MI5 criticised over false evidence in agent X neo-Nazi case

Senior MI5 figures were criticised after Sir John Goldring’s inquiry into the agent X affair found the Security Service had given false evidence to three courts in a case built around a covert neo-Nazi informant who abused his girlfriend. The dispute has become one of the clearest tests of how far MI5’s internal controls can fail before judges intervene.

The legal reckoning began after the High Court ruled on 12 February 2025 that MI5 had given false evidence in the case. Five months later, the Divisional Court, led by the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales, the President of the King’s Bench Division and Mr Justice Chamberlain, said MI5’s earlier explanations were “seriously deficient” and ordered a “robust and independent” new investigation. The court also found that two official inquiries MI5 had already produced were inadequate.

That investigation has been led by Sir John Goldring, the deputy investigatory powers commissioner and a former intelligence services commissioner, under the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. In September 2025, Prime Minister Keir Starmer ordered a new investigation into how MI5 gave false evidence, and IPCO later said it had received a Prime Ministerial Direction for the Agent X case. Its update of 17 December 2025 said a great many additional documents had been sought beyond those already provided to the Divisional Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

The case first burst into wider view after BBC efforts in 2022 to publish a story about the agent triggered an attempt by the Attorney General’s office to block publication. By July 2026, the fallout had widened further: a secret inquiry by MI5’s watchdog concluded the service knew the agent it defended in court was misogynistic and “obsessed” with violence. An appeal for information was also sent to all MI5 staff, underlining how far the affair had spread inside Thames House.

The Centre for Women’s Justice welcomed the probe and said the service’s false evidence was unacceptable. Even so, the record still points to investigation rather than consequence, with the central question now resting on Goldring’s findings: whether senior MI5 figures will face any sanction, and whether the service will be forced into reforms that make it harder for intelligence claims to mislead judges again.