MI5 accepts it gave false evidence to courts in neo-Nazi spy case

September 18, 2026 at 03:08 PM2 min

This digest was compiled by AI from multiple sources — links to the originals are below.

MI5 accepted on Friday that it gave evidence based on lies to three courts and that senior officers were repeatedly dishonest in a case involving a violent neo-Nazi spy. The admission came during a High Court hearing where judges are considering whether to initiate contempt proceedings against MI5 or its officers. The lies were first revealed by a BBC investigation in February 2025, which MI5 initially denied.

Key Facts

MI5 accepted without reservation the findings of a report by Sir John Goldring that concluded it gave evidence based on lies about maintaining its 'neither confirm nor deny' policy.
The admission was made by Timothy Otty KC at a High Court hearing in London on Friday before Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, Dame Victoria Sharp, and Mr Justice Chamberlain.
Officer 2 resigned from MI5, while Officer 3 has been suspended and faces disciplinary proceedings that could lead to dismissal.
The lies were first revealed by the BBC in February 2025, and MI5 initially denied them.

The Admission

Timothy Otty KC, representing MI5, announced the security service's position during a High Court hearing in London on Friday. Otty said MI5 'accepts without reservation' the findings of a report by Sir John Goldring, then-deputy investigatory powers commissioner, which concluded that MI5 gave evidence based on 'lies' about maintaining its 'neither confirm nor deny' policy. The report found that one senior MI5 officer, known as Officer 2, lied repeatedly, while another, Officer 3, misled his own colleagues and lied about what he was told. Sir John also found 'serious and systemic failures in MI5's conduct' throughout the case.

Court Proceedings

A panel of three senior judges — Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, President of the King's Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp, and Mr Justice Chamberlain — is considering what action to take over the false evidence. The judges will decide whether to initiate contempt of court proceedings against certain MI5 officers or MI5 itself, a move that would be unprecedented. Otty argued against contempt proceedings, saying they would not be in the public interest given Sir John's detailed investigation, MI5's apologies, and its commitment to reform. Matthew Butt KC, for Officer 2, said the report was 'sufficient' but that further action, if needed, would be better handled by the police and Crown Prosecution Service.

Officer Accountability

Otty said Officer 2 had resigned from the service and that Officer 3 had been suspended and was facing disciplinary proceedings, which could lead to his dismissal. Lawyers for both officers argued against contempt proceedings. MI5 has committed to a major programme of reform under the leadership of director general Sir Ken McCallum.