Entertainment
Government trying to stop BBC airing story identifying ‘dangerous extremist and misogynist agent’
The individual in question is allegedly an MI5 agent (Picture: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)
The Government is trying to prevent the BBC from airing a story about an alleged MI5 agent who is said to be a ‘dangerous extremist and misogynist’.
It has emerged that Attorney General Suella Braverman is seeking an injunction to block the broadcaster from showing a programme that would name a man who is a covert human intelligence source (Chis) and who allegedly abused two women.
In a ruling delivered in writing on Thursday, Mr Justice Chamberlain outlined that the BBC production would include allegations that the man in question, referenced as ‘X’, is a ‘dangerous extremist and misogynist who physically and psychologically abused two former female partners’.
He said that he programme would also mention ‘that X is also a covert human intelligence source – variously referred to as a “Chis” or an “agent” – for the Security Service (“MI5”), that X told one of these women that he worked for MI5 in order to terrorise and control her, and that MI5 should have known X’s behaviour and realised that it was inappropriate to use him as a Chis’.
The judge explained that the Attorney General’s stance was that she can neither confirm nor deny whether X is or was a Chis other than in closed proceedings.
Closed proceedings refer to hearings that take place behind closed doors, attended by special advocates – who are security-cleared lawyers – who represent the BBC’s interests.
‘When the hearing takes place, the public will be informed about many of the important aspects of this case,’ the judge said (Picture: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)
‘She submits, however, that, irrespective of the truth of the allegation, the BBC’s proposed broadcast would involve a breach of confidence or false confidence, create a real and immediate risk to the life, safety and private life of X, and damage the public interest and national security,’ he said.
A hearing about the injunction is due to take place at the High Court in London next week, with Mr Justice Chamberlain saying that it is in the interests of open justice for portions of the hearing to be held in public, despite lawyers for Ms Braverman previously requesting for the rest of the hearing – other than the closed proceedings – to be held ‘wholly or substantially’ in private.
The judge stated that the Attorney General has no objection to the BBC broadcast making reference to allegations concerning MI5’s use and management of agents as well as the allegations about X, without specifically identifying the aforementioned individual as an alleged MI5 agent.
‘The Attorney has not convinced me that there is a sufficiently compelling reason for departing from the principle that “open” proceedings take place in public (the “open justice principle”). This means that, when the hearing takes place, the public will be informed about many of the important aspects of this case, apart from the identity of X,’ he said.
The judge referenced information reported in a Daily Telegraph article (Picture: Carl Court/Getty Images)
In his ruling, the judge mentioned the fact that the story was first reported by the Daily Telegraph in January, quoting an ‘unnamed source’ in the report.
He outlined that following the publication of the article, ‘the information, including the quotations and reporting from the “source”, is now in the public domain’, as well as being ‘very widely reported in other press and media outlets’, as he added: ‘The question of damage to national security which might flow from a broadcast about X’s conduct which does not identify X has to be considered against that background.’
The judge explained that after receiving a witness statement from a government lawyer, there was no evidence to dismiss the notion that the source in the article could be a government source.
‘Whether that person was acting with authority, and if so whose authority, is not a matter on which any reliable conclusion can be drawn at this stage,’ he said.
‘But the evidence … certainly does not establish that the statement was made ‘without authority’ if that phrase is to be given any meaningful content.’
He emphasised the relevance this had on the Attorney’s application for privacy, saying that whether or not a government source was acting ‘with or without authority’, the fact that they appear to have ‘briefed the press about this case has an impact on the extent to which it is “necessary to sit in private to secure the proper administration of justice”’.
He continued: ‘It would in principle be unfair to allow one party to put its own ‘spin’ on a case without allowing the other party to put before the public even the basic factual elements of its defence.’
More: BBC
When the judge delivers his ruling on the injunction, there will be both an open judgement made public, as well as a closed judgement solely for the Attorney General’s legal team and special advocates.
With the hearing due to be heard on March 1 and 2, partly under a closed procedure and partly open to the public, a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s office said: ‘We respect the court’s judgement.’
Got a story?
If you’ve got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the Metro.co.uk entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@metro.co.uk, calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we’d love to hear from you.
