MI5 admits officers lied to courts over neo-Nazi informant

MI5 has accepted that senior officers gave courts evidence based on lies while defending an abusive neo-Nazi informant — a reversal that leaves judges to decide whether the officers, or the agency itself, should face contempt proceedings. ¹

• The false account was used in three proceedings: two High Court cases and a claim before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. ²
• MI5 had claimed it never broke its “neither confirm nor deny” policy over the informant, known as Agent X. In fact, a senior communications officer had confirmed his status to BBC journalist Daniel De Simone in 2020. ²
• A watchdog investigation found that one senior officer repeatedly lied, while another misled colleagues and helped keep the false account alive. MI5 has now accepted those findings without reservation. ¹
• The case concerns an informant who used his MI5 connections to control his partner, known as Beth, and attacked her with a machete. ²
• Officer 2 has resigned. Officer 3 has been suspended and faces disciplinary proceedings; the judges have not yet decided whether contempt proceedings should follow. ¹

The damage was not limited to one inaccurate witness statement. The false account helped keep Agent X’s status secret, undermined Beth’s challenge to MI5 and left the courts assessing her evidence against an official version that was untrue. The High Court previously said MI5’s own investigations had serious procedural flaws and could not be relied on. ³

The government has promised tighter oversight, independent challenge and greater scrutiny of MI5’s litigation. But the immediate test is judicial: whether an organisation with exceptional secrecy powers can avoid legal consequences after its officers repeatedly defended a false story in court. ⁴

Footnotes

1. Daniel De Simone, “MI5 accepts it gave evidence based on lies in neo-Nazi spy case”, Yahoo News, 18 September 2026 ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. Divisional Court press summary, Attorney General v BBC and Beth v Investigatory Powers Tribunal, 2 July 2025 ↩ ↩² ↩³

3. BETH v Security Service, Investigatory Powers Tribunal judgment, 30 July 2025 ↩

4. Home Office written statement on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s report, 16 July 2026 ↩