The case, HM Attorney General for England and Wales v British Broadcasting Corporation [2026] EWHC 2802 (Admin), concerned a BBC investigation into X, alleged to be an MI5 covert human intelligence source, a dangerous extremist and misogynist, and to have physically and psychologically abused two former female partners, including ‘Beth’. During injunction proceedings brought successfully by the Attorney General to prevent the BBC from identifying X, an MI5 officer known as Witness A gave evidence that MI5 consistently applied their ‘neither confirming nor denying’ policy in relation to X.
It emerged, however, that this was not accurate, since MI5’s head of communications had earlier confirmed to a BBC journalist that X was MI5, and had departed from the policy in other situations.
MI5 subsequently admitted the inaccuracy, and a review by Deputy Investigatory Powers Commissioner Sir John Goldring concluded in July there had been ‘serious and systemic failings’ by MI5 .
This raised the question of whether to bring contempt of court proceedings against the officers and MI5 itself, which Mr Justice Chamberlain referred to the Divisional Court.
Handing down their judgment this week, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain said preparing and litigating contempt proceedings against the officers ‘would be a highly resource-intensive matter’.
They concluded: ‘No purpose would be served by contempt proceedings, which are unlikely to do more than duplicate Sir John’s findings. 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.’
