Latest news with #SirJamesEadie
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Grant Shapps accused of 'rewriting history' after former defence secretary says gagging order that prevented Mail revealing Afghan data leak could have been lifted... but he was the one who kept it in place
Grant Shapps was accused of 'trying to rewrite history' yesterday when he expressed 'surprise' the super-injunction had 'lasted so long'. The former defence secretary told the BBC he thought the draconian gagging order could have been lifted last summer – but the Daily Mail can reveal he was the one keeping it going. He also appeared to suggest it was judges who decided to keep the Speaker of the House of Commons in the dark. However, the Mail has the memo showing it was Sir Grant who blocked it. The super-injunction meant Mail journalists faced jail if they revealed the Afghan data breach scandal or even told anyone there was an injunction. In May last year, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled in secret that the 'continued stifling of public debate' was not justified and the injunction should be lifted. He said: 'Open justice is a cardinal constitutional principle', and warned that Sir Grant's unprecedented super-injunction would make people suspect 'the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship'. The then defence secretary responded by hiring one of Britain's most expensive KCs, Sir James Eadie, to overturn the judge's decision and prolong the super-injunction. Sir James told three Appeal Court judges in June that lifting the injunction would 'bring the house down', and they backed Sir Grant's bid to keep the public in the dark. The former defence secretary told the BBC he thought the draconian gagging order could have been lifted last summer – but the Daily Mail can reveal he was the one keeping it going as seen in a memo (above) Open justice is a cardinal constitutional principle' Mr Justice Chamberlain The secrecy went on until Tuesday this week, with the Mail and others spending two years fighting in locked courtrooms for open justice. Yesterday Sir Grant told Radio 4's Today programme he was 'surprised it's lasted quite so long', adding: 'I'd thought that it was probably going to come to an end last summer, the autumn perhaps at maximum.' Regarding whether the Speaker should be briefed, Sir Grant said: 'Who was briefed was decided by conversations with the judges', although he went on to acknowledge the judges were keen for the Speaker to be briefed. Yet an official memo dated November 16, 2023 – three months after the data blunder was discovered – records him as saying: 'I would not widen the circle by briefing others – so not agreed [to brief Speaker...].' A Whitehall source said: 'Shapps is trying to rewrite history. Everyone knows he was the one personally demanding to keep the super-injunction in place after the election was called last summer.' The database at the heart of the super-injunction scandal, seen by the Daily Mail, contains details of 18,800 Afghans Meanwhile Downing Street has defended current Defence Secretary John Healey over accusations that he misled Parliament. No 10 said his statement to the Commons on Tuesday, in which he said that 'to the best of my knowledge' no serving Armed Forces personnel were put at risk by the breach, was 'accurate'. Opposition critics have demanded he 'correct the record' after it was reported days later that MI6 spies and members of the SAS were among those named on the dataset.
Telegraph
03-06-2025
- General
- Telegraph
MI5 ‘deliberately and repeatedly lied' in agent's identity case, court told
An MI5 agent 'deliberately and repeatedly lied' after confirming to a journalist that a violent and misogynistic neo-Nazi was operating as an undercover source, a court has heard. The security service apologised to the High Court on Tuesday after acknowledging that a senior official gave false information under oath when he denied such a confirmation had occurred. A deputy director – identified only as Witness A – provided a sworn statement on behalf of MI5, insisting the agency had steadfastly maintained its policy to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) the identity of an informant. But that testimony was exposed as false earlier this year when a BBC journalist produced a recording of an MI5 agent – identified as Officer 2 – confirming that a violent neo-Nazi did work for them as a covert human intelligence source. Two investigations have since been launched to ascertain how MI5 came to provide false information to judges on three separate occasions. At a hearing before the High Court on Tuesday, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Attorney General for MI5, reiterated an apology on behalf of the agency. 'Errors had not been deliberate' He said: 'I am not here to seek to excuse or diminish the seriousness of that position. Everyone from the director-general downwards acknowledges the seriousness caused.' But he insisted there had been 'no deliberate attempt to conceal or lie', suggesting that the 'failings and errors' had been down to poor recollection, a lack of accurate note-taking and communication issues. Sir James said the court could be 'properly satisfied' that a full investigation had taken place, and it concluded that the 'errors had not been deliberate'. He said the reviews found 'there had been no deliberate misleading or lying'. But Jude Bunting KC for the BBC said Officer 2 – the agent at the centre of the case – had 'deliberately and repeatedly lied', adding that there had been 'widespread knowledge within MI5' that he had done so. He said Officer 2 had been given authorisation from senior officials to 'deviate' from MI5's usual policy. Mr Bunting also said Sir Jonathan Jones KC, who was commissioned by the Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, to carry out the external review, had not spoken to Officer 2 directly during the probe. He said the conclusion was that Officer 2 appears 'to have consistently lied', adding that it was 'very troubling'. The embarrassing episode dates back to December 2021 when a BBC journalist was investigating the activities of a far-Right extremist. After emailing the man to put the allegations to him, the reporter was surprised to be contacted by an MI5 official saying the claims were not accurate. During several subsequent telephone conversations, the MI5 officer confirmed to the journalist the man, identified only as agent X, did indeed work for them as a paid informant and even offered to arrange a meeting. He also told the reporter he had been 'legally authorised' to disclose agent X's role, suggesting the decision had been signed off at a higher level. Sir Ken McCallum, the head of MI5, attempted to get the BBC to drop the story but, when the corporation refused, Suella Braverman, the Attorney General at the time, went to the High Court seeking an injunction. During MI5's submissions Witness A insisted they had not deviated from their standard procedure of never confirming nor denying the identities of agents. The same position was maintained in evidence given to two other courts as the man's ex-girlfriend sought to expose how he had used his MI5 cover to abuse and silence her. The BBC was eventually permitted to run the story about the man's violent past and extremist mindset, but was banned from naming him. Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, sitting with Mr Justice Chamberlain and Dame Victoria Sharp, the president of the King's Bench Division, are considering what action, if any, to take against MI5. Mr Bunting said it was the BBC's position that the threshold for bringing Contempt of Court proceedings against the agency had been reached.
BBC News
22-05-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
UK's deal to hand over Chagos Islands to Mauritius can go ahead, court rules
Update: Date: 13:01 BST Title: Government lawyer says 'everybody is standing by' to sign deal Content: Responding to the High Court judge, Sir James Eadie - the lawyer for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office - says: "My instructions from Number 10 are that we need a decision by 1pm today if we are to sign today, and everybody is standing by." Update: Date: 12:58 BST Title: Agreement can be concluded today, says High Court judge Content: As we just reported, the UK's Chagos deal has been allowed to continue after a judge discharged an eleventh-hour injunction to block it. Addressing the High Court, Mr Justice Chamberlain says: "I have concluded that the stay granted by Mr Justice Goose should be discharged and there should be no further interim relief. "The agreement can be concluded today and it does not necessarily have to be at 9:00." Update: Date: 12:49 BST Title: Court says UK deal to hand over Chagos Islands can go ahead Content: A High Court judge has lifted an injunction that blocked the government from concluding its negotiations over the Chagos Islands. We'll bring you more on this shortly. Update: Date: 12:43 BST Title: Judge begins giving judgement on injunction Content: At the High Court in London, Mr Justice Chamberlain has returned to the courtroom. He is now giving his judgement over whether to continue the injunction that's blocking the UK from concluding its negotiations over the Chagos Islands. Update: Date: 12:40 BST Title: Conservatives say Chagos deal should be 'ripped up' Content: As we just reported, the Conservative government began negotiations on the Chagos Islands in 2022. But the party now opposes the deal to hand over sovereignty to Mauritius. This morning, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "The government should tear up its plans to surrender the Chagos Islands. "This is a disgraceful surrender of British sovereignty." Update: Date: 12:36 BST Title: How did we get here? Content: The Chagos Islands were separated from Mauritius in 1965, when Mauritius was still a British colony. Britain purchased the islands for £3m, but Mauritius says it was illegally forced to give them away, as part of the deal to get independence from Britain. In the late 1960s, Britain invited the US to build a military base on Diego Garcia, the largest island. It removed thousands of people from their homes. The UK has come under growing pressure to return the islands to Mauritius, with both the United Nations' top court and general assembly siding with Mauritius over sovereignty claims. In late 2022, the Conservative government began negotiations, but did not reach an agreement by the time it lost power in 2024. Update: Date: 12:33 BST Title: What is the last-minute legal action? Content: Chagossians Bertice Pomp (centre, left) and Bernadette Dugasse (centre, right) arriving at the High Court this morning The legal action was brought by two Chagossian women, Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, who want to return to live on the islands. Under both the current arrangement, and the proposed new deal, Chagossians are prevented from returning to Diego Garcia - the largest of the islands, and home to the UK-US military base. Earlier this year, their lawyer Michael Polak said: "The government's attempt to give away the Chagossians' homeland whilst failing to hold a formal consultation with the Chagossian people is a continuation of their terrible treatment by the authorities in the past. "They remain the people with the closest connection to the islands, but their needs and wishes are being ignored." A hearing on the case began shortly after 10:30 BST. As reported, the deal was halted at 02:25 this morning. Update: Date: 12:21 BST Title: Welcome to our live coverage of the UK's Chagos Islands deal Content: Owen AmosLive editor Chagossian protesters outside the High Court earlier today The UK wants to hand over control of the Chagos Islands - a British island group in the Indian Ocean - to Mauritius, before leasing back a UK-US military base on the islands. The deal was expected to be signed today. But at 02:25 BST, Mr Justice Goose granted "interim relief" to two Chagossian women who had brought a case against the Foreign Office. We'll bring you any updates from the court on this page - so stay with us.
