MI5 will not face contempt of court charges despite admitting its evidence was a lie

MI5 and its staff will not face contempt of court proceedings despite the spy agency admitting that its evidence to three courts was a lie, senior judges have ruled.

The three judges, including Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, say a contempt case would be too complex for the court to manage, meaning it is not in the public interest to proceed.

The police have the right “investigatory powers and resources” to handle the case, they rule, with individual MI5 officers now potentially facing investigation for misconduct in public office.

The Home Office refused to say whether it would now refer the matter to the police for a criminal investigation, with a source saying officials are still considering the implications of the judgment.

A Home Office spokesperson said the case has “highlighted serious failings by individual MI5 officers”.

“The Home Secretary has taken decisive action to strengthen her oversight and assurance of MI5 and to hold the Director General to account for MI5’s past mistakes,” the spokeperson added.

MI5 gave false evidence to three courts in a case concerning an abusive informant known as Agent X.

A BBC investigation previously uncovered how the MI5 agent used his role to coercively control his girlfriend, known as Beth.

The false evidence was about conversations between MI5 and the BBC concerning the agent, someone we had investigated and were seeking to expose.

MI5’s chief Sir Ken McCallum said the court’s decision was welcome and its judgment “underlines MI5’s serious failures in this case”.

“I repeat my apology for those failures, and for the additional distress they caused to Beth,” he added.

In July 2025, the three judges asked MI5’s watchdog to investigate how the security service came to give false evidence. At the time, they deferred any decision on contempt proceedings until after the investigation had reported.

In July this year, an investigation by Sir John Goldring – which had been ordered by the prime minister – concluded that one senior MI5 officer lied repeatedly while another misled his own colleagues and lied about what he was told. It also criticised other senior spies and found “serious and systemic failures in MI5’s conduct”.

In September, MI5 said it accepted the report’s findings “without reservation”.

The two MI5 officers who have been most criticised both deny any dishonest conduct. One has resigned from MI5, while the other is facing internal disciplinary proceedings.

In a statement issued by the Centre for Women’s Justice, Beth said: “I am deeply disappointed that the court has decided not to pursue contempt proceedings.

“The Goldring report found that senior MI5 officers knowingly misled the courts, and that those lies formed the foundation of MI5’s false account.

“These are extremely serious findings which should demand consequences.”

The Centre for Women’s Justice joint head of litigation Kate Ellis said the ruling was “surprising”.

She continued: “The findings of the Goldring report are clear: two senior MI5 officers knowingly allowed the courts to be misled in witness evidence, and then refused – at every opportunity – to admit what they had done.”