Senior judges ruled that MI5 will not face contempt of court proceedings despite the spy agency admitting it provided false evidence to three separate courts concerning an abusive informant referred to as Agent X.
Judges Rule Out MI5 Contempt Proceedings
The decision was handed down by a panel of three judges, including Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr. The court determined that pursuing contempt proceedings against MI5 or two individual senior MI5 officers would be too complex for the judicial system to manage effectively.
The judges concluded that a contempt process could not realistically be undertaken by the court on its own
and that the investigative aspects of the task would be likely to be unmanageable
. They further noted that no purpose would be served by contempt proceedings, which are unlikely to do more than duplicate Sir John’s findings,
and that it is not in the public interest to proceed.
Watchdog Probes False Evidence Submissions
The legal fallout stems from false evidence given regarding conversations between MI5 and the BBC regarding Agent X, an individual the broadcaster had investigated and sought to expose. In July 2025, judges asked MI5’s watchdog to investigate how false evidence came to be submitted.
An investigation by Sir John Goldring ordered by the prime minister concluded that one senior MI5 officer lied repeatedly while another misled colleagues and lied about what he was told. The review identified serious and systemic failures in MI5’s conduct
. In September, MI5 stated it accepted the report’s findings without reservation
.
Investigatory powers commissioner Lord Leveson described the case last week as being as serious as anything
he has faced in his role. The two MI5 officers who have been most criticized have denied dishonest conduct; one has resigned while the other faces internal disciplinary proceedings.
Potential Police Inquiries
Although the high court opted against contempt charges, the bench suggested that accountability should follow an investigation by the police, who have the appropriate investigatory powers and resources,
with the Crown Prosecution Service identified as the appropriate body to decide whether to prosecute. The judges indicated that offenses like misconduct in a public office, or perverting the course of justice, may be more straightforward to prove than judicial contempt.