British Judges Rule Out Contempt Proceedings Against MI5
British judges have decided not to pursue contempt of court proceedings against the domestic intelligence service MI5 or its staff, despite the agency admitting that evidence it submitted to three courts was false in a case involving an informant implicated in violence and abuse.
Three judges, including Lady Sue Carr, said that pursuing contempt proceedings would present complexities beyond what the courts could reasonably manage. They concluded that such proceedings would not serve the public interest, given the police’s investigative powers and resources.
According to a BBC report, the case concerns an intelligence informant known as “Agent X”, who used his position to abuse his girlfriend, as revealed in an earlier investigation by the broadcaster.
The false evidence MI5 presented to the three courts concerned conversations between the intelligence service and the BBC about the informant. The broadcaster had investigated his activities and sought to expose his identity and conduct.
In July 2025, the three judges asked the intelligence service’s oversight body to investigate how inaccurate information had been submitted to the courts. They deferred their decision on whether to pursue contempt proceedings until the investigation’s findings were available.
In July this year, an investigation conducted by Sir John Goldring at the prime minister’s request concluded that a senior intelligence officer had repeatedly lied, while another officer had misled colleagues and lied about the information he had been given.
The investigation also criticised other senior intelligence officials and identified “serious and systemic failings in MI5’s conduct”.
In September, the agency announced that it accepted the report’s findings “without reservation”, although the two officers who faced the strongest criticism denied any dishonest conduct. One resigned from the service, while the other is subject to internal disciplinary proceedings.
Last week, Lord Leveson, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, described the case as one of the most serious he had encountered during his tenure.
Police Could Open a Criminal Investigation
Despite the seriousness of the findings, the High Court decided not to pursue further proceedings against the two officers most strongly criticised, MI5 as an institution or its director general, Sir Ken McCallum.
The judges explained that the available evidence was sufficient, in principle, to initiate contempt proceedings against the two officers. They nevertheless concluded that doing so would not be in the public interest.
The ruling stated that the court could not realistically conduct such proceedings on its own and that the associated investigative work could become unmanageably complex.
The judges added that contempt proceedings would serve no additional purpose and would probably do little more than repeat the findings of Sir John Goldring’s investigation.
Instead, they said that any further action should follow a police investigation, since the police have the necessary powers and resources. The Crown Prosecution Service would then determine whether the evidence justified criminal charges.
The ruling noted that potential offences, including misconduct in public office or perverting the course of justice, might be easier to establish in law than contempt of court.
MI5 and its staff have therefore avoided contempt proceedings for now. However, the decision leaves open the possibility of criminal investigations into the officers concerned over the submission of false evidence to the courts.
