MI5 and chief Ken McCallum will not face contempt proceedings, High Court rules

MI5 and its director general, Sir Ken McCallum, will not face contempt of court proceedings after the Security Service admitted providing false evidence to three courts.Senior High Court judges ruled on Tuesday that it would not be in the public interest to launch proceedings against MI5, its chief or individual officers, despite finding serious failings in the handling of the case.The controversy stemmed from a successful 2022 court bid to prevent the BBC from identifying a covert human intelligence source known only as "X", who had allegedly abused two women.MI5 maintained for three years that the evidence it provided in support of the injunction was accurate before later admitting that it was wrong.Read MoreIn a statement following Tuesday's ruling, Sir Ken McCallum welcomed the decision but acknowledged the seriousness of the agency's failures.He said: "In this instance the agency I lead fell badly short."The decision follows a series of investigations into the affair. In July, Sir John Goldring, the Deputy Investigatory Powers Commissioner, found "serious and systemic failings" by MI5 and concluded that one officer, known only as Officer 2, had lied about his role in the events.At a hearing in September, lawyers acting for one of the women who alleged they had been abused by X argued that MI5, Sir Ken McCallum and others should face contempt proceedings, claiming there had been "repeated efforts to prevent the truth emerging".However, delivering a summary of the judgment, Baroness Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, said it would not be appropriate for the court to initiate contempt proceedings.Sitting alongside Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, she said any potential criminal investigation should first be considered by police and prosecutors.The judges concluded that contempt proceedings would be unlikely to achieve more than the findings already set out in Sir John Goldring's report, which documented serious failings within the Security Service.The ruling brings to an end a long-running legal battle that has proved deeply embarrassing for MI5, with judges previously finding that false evidence had been provided to three separate courts and criticising the agency's attempts to explain how the errors occurred