Judges order ‘robust’ inquiry into MI5 false evidence exposed by BBC

The Supreme Court ordered a “solid and independent” new investigation of how the MI5 gave false evidence to more than one court after rejecting two official investigations provided by the security service.

The two investigations took place after explaining that the BBC had lied to three courts in a case of a Neo-Nazi state agent that exploited women of MI5.

A panel of three senior judges said it would be “early” to decide that it would not start to disrespect the court against any person before the new investigation was completed.

In addition, “praise” BBC “to light these issues”.

One of the two official investigations assigned by the Interior Minister Yette Cooper, MI5 and deliberate mistakes.

However, the decision concluded that “the investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies” and “the consequences of the consequences”.

Three judges – the most senior judge of the UK and Wales, Dame Victoria Sharp of the King’s counter section of the King and Mr. Justice Chamberlain Lady Chief Justice Barones Sue Carr, “Hope that events like these will never be repeated.”

The decisions say that the new investigation should be carried out under the auspices of the Commissioner of the Investigation Powers Sir Brian Leveson, observing MI5’s surveillance activities. Office in IPCO In the case of MI5, wrong evidence was provided.

MI5 General Manager Sir Ken McCallum repeated to “full and unprotected apology for mistakes made in these transactions.”

He said that the dissolution of this issue was “the highest priority for MI5” and that he would cooperate with IPCO.

“MI5’s job is to keep the country safe. Protecting the trust of the courts is very important for this task,” he said.

The case began in 2022 with an attempt to prevent BBC from publishing a story about a Neo-Nazi Agent known as X. It has become an important test according to how the courts saw the MI5 and the reliability of their evidence.

The MI5 gave evidence to three courts and did not deny that X is a state representative or not to approve or reject (NCND).

However, BBC in February Prove that this is wrong with the notes and records of phone calls with MI5.

A MI5 officer confirmed the status of the agent while trying to release an investigation to an enemy of a violent woman who uses the role of a security service to force and terrify her ex -girlfriend known as “Beth” in the public.

Two official investigations criticized by the Supreme Court, internal MI5 investigation and the government’s former chief lawyer Sir Jonathan Jones KC was a “external” investigation. The second was assigned by the home sect and Sir Ken.

However, the decision, “According to our opinion Sir Jonathan’s reference conditions is a basic inconsistency,” he said.

The decision was asked to determine the facts about what it is, but he was asked to “not make findings about why certain individuals have done certain things or not”.

However, judges said that Sir Jonathan still “made findings”, that no one is a deliberate attempt to mislead the court – without talking to a MI5 officer at the center of the case and without thinking about what happened.

The decision also found that MI5’s third commander of the organization, the General Manager of Strategy, gave misleading assurance to the court in a witness statement.

He said that their original statements were a “fair and right account” of the not explained at this point.

The court forced the government and the MI5 to transfer the material, and the judges concluded that MI5’s statements were not “fair and right” and “IPCO was misrepresented and” jumped a few critical issues “, including those known by a few MI5 officers at the relevant times.

The decisions, “MI5’in explanations to this court in a piece of pieces and satisfactory, and only the court’s intervention repeatedly,” he said.

“The impression that the real conditions in which the wrong evidence was given is not voluntary by MI5 was created.” They said.

Today’s extremely critical judgment has also been found:

• In this case, the MI5 cleaned two separate branches of the Supreme Court, as well as the court of investigation forces, the commissioner of the investigation forces and the Special defenders of the BBC.
• MI5’s basic Privacy Policy, the Privacy Policy on the status of agents, “after any justification for care” after the disappearance “was continued in legal proceedings.
• BBC and I, our lawyers and our special defenders, “central role” that we play while revealing these issues “should be praised”

The decision, official investigations, “big” failure, although the other person in the key events did not contact me, he said.

Judges, considering the “carefully” – such as records and notes showing both examinations, are “significantly drawing a different picture”, such as records and notes showing both examinations.

In the external examination, internal researchers and Sir Jonathan added that they accepted, and later evaluated my evidence “in good faith”.

However, because they concluded that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead the court, they said that they would inevitably find it difficult to review the basis of these consequences in the light of evidence that “affecting” evidence “.