HM Attorney General for England and Wales v BBC

HM Attorney General for England and Wales v BBC

MI5 and the Attorney General misled the High Court, IPT, special advocates, and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner by providing false evidence regarding NCND policy. Investigations into the false evidence were procedurally deficient and cannot be relied upon. Maintenance of NCND was unrealistic after evidence of departure was clear. Further robust and independent investigation is required before considering contempt proceedings. Guidance is given for future presentation of agency evidence, requiring compliance with CPR and identification of sources in corporate witness statements.

Parties
Claimant: HM Attorney General for England and Wales; Defendant: British Broadcasting Corporation; Claimant: Beth; Defendant: Investigatory Powers Tribunal; Interested Party: The Security Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Injunction and Judicial Review / Final Judgment With Directions
Outcome
Consideration of contempt proceedings adjourned pending further independent investigation; guidance issued; injunction varied; directions given.
Legal Topics
False Evidence, Injunctions, Closed Material Procedure, Neither Confirm Nor Deny Policy, Contempt of Court, Corporate Witness Statements, Duty of Candour
Public Law National Security Civil Procedure Human Rights False Evidence Injunctions Closed Material Procedure Neither Confirm Nor Deny Policy +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HM Attorney General for England and Wales

Claimant

British Broadcasting Corporation

Defendant

Beth

Claimant

Investigatory Powers Tribunal

Defendant

The Security Service

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Injunction and Judicial Review / Final Judgment With Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether MI5 and the Attorney General misled the court by providing false evidence regarding NCND policy
  2. 2 Whether further steps should be taken in light of false evidence
  3. 3 Whether NCND can be maintained regarding X's CHIS status

Ratio Decidendi

MI5 and the Attorney General misled the High Court, IPT, special advocates, and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner by providing false evidence regarding NCND policy. Investigations into the false evidence were procedurally deficient and cannot be relied upon. Maintenance of NCND was unrealistic after evidence of departure was clear. Further robust and independent investigation is required before considering contempt proceedings. Guidance is given for future presentation of agency evidence, requiring compliance with CPR and identification of sources in corporate witness statements.

Court Disposition

Consideration of contempt proceedings adjourned pending further independent investigation; guidance issued; injunction varied; directions given.

Orders

  • A further robust and independent investigation to be carried out under the auspices of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
  • All materials made available to the court to be provided to the new investigation.