Investigation correspondent
Evelyon/PaThe High Court has ordered a “strong and independent” new investigation of how MI5 gave false evidence to several courts, after rejecting two official inquiries provided by the Security Service as a “shortage”.
There were two reviews after the BBC was revealed, MI5 lied to three courts in a case about a new-Nazi state agent, who abused women.
A panel of three senior judges said that it would be “prematurely” to decide to start a court proceedings against anyone before the new investigation is completed.
He appreciated the BBC for “bringing these matters to light”.
Two official inquiries, one of which was commissioned by Home Secretary Yatev Cooper, Mi5 and his deliberate wrongdoing officials were absent.
But the decision concludes that “the investigation conducted by Mi5 is suffering from serious procedural shortcomings to date” and “we cannot rely on their conclusions”.
Three judges – the most senior judges of England and Wales, Lady Chief Justice Bairings Suu Kar, Kings Bench Dam Victoria Sharp and President of Shri Justice Chamberlane, said: “It is expected that such incidents will never be repeated.”
His decision states that the new investigation should be done under the aegis of Sir Brian Leaveson, Commissioner of Investigation Powers, who have monitored Mi5 monitoring activities. His office was also IPCO Case provided by MI5 with false evidence,
MI5 Director General Sir Ken McCallum reiterated “complete and unreserved forgiveness” for the errors made in these proceedings.
He said that solving the matter was “the highest priority for the Mi5” and they would cooperate fully with the IPCO.
“The job of Mi5 is to protect the country. It is necessary for that mission to maintain the trust of the courts,” he said.
PA mediaThe case began in 2022 with an attempt to publish a story about a new-Nazi agent to BBC, known as X. This has become a major examination as to how the courts see the Mi5 and the credibility of its evidence.
MI5 gave evidence to three courts, saying that it had never violated its main privacy policy nor confirmed (NCD) and neither to refuse (NCD) was a state agent.
But in February, BBC was able to do Prove with phone call notes and recording with Mi5 that it was wrong,
A Mi5 official confirmed the status of the agent as he tried to persuade me to leave an inquiry in the X, a violent misoginist who used his security service role and his ex -girlfriend is known as “Beth”.
Two official inquiry criticized by the High Court was an internal MI5 investigation and the “external” investigation by former Chief Counsel of the government, Sir Jonathan Jones Casey. The latter was commissioned by home sector and Sir Kane.
But the verdict said that “in our view was a fundamental incompatibility in the context of Sir Jonathan”.
The ruling said that they were asked to establish the facts of what had happened, but “don’t conclude why specific persons did some things or not”.
However, the judges stated that Sir Jonathan “still concluded” that no one was deliberately attempted by anyone to mislead the court – ever without talking to a MI5 officer at the center of the case and without considering any additional BBC evidence without what happened.
The judgment also found that the strategy of the Director General of MI5, the third-in-command of the organization, gave a misleading assurance to the court in a witness statement.
He said that its original explanation was “a fair and accurate account” of secret materials, which was not revealed at that time.
The court forced the government and the Mi5 to hand over the material, and the judges concluded that the clarifications of the MI5 were not “fair and accurate” and “left many important cases” – in which the IPCO was misled and relevant time was known by several MI5 officials at the relevant time.
His decision stated that it was “regrettable that the clarification of the MI5 in this court was given in a piece and unsatisfactory manner – and only after repeated intervention of the court”.
He said, “The assumption has been created that the true circumstances in which false evidence has been given is not voluntarily extracted by Mi5,” he said.
Today’s highly important decision was also found:
- In this one case, the MI5 has misled two separate branches of the High Court, as well as the search powers Tribunal, Investigatory Power’s Commissioner, and Security represented the BBC known as special advocates.
- Regarding the status of agents, the MI5’s core NCnd Privacy Policy was maintained for a long time in legal proceedings, when “any justification for its maintenance had disappeared”
- The BBC and I, as well as our lawyers and special advocates, should be “praised” for “central role”, we have played in lighting these cases
The verdict said that a “major” failed from official reviews that they did not contact me, despite the fact that I was the other person involved in major events.
The judges stated that, after “carefully considering”, I presented the evidence presented in response to the reviews – such as records and notes shown in both reviews included false statements – it paints “a differently different picture” to a “a differently different picture”.
He said that he accepted internal investigators and Sir Jonathan in external review, later considered my evidence “in good faith”.
But he said that because they had already come to a conclusion that no effort was made intentionally to mislead the court, they would be “essentially difficult” to modify the conclusions that “fundamentally affect the base of their findings”.
