We shouldn't have touched him as a CHIS
In the shadowed intersection of national security and human dignity, Britain's intelligence watchdog has found that MI5 knowingly harboured a violent neo-Nazi informant whose abuse of his partner was visible, documented, and ignored. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office concluded that the service not only failed to review the agent's suitability despite clear warning signs, but subsequently misled its own watchdog and gave false evidence to three courts. What emerges is not merely a story of bureaucratic negligence, but of an institution that placed operational convenience above the safety of a vulnerable woman — and then spent years working to discredit her.
- MI5 possessed video evidence of Agent X threatening his partner with a machete and heard him express obsessive interest in violence, yet no formal suitability review was ever triggered.
- The watchdog IPCO found a 'lack of sufficient professional curiosity' — a damning verdict that the service simply chose not to look harder at a man it had reason to fear.
- Rather than acknowledge its failures, MI5 misled IPCO during inspection and gave false evidence to three separate courts about the agent's status, compounding the original scandal with potential contempt of the justice system.
- Beth, the former partner who survived coercive control and a machete attack, was then subjected to years of government litigation designed to undermine her credibility — an experience she described as institutional gaslighting.
- MI5 has since paid Beth compensation and implemented policy reforms, but has stopped short of a full apology, and a separate IPCO investigation into the false court evidence is due to report to the Prime Minister imminently.
Britain's intelligence watchdog has concluded that MI5 knew one of its informants was a violent, misogynistic neo-Nazi — and did almost nothing about it. The finding emerged from a secret inspection report by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office, led by Sir Brian Leveson, which examined how MI5 had managed the case of a man known publicly as Agent X.
The case first came to public attention through a 2022 BBC investigation revealing that MI5 had shielded Agent X from scrutiny while he coercively controlled his partner, attacking her with a machete. The government went to court to suppress the story, failed, but secured the agent's legal anonymity — a legal battle that itself triggered the IPCO inquiry.
The inspection found that MI5 had possessed unmistakable warning signs: video footage of machete threats, openly expressed misogyny shared with handlers, involvement in movements designed to exploit women, and repeated declarations of obsession with violence. None of it prompted a formal review. IPCO concluded that strong indications of violent tendencies 'should have' triggered a suitability assessment but did not. An MI5 officer who managed Agent X later admitted plainly: 'This whole case has been a disaster for everyone, and on reflection, we shouldn't have touched him as a CHIS.'
The failures extended beyond negligence. During IPCO's inspection, MI5 misled the watchdog about its own secrecy protocols, and gave false evidence to three separate courts on the same point. A further IPCO investigation into this conduct is due to report to the Prime Minister shortly.
The human cost fell on Beth, Agent X's former partner, who endured years of abuse while MI5 looked away. When she came forward, the government spent years in court questioning her reliability and motivation — an experience she described as being gaslit by the very institution that should have protected her. MI5 has since paid her compensation to settle a human rights claim, without admitting liability. Its director general apologised for 'mistakes in the litigation,' framing them as record-keeping errors. Beth has asked for something more direct: a full apology for the abuse MI5 knew about and chose to ignore.
MI5 says it has made significant changes to its policies and practices since the inquiry. But the case raises a question that reform alone cannot easily answer — whether the safeguards meant to protect the public from the very people the intelligence services recruit have ever been adequate.
Britain's intelligence watchdog has concluded that MI5 knew one of its informants was a violent, misogynistic neo-Nazi obsessed with harming women—and did almost nothing about it. The finding, buried in a secret inspection report that only recently came to light, reveals a cascade of institutional failures that allowed a dangerous man to operate under the service's protection while abusing his girlfriend with impunity.
The story begins with a BBC investigation published in 2022 that exposed how MI5 had shielded the informant, known publicly as Agent X, from scrutiny. The man had used his position as an intelligence asset to coercively control his partner—attacking her with a machete, among other acts of violence—before the service allowed him to continue working abroad while still under investigation for abuse. When the BBC prepared to publish, the government went to court to stop the story, ultimately failing but securing legal anonymity for the agent. That legal battle, however, triggered an inquiry by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office, led by Sir Brian Leveson, which examined how MI5 had managed the case.
The IPCO inspection, which concluded in 2024, found that MI5 possessed clear warning signs about Agent X's nature and did not act on them. Video footage showed him threatening his girlfriend with a machete. He openly expressed misogynistic views to his MI5 handlers. He was involved with a "pick up artistry" movement designed to sexually exploit women. He repeatedly told his handlers he was obsessed with violence. Yet none of this triggered the kind of serious professional review that should have followed. IPCO concluded there was a "lack of sufficient professional curiosity" about him—a bureaucratic way of saying MI5 simply did not care enough to investigate further. Most damning, the watchdog found that strong indications of his violent interests "should have" prompted a formal review of his suitability as an agent, but did not.
The failures did not end with negligence. During IPCO's inspection, MI5 misled the watchdog about whether it had maintained its standard secrecy policy regarding Agent X's status. In reality, MI5 had told the BBC he was an agent back in 2020, during early attempts to prevent the investigation. The service also gave false evidence to three separate courts on this same point, triggering yet another IPCO investigation that is due to report to the Prime Minister imminently. An internal MI5 document, an interview with the head of the team that managed Agent X, captures the scale of the disaster. The officer stated plainly: "This whole case has been a disaster for everyone, and on reflection, we shouldn't have touched him as a CHIS." CHIS stands for covert human intelligence source—the formal term for an informant.
The human cost of these failures fell on Agent X's former partner, known as Beth. She endured coercive control and physical violence, including the machete attack, while MI5 knew what was happening and took no action. When she later came forward, the government spent years in court trying to undermine her credibility, arguing that the BBC's case rested on "foundations that are anything but solid" and questioning her "reliability, credibility and motivation." Beth described the experience as being "gaslit" by the very institution that should have protected her. Fighting the case, she said, had been "absolutely debilitating at times with the level of trauma and flashbacks it's caused."
Only recently has the government's posture shifted. Earlier this year, MI5 paid Beth compensation to settle a human rights claim, though it did so without admitting legal liability. In a statement to the BBC, a government spokesperson acknowledged that "the abuse suffered by the woman in this case, known as Beth, was abhorrent" and extended "sincere sympathies." MI5's director general, Sir Ken McCallum, apologised for "mistakes in the litigation" but framed them as matters of "record keeping," stopping short of a direct apology for how Beth was portrayed in court. Beth has made clear what she wants: a full apology from MI5 for the ways it treated her, and accountability for knowing about her abuse and choosing to do nothing.
The IPCO report required MI5 to address the failings, and the service has since made what it describes as "significant changes" to its policies, practices, and procedures. These changes have been tested in subsequent inspections. Yet the case exposes a deeper problem in how Britain's intelligence agencies vet and oversee the people they recruit as informants—particularly when those people pose a risk to others. The use of agents is fundamental to MI5's work, the government has noted, but this case suggests the safeguards meant to protect the public and the vulnerable have been inadequate. As the legal proceedings continue and IPCO prepares its report on the false evidence given to courts, the question remains whether institutional reform will be sufficient to prevent similar failures in the future.
Citas Notables
This whole case has been a disaster for everyone, and on reflection, we shouldn't have touched him as a CHIS.— MI5 officer, head of Agent X's management team, in internal interview
They can't be trusted because they've already lied in court and painted me out to look a certain way. But they have now done a 360-degree turn and paid compensation.— Beth, Agent X's former partner
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did MI5 keep using this man as an informant when they knew he was violent and abusive?
That's the central mystery. The watchdog found they had video evidence of him threatening his girlfriend with a machete, they knew he was obsessed with violence, they knew he was openly misogynistic. But there was what IPCO called a "lack of sufficient professional curiosity"—meaning no one asked the hard questions about whether he should still be working for them.
Did anyone inside MI5 ever say this was a mistake?
Yes. An internal interview with the head of the team managing him shows he said plainly: "We shouldn't have touched him as a CHIS." But that came only after the BBC exposed the whole thing. By then, the damage was done.
What happened to the woman he abused?
She's known as Beth. She suffered coercive control and physical violence, including a machete attack. MI5 knew about the abuse but took no action. Then when she came forward, the government spent years in court trying to discredit her, arguing she wasn't reliable. She described it as being gaslit.
Did she eventually get justice?
Partial. MI5 paid her compensation earlier this year to settle a human rights claim. But they did it without admitting legal liability. The director general apologised for "mistakes in the litigation" but framed it as a record-keeping issue, not an apology for how she was treated.
What does Beth want now?
A full apology. She wants MI5 to acknowledge not just that they made procedural errors, but that they knew about her abuse and did nothing, and then they lied about her in court to protect themselves.
Has anything changed at MI5 since this came out?
They've made policy changes and the watchdog has tested them in follow-up inspections. But the deeper question—how intelligence agencies vet and oversee informants, especially dangerous ones—remains unresolved.