Attorney General wins bid for injunction to block BBC from identifying ‘MI5 informant’
Judge rules identifying ‘X’ could pose a threat to life
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The attorney general has succesfully blocked the BBC from airing a programme that would identify a “dangerous extremist and misogynist” who is allegedly an MI5 informant.
The ruling means the show can be broadcast, but only in a way where the alleged covert human intelligence source (Chis) is not identifiable.
The BBC said it wanted to identify the man - known as “X” during the proceedings - as it believed he was “a danger to women” and the information could warn those considering a relationship with him.
But a judge ruled in favour of the attorney general on Thursday, saying it could present a threat to his life.
Mr Judge Chamberlain said: “The information about X’s identity, in the context of the allegation that he is a Chis who works or worked for MI5, is - as the BBC accepts - confidential.”
He added: “The attorney has satisfied me that, if it were to become publicly or widely known, there would be a real and immediate risk that X would be killed or seriously injured. In order to address that risk, extensive protective measures would have to be, and would be, taken.
“As a result of those measures, public disclosure of X’s identity would have no significant protective effect on women considering entering into a relationship or liaison with X.”
The judge accepted the ruling was “significant interference with the BBC‘s right to freedom of expression” but said it would not prevent the broadcaster from making allegations or raising what it considers “important issues of public concern”.
A BBC spokesperson said it was not the ruling hoped for but it was not prevented from reporting key elements of its story.
They said: “It is important to understand why the BBC believes this to be such important journalism.”
“We fought the case to try to tell as fully as possible two women’s stories and their experiences with X - his abuse of them and his use of his status as an MI5 intelligence source to coerce and terrify one of them - behaviour we say MI5 should have known about and that should have caused them to stop working with X.”
The BBC spokesperson said this was because the broadcaster considered these maters “of the highest public interest”, including coercive control and male abuse of power.
They added: “The BBC also believed identifying X was appropriate because we - and more importantly two separate women, who both experienced abuse at his hands and who have never met each other - believe he is a danger to women and identifying him could warn women considering, or currently in, a relationship with him.”
Additional reporting by Press Association
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments