Because of the ‘s revelations, which were published in February 2025, Sir Ken apologised for the false evidence.
Two official inquiries then took place which absolved MI5 and its officers of deliberate wrongdoing, claiming the false evidence was down to mistakes and poor memories. One of the inquiries falsely said other people in MI5 were not aware that NCND had been abandoned by Officer 2.
But, in July 2025, a panel of senior high court judges ruled that the investigations carried out by MI5 suffer from “serious procedural deficiencies” and that “we cannot rely on their conclusions”.
The new investigation by Sir John Goldring, which lasted 10 months, has now made a series of damning findings. Sir John is the deputy head of Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO), MI5’s watchdog and regulator.
MI5 gave false evidence, based on lies, to three courts. It also misled IPCO when it examined MI5’s handling of Agent X and concluded the service had departed from NCND with the – something that MI5 then falsely claimed did not happened.
He finds that Officer 2, a senior spy who worked as MI5’s director communications, was “untruthful” throughout and always remembered his “comprehensive departures from NCND” with me.
The report says he was at first vague with Officer 3 about whether he had departed from NCND, before later firmly telling colleagues and lawyers that he had not done so.
“He has not told the truth. He has been untruthful from his first conversation with Officer 3. His lies formed the foundation of MI5’s false account,” the report finds.
Sir John finds that Officer 3, an experienced agent handler who took over the communications role from Officer 2, “misrepresented what Officer 2 had said to him” on multiple occasions while MI5’s evidence was being prepared – a process he largely oversaw. Sir John concludes he did not act in good faith.
The report states: “He continued to say nothing about Officer 2’s initial uncertainty regarding NCND. He, as a pivotal and senior player in these events, was content for matters to proceed as they had before. Officer 3 bears considerable responsibility for the continuation of MI5’s falsehood”.
Sir John also concludes that Officer 3 “effectively shut down” the MI5 officer who led the agent handling team which managed Agent X.
That team knew NCND had been departed from, which was also evident from internal documents, but the team leader felt like he had been “put back in his box” by Officer 3 after warning senior MI5 officers about what had really happened.
Officer 3 had said he could “categorically state” that it did not happen, which was wholly false. The report finds he has not been “truthful” about the warnings he received.
It also shows that, in an internal email, Officer 3 accepted that MI5 misleading the court in the way then alleged would amount to the criminal offence of perjury.
Sir John also finds that Witness A, an MI5 deputy director who made a series of statements to the courts on behalf of MI5, Witness A “overstated the position” of what he knew about the NCND issue during an internal legal meeting.
The report concludes that a note of what was said was “misleading” and “to that extent, Witness A played a part in the continued promulgation of the false account.”
With regards to the supposedly thorough reviews last year, which absolved MI5 and its officers of any wrongdoing, Sir John concludes they did not amount to an “independent review” and were fundamentally flawed.
A panel of senior high court judges, including the Lady Chief Justice, will now have to decide whether to initiate contempt of court proceedings against any MI5 offices or MI5 itself. Given the find that lies were told, there is also the potential for a criminal inquiry.
