MI5 risks undermining the confidence of the families bereaved by the Manchester Arena terror attack by asking to give evidence anonymously and from behind a curtain, a public inquiry has heard.
Lawyers representing victims’ families from the 2017 bombing, which killed 22 and injured hundreds, complained that the agency had an “obsessive focus on secrecy” and called on the inquiry chair to insist that its evidence be heard openly.
Its testimony is widely seen to be critical to the inquiry, which heard earlier this week that the suicide bomber Salman Abedi was briefly an MI5 subject of interest in 2014 – and was associated with six others in the two years following.
MI5 has offered to put up a single witness, a senior officer known only as Witness J, during the inquiry’s public, open proceedings. But the agency wants him to remain anonymous and give evidence from behind a screen visible only to the judge.
Pete Weatherby QC, representing some of the bereaved families, said: “Allowing him to remain a mystery in the shadows in these hearings does shake the confidence of the families and no doubt the wider community, including many other survivors.”
The lawyer was speaking at a preliminary hearing of the public inquiry, which is determining how the main inquiry into the deadly attack at the end of a packed Ariana Grande concert will proceed in the coming months.
A second lawyer representing another victims’ group, John Cooper QC, said the evidence of MI5 was “absolutely crucial” and that “families should see Witness J, should see his demeanour, assess him appropriately” when giving evidence.
At previous inquiries following a terror attack, such as the London Bridge inquests, the Security Service has put up a senior officer to give evidence on behalf of the whole agency anonymously and from behind a curtain or screen, in part reflecting the fact that MI5 officers largely operate in secret.
Neil Sheldon QC, representing MI5, said the spy agency only ever confirmed the identity of its director general. It was not possible or desirable to have him give evidence, because that would divert him from “the obligations and duties that he has, in respect of national security”, the lawyer added.
MI5 also wants to be given six weeks’ advance notice of questions for Witness J from the principal counsel to the inquiry and four weeks’ notice of questions from victims’ families – far longer than the usual 14 days and seven days respectively.
The spy agency argues that it needs the extra time to provide full answers to the inquiry that do not compromise the security of its operations, but the demand was again opposed by lawyers for the victims’ families.
The time sought “gave succour to a suspicion”, Cooper said, that “there is a crafting exercise undertaken by MI5 that will not go down very well with the families” as he questioned why the extra notice was required at all.
A compromise was also put forward by Paul Greaney, the counsel to the inquiry. He suggested Witness J could give evidence where he was seen in person by the judge, Sir John Saunders, plus one lawyer representing victims’ families – although the barristers present said that in that case, each of the victim groups should be represented.
It is for Saunders to decide how to handle MI5’s public evidence. He is expected to make public his conclusions at a later date.
