MI5 accepts it gave evidence based on lies in neo-Nazi spy case

The report, by then-deputy investigatory powers commissioner Sir John Goldring, found that one senior MI5 spy – known as Officer 2 – lied repeatedly, while another – Officer 3 – misled his own colleagues and lied about what he was told.

He also found there were “serious and systemic failures in MI5’s conduct” throughout the case.

Otty said MI5 “fully accepts and acknowledges the gravity of the issues raised” in the report, published in July, and they must never happen again.

He added that MI5 had committed to a major programme of reform under the leadership of director general Sir Ken McCallum.

Otty argued against contempt proceedings being brought, saying it would not be in the public interest given Sir John’s detailed investigation, MI5’s apologies, and its commitment to a programme of reform.

He 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 also argued against launching contempt proceedings.

Matthew Butt KC, for Officer 2, said said the officer accepted that his conduct had fallen “below the standard expected of him”, for which he apologised and expressed regret.

But he said he denied acting dishonestly or having interfered with the administration of justice, and did not accept the report’s findings.

Aaron Watkins apologised on behalf of Officer 3 and accepted his conduct “undoubtably” contributed to the courts and parties involved being misled, but denied it had been the result of dishonesty.

He said the evidence presented by Sir John fell short of the threshold for contempt of court, and said such proceedings would not be in the public interest because there had already been a thorough investigation.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the BBC said the corporation considered the threshold had been met and said there was a “very clear public interest” in doing so.

Jude Bunting KC said providing false evidence was “a particularly serious affront to the administration of justice” and noted that while MI5 now offered a sincere apology to the court, its response when the lies were first exposed was “not consistent with transparency or responsibility”.