation and issued a public apology to settle the case.
Lawyers representing a victim known as ‘Beth’ are urging the High Court to hold MI5 Director-General Sir Ken McCallum (pictured) and individual security officers in contempt of court
The intelligence agency repeatedly provided false evidence to conceal the actions of a violent neo-Nazi informant
The identity of agent X, a foreign national involved in neo-Nazi movements, remains unknown and he is understood to have left the UK.
Now lawyers for Beth want the director-general of MI5 and the individual officers concerned to face contempt of court proceedings.
Anyone found to be in contempt can receive a prison sentence of up to two years, or a fine.
Charlotte Kilroy, KC, representing Beth, said in written submissions in the High Court that the false evidence did not emanate from one individual or a ‘bad apple’ but was ‘sustained and long-lasting’.
She said: ‘There have been repeated efforts to prevent the truth emerging. The reality of the dishonesty and false evidence that has taken place has only emerged because MI5 was faced with incontrovertible proof of its wrongdoing.’
Ms Kilroy claimed that an MI5 officer ‘knew that his dishonesty was likely to result in an interference with the administration of justice’, and others who knew of the false evidence ‘either did not take steps to ensure correct evidence was given, or when they did tell their superiors the truth, the information they provided was ignored’.
She said there was ‘strong and cogent evidence’ that MI5 officers may have committed contempt, and that the service ‘benefited from the dishonesty of its officers’.
But Tim Otty, KC, representing MI5, said there was ‘no basis’ to hold Sir Ken vicariously liable, adding that there was no ‘strong case’ that MI5 could be corporately liable in criminal contempt proceedings.
He said the spy agency was fully committed to making changes, but that it was ‘not now necessary or appropriate to proceed with contempt proceedings’.
The three High Court judges said they would hand down their judgment on the case at a later date.
