header-logo header-logo

19 February 2025
Issue: 8105 / Categories: Legal News , National security , Criminal
printer mail-detail

MI5 evidence under investigation

The security service MI5 has apologised in court, having admitted to misleading judges in a series of cases in the High Court and in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) about the conduct of one of its agents.

MI5 relied on its ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policy to protect its undercover operatives to avoid disclosing the agent’s identity in court. This was in response to a 2022 claim brought by ‘Beth’, the agent’s former partner, alleging MI5 breached her human rights by recruiting a man who posed a serious risk to women and children.

However, the BBC has revealed it possesses an audio recording of a senior secret services official voluntarily disclosing to a journalist that Beth’s ex-partner is an MI5 recruit.

In a High Court hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain last week, Sir James Eadie KC submitted that an internal disciplinary investigation was underway. Jonathan Jones KC, former head of the Government Legal Service, has been appointed to lead an external review.

Chamberlain J noted the investigations would need to address whether MI5 had ‘deliberately’ given false evidence in 2022.

Kate Ellis, solicitor at Centre for Women’s Justice, representing Beth since 2022, said the revelations were ‘concerning and truly extraordinary.

‘We now understand that MI5 has misled three courts by giving or relying on false evidence—over a period of several years—and this has allowed them to avoid giving “Beth” any meaningful answers.

‘Most concerning of all perhaps is that the truth has only emerged at all because of a secret recording made by the BBC.

‘This exceptionally serious situation has wide implications, for Beth’s case and for the general public. It will leave many wondering whether evidence given by MI5 in legal proceedings—which the courts are expected to treat with particular deference, and which is often heard in secret—can ever be considered reliable.’

Issue: 8105 / Categories: Legal News , National security , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll