Contempt proceedings initiated by court over MI5 false evidence not in the public interest

It would not be in the public interest to initiate contempt of court proceedings against MI5 or any individual officer, despite admissions of providing false evidence to the court, the lady chief justice ruled today. If further action were to be taken, it should follow a police investigation with 'the appropriate investigatory powers and resources', Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill found. 

In the latest judgment in Beth v Investigatory Powers Tribunal v BBC, the lady chief justice, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain had to decide whether the court should initiate contempt of court proceedings against MI5, its director general or its officers, after the security service was found to have provided evidence to the High Court and Investigatory Powers Tribunal based on lies told by officers. 

The underlying case involves MI5’s practice of neither confirming nor denying whether any individual was or is a covert human intelligence source. A MI5 officer was the subject of an investigation by the BBC which sought to broadcast a programme including allegations that an individual was an MI5 officer and a ‘dangerous extremist and misogynist who physically and physiologically abused two former female parters’ including "Beth"'.

Following the High Court’s July 2025 judgment, a review into the failings that led to the false evidence given to the court was conducted by Sir Jonathan Jones KC and published in July this year. The two officers do not accept Sir John’s findings that they acted dishonestly.

Today’s judgment described the Jones findings as ‘serious’, adding: ‘They will inevitably affect the confidence that we and other courts and tribunals can have in corporate evidence from MI5. They may justify a more searching approach to such evidence, including where it contains national security assessments, and especially where it does not comply with the guidance [of the July 2025 judgment].

‘It is, however, common ground—and in any event it is clear—that Sir John’s conclusions would not themselves be admissible in contempt proceedings against individuals who do not accept them.’

The ‘length and factual complexity of Sir John’s report shows that preparing and litigating contempt proceedings against’ either officer ‘would be a highly resource-intensive matter’. If further action against the officers were to be taken it should follow a police investigation. 

The judgment added that, if the police find they have sufficient admissible evidence of offences, 'they can pass the evidence to the CPS for a decision whether to prosecute'.

‘We consider the CPS to be the proper body to decide both whether the evidential tests are met and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute,’ the judgment stated. 

Considering whether contempt proceedings should be brought against MI5’s director general or MI5 itself, the court found it would ‘not be in the public interest’ to do so and there was ‘no public benefit’ in bringing proceedings against the director general or MI5.

‘Any sanction available against MI5 could be financial only. There could be no public interest in imposing a financial penalty whose only effect would be to deprive MI5 of funds it requires to undertake its important work.’