Latest news with #contempt
The Independent
8 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
‘Premature' to decide whether MI5 should face contempt probe, judges rule
MI5 could still face contempt of court proceedings over incorrect evidence provided in a bid for an injunction against the BBC pending the outcome of an investigation, judges at the High Court have said. In 2022, then-attorney general Suella Braverman went to the High Court to stop the broadcaster airing a programme that would name a man who has allegedly abused two women and is a covert human intelligence source. An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme and the key issues, without identifying him. But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals, for not being fully transparent with the court, had been met. In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'. The senior judge said that the new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies. 'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.' The written witness evidence, now accepted to have been false, said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) the identities of intelligence sources. However, MI5 disclosed X's status to a BBC reporter, but then said it had kept to the NCND policy. Lawyers on behalf of MI5 apologised earlier this year and carried out two investigations, which concluded the false evidence was given due to a series of mistakes with no deliberate attempt by any staff member to mislead. In Wednesday's 26-page ruling, the three judges said they were not 'satisfied' with the investigations or their conclusions. They added: 'It is regrettable that MI5's explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way — and only following the repeated intervention of the court.' In the programme about X, the BBC alleged the intelligence source was a misogynistic neo-Nazi who attacked his girlfriend, referred to by the pseudonym Beth, with a machete. Beth is bringing related legal action in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), with the judges finding on Wednesday that the specialist tribunal – which investigates allegations against the UK intelligence services – was also misled. Baroness Carr later said: 'Whilst we accept the genuineness of the apologies proffered on behalf of MI5, the fact remains that this case has raised serious issues. 'MI5 gave false evidence to three courts. This was compounded by inadequate attempts to explain the circumstances.' Following the ruling, MI5 director-general Sir Ken McCallum said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings. 'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. 'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court. 'MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress. 'MI5's job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.' A BBC spokesperson said: 'We are pleased this decision has been reached and that the key role of our journalist Daniel De Simone in bringing this to light has been acknowledged by the judges. 'We believe our journalism on this story has always been in the highest public interest.'
Telegraph
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
High Court orders investigation into MI5 over false evidence
MI5 could still face contempt of court proceedings over incorrect evidence provided in a bid for an injunction against the BBC, judges at the High Court have said. In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'. In 2022, Suella Braverman, the then-attorney general, went to the High Court to stop the BBC airing a programme that would name a man who had allegedly abused two women and was a covert human intelligence source. An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme without identifying him. But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals for not being fully transparent with the court had been met. On Wednesday, Baroness Carr said that a new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The written witness evidence, now accepted to have been false, said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying the identities of intelligence sources. However, MI5 disclosed X's status to a BBC reporter, but then claimed it had maintained its policy of neither confirm nor deny. Lawyers on behalf of MI5 apologised earlier this year and carried out two investigations, which concluded the false evidence was given due to a series of mistakes, with no deliberate attempt by any staff member to mislead. 'Serious procedural deficiencies' In Wednesday's 26-page ruling, the three judges said they were not 'satisfied' with the investigations or their conclusions. Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies. 'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.' They added: 'It is regrettable that MI5's explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way – and only following the repeated intervention of the court.' In the programme about X, the BBC alleged the intelligence source was a misogynistic neo-Nazi who attacked his girlfriend, referred to by the pseudonym Beth, with a machete. Beth is bringing related legal action in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, with the judges finding on Wednesday that the specialist tribunal – which investigates allegations against the UK intelligence services – was also misled. Baroness Carr later said: 'Whilst we accept the genuineness of the apologies proffered on behalf of MI5, the fact remains that this case has raised serious issues. 'MI5 gave false evidence to three courts. This was compounded by inadequate attempts to explain the circumstances.' Full and unreserved apology Following the ruling, Sir Ken McCallum, the MI5 director-general said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings. 'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. 'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court. 'MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress. 'MI5's job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.' A BBC spokesman said: 'We are pleased this decision has been reached and that the key role of our journalist Daniel De Simone in bringing this to light has been acknowledged by the judges. 'We believe our journalism on this story has always been in the highest public interest.'
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Premature' to decide whether MI5 should face contempt probe, judges rule
MI5 could still face contempt of court proceedings over incorrect evidence provided in a bid for an injunction against the BBC pending the outcome of an investigation, judges at the High Court have said. In 2022, then-attorney general Suella Braverman went to the High Court to stop the broadcaster airing a programme that would name a man who has allegedly abused two women and is a covert human intelligence source. An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme and the key issues, without identifying him. But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals, for not being fully transparent with the court, had been met. In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'. The senior judge said that the new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies. 'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.' Following the ruling, MI5 director-general Sir Ken McCallum said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings. 'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. 'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court.'
Malay Mail
2 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Who's who if AGC proceeds with committal proceedings against senior lawyer Shafee Abdullah — Hafiz Hassan
JULY 1 — In the case of Lokman Noor Adam v AG v Lokman Noor Adam [2020], the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had issued Lokman Noor Adam with a notice to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be taken against him for, allegedly, threatening a witness in an ongoing criminal trial both in a video interview he had given and in a police report he had lodged. It was alleged that Lokman's actions also constituted a threat to other witnesses coming forward to testify at the trial. Following the expiry of the show cause notice, the Attorney General (AG) successfully obtained an ex parte order of court granting him leave to commence committal proceedings against Lokman. Lokman applied to set aside the order, raising various arguments including that: (a) only the court had the power/jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice under Order 52 rule 2B of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) and not the MACC; and (b) the show cause notice was not a step by step procedure but should have been issued together or simultaneously with the AG's ex parte leave application. High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah (as he then was) dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte leave order. The learned judge ruled as follows: (1) In committal proceedings under Order 52 ROC, the court is only invoked at the stage when application for leave to file committal proceedings is made under Order 52 rule 3 ROC. Accordingly, the notice to show cause under rule 2B may be issued by a party other than the court itself. (2) The procedure from rule 2B onwards is intended to be a step by step procedure. The notice to show cause under rule 2B has to be served first before application to court for leave to commence committal proceedings was made under rule 3. Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned High Court judge, Lokman appealed to the Court of Appeal (COA). The COA heard lengthy submissions, took the view that there were no merits in the appeal and that there were no appealable errors. COA judge Ahmad Nasfy, who delivered the judgement of the court, said: 'The High Court was correct to reach the conclusion that rule 2B pertains to the step by step process in securing leave.... [P]rior to leave, notice must be given to the proposed contemnor an opportunity to show cause and that service of the notice must be effected personally... [T]he interpretation [of rule 2B] by the learned High Court judge is correct [with] which we agree. 'The learned High Court judge had correctly dismissed the application to set aside the order granting leave. Therefore, we unanimously dismissed this appeal.' Guess who the opposing counsels were before the COA. They were Muhammad Shafee Abdullah for Lokman and Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar for the AG. The latter is the current AG. Now, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has been reported to have given Shafee Abdullah seven days to explain remarks he made likening a court proceeding to 'a Nazi-Germany kind of hearing', which the AGC claims amounts to contempt of court. The seven days to explain is in a show-cause notice reportedly sighted by the New Straits Times. The notice is a step by step procedure under rule 2B above which has to be served first before application to court for leave to commence committal proceedings is made under rule 3 of Order 52 ROC. If the AGC proceeds with committal proceedings, it will pit Dusuki against Shafee not as counsels but as applicant against alleged contemnor. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Malay Mail
7 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Federal Court dismisses Maria Chin's bid to appeal Shariah contempt proceedings
PUTRAJAYA, June 26 — Former Petaling Jaya Member of Parliament Maria Chin Abdullah cannot proceed with her appeal in the Federal Court to challenge the Court of Appeal's decision in denying her leave to challenge a show-cause notice issued by the Shariah High Court for contempt. This followed today's decision by a three-member bench of the Federal Court, consisting of Justices Datuk Nordin Hassan, Datuk Abu Bakar Jais and Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, in dismissing Maria's application to obtain leave to appeal against the appellate court's decision. Justice Nordin, who chaired the bench, said there was no novel issue warranting the Federal Court to hear and determine her appeal. He said the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Shariah Court and Civil Courts under Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution was made clear in previous court cases, including a recent one on a woman's challenge against her religious status. He said Maria failed to meet the threshold requirement under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. The Shariah High Court had issued the show cause notice in 2019 after Maria, 68, commented on the court's decision to impose a prison sentence on Emilia Hanafi, the former wife of businessman SM Faisal SM Nasimuddin. Faisal, through his lawyers, had sought leave to initiate contempt proceedings against Maria at the Shariah High Court, and his request was granted by the court. A show cause notice was subsequently issued to Maria in 2019, requiring her to explain why she should not be held in contempt for criticising the Shariah High Court's decision. Maria then sought leave to commence a judicial review application in the Civil High Court in 2021, naming the then Minister of Religious Affairs Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri, the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP), and the Federal Territories Shariah Judiciary Department as respondents. On Aug 22, 2022, the Civil High Court granted her leave to commence the judicial review, but this decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal on Nov 27 last year when it allowed an appeal by the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC). In April 2022, the Shariah High Court sentenced Maria to seven days in prison for contempt. Maria, however, did not attend the hearing as she was hospitalised at the time. Meanwhile, lawyer Datuk Akberdin Abdul Kader, who held a watching brief for Faisal today, told the media that Maria has to go back to the Shariah Appeals Court for her appeal against the sentence. In today's proceeding, Senior Federal Counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly @ Arwi and Federal Counsel Mohammad Sallehuddin Md Ali appeared for the Attorney-General/s Chamber, while lawyers Rosli Dahlan and Bahari Yeow Tien Hong represented Maria. Lawyers Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar and Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla held a watching brief for MAIWP. — Bernama
