MI5 misled watchdog about neo-Nazi undercover agent case after mendacity in court docket

The watchdog charged with retaining MI5 to account rewrote a document into the dealing with of a violent neo-Nazi agent after the Security Service gave it false knowledge, the BBC can expose.

An early draft of the document via the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) contradicted false proof given via MI5 to court docket, however the ultimate model didn’t.

IPCO advised the BBC it was once “misled” via the Security Service.

MI5 director common Sir Ken McCallum apologised to IPCO, after the BBC challenged the Security Service’s false statements to the courts.

The revelation implies that MI5 has successfully given false proof on this case to each and every organisation or court docket which is meant to have get entry to to the Security Service’s secrets and techniques and is accountable for retaining it to account.

It additionally raises questions on how simply IPCO accepts false assurances from MI5, when it’s meant to verify the Security Service works inside the legislation and within the public pastime.

IPCO started its secret investigation into MI5’s dealing with of the agent – a real neo-Nazi recognized publicly as X who knowledgeable on extremist networks – in 2022.

It was once triggered via a BBC tale about how X used his Security Service position to coerce and terrorise his then-girlfriend, recognized publicly as “Beth”.

MI5 had advised me he was once an agent in 2020 whilst seeking to forestall me operating a information tale in regards to the guy’s extremism. I had already heard he was once an agent, sometimes called a covert human intelligence supply (Chis), and advised MI5 as a lot.

The calls had been an strive via MI5 to give protection to and canopy for X, a violent misogynistic abuser with paedophilic dispositions. Telling me he was once an agent was once inconsistent with MI5’s public claims about at all times abiding via a core secrecy coverage – referred to as neither ascertain nor deny (NCND) – at the standing of brokers.

But the Security Service maintained it had caught via the NCND coverage – first in a court docket case the place the federal government attempted to forestall the BBC from publishing a tale about X, after which in two additional courts the place Beth made a declare towards MI5.

Keeping X’s standing formally secret supposed that key proof was once withheld from Beth.

IPCO’s position is to check out the usage of investigatory powers via MI5, equivalent to its use of brokers, and to spot any issues in its experiences.

It reviewed MI5 paperwork in regards to the case of agent X, together with an respectable listing authorising a departure from NCND, and despatched a draft report back to MI5 in February 2023.

The document concluded that MI5 had taken the “extraordinary” resolution to go away from NCND on X’s agent standing in calls with me.

But MI5 driven again and denied it had departed from the coverage, together with in correspondence with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner himself Sir Brian Leveson, a retired Court of Appeal pass judgement on highest recognized for chairing a public inquiry into the tradition and requirements of the media.

MI5 advised IPCO: “We would like to make clear that we did not in fact take any such decision. [X’s] status was not disclosed to the BBC either at that time or subsequently.”

In December 2023 Sir Brian wrote again, announcing that “based on the records available” it was once “entitled to conclude as a justifiable inference, on the balance of probabilities, that MI5 disclosed [X’s] role as a CHIS”.

He mentioned that MI5 had equipped no documentary proof to enhance its place, nor any rationalization about the way it had satisfied me to not run a tale about X, because the Security Service had claimed.

“I note that MI5 has not disputed that disclosure was, at least, contemplated… either there was inadequate record keeping or there has been a failure to make records available to inspectors. Either would represent a serious compliance failure,” he mentioned.

MI5 refused to backpedal and IPCO modified its place, with the overall document falsely announcing that there was once no departure from NCND.

The ultimate model offered 3 important falsehoods.

First, the document mentioned that “an operational plan was agreed that there would be no disclosure that X was an MI5 CHIS”. This was once the other of the reality. MI5’s complete operational plan concerned a sustained try to convince me to forestall doing a tale via disclosing that X was once an agent.

Second, the document mentioned “it was not MI5 policy to record all such exchanges” with newshounds. This was once unfaithful. There was once a coverage requiring such exchanges to be recorded.

Third, the document referenced a High Court witness observation I had given and mentioned: “De Simone’s witness statement confirms that no disclosure of X’s status as a CHIS was made.” This was once false. My witness observation mentioned no such factor.

When contacted via the BBC, IPCO mentioned it was once “misled into amending our draft report to remove the finding that Agent X’s status had been disclosed.”

IPCO mentioned the primary two falsehoods had been incorporated because of “assurances provided by MI5” and that it’s now “clear that this information was incorrect and that the findings in our draft report reflected the true position”.

Regarding the false details about my witness observation, IPCO mentioned: “We accept that this line in the report reflects our interpretation of your statement based on the information available to us at the time.”

The BBC challenged MI5 on its false proof past due ultimate 12 months, resulting in the Security Service apologising within the High Court. MI5 promised to transparently examine what took place, and produced new witness statements from the senior officer in command of the MI5 crew who treated X and MI5’s director common of technique – who’s in impact third-in-command of the Security Service.

But neither of them advised the court docket in regards to the IPCO experiences, even within the closed, secret a part of the case supposed to permit MI5 to expose delicate proof.

The pass judgement on, Mr Justice Chamberlain, most effective discovered in regards to the IPCO document after he had made MI5 quit every other secret file which discussed it.

MI5 made additional witness statements apologising to the court docket, with the senior officer in command of the crew who treated X announcing that “on reflection” they recognised the “IPCO issue” must were printed previous.

“I apologise for not recognising the importance of explaining the IPCO aspect,” the director common of technique mentioned, however he insisted there have been no “attempt to conceal or obscure that aspect of the background”.

The BBC was once most effective advised in regards to the IPCO factor ultimate week, with additional knowledge then equipped after MI5 deserted an try to stay making use of its NCND secrecy coverage on X’s agent standing.

Following a High Court listening to on Tuesday, a panel of senior judges is thinking about what to do subsequent about MI5’s false proof.

MI5’s inner assessment into the false proof mentioned it was once a results of errors, deficient recollections and unhealthy record-keeping.

The BBC mentioned there may be proof of lies via MI5 officials, the interior inquiry was once lacklustre and MI5 attempted to stay damning subject material from the court docket.

IPCO mentioned its investigation of the way MI5 had controlled Agent X discovered a “critical failure to create and maintain accurate documentary records; a finding which was reinforced in the final report due to MI5’s inability to produce any contemporaneous records and the length of time taken to respond to our requests for supporting evidence”.

In IPCO’s most up-to-date annual document, printed prior to now few days, Sir Brian referred to Agent X, announcing: “Recent developments in this case mean that we are keeping it under review.”