Tweet
MI5 deceived MPs by claiming London's 7/7 bombers had not been identified before the attacks, a court has heard.In May 2006 the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) said security agencies had not identified the men.
But a second ISC report in 2009 said MI5 held records relating to ringleader Mohammad Sidique Khan, the court heard.
The claims were made at a hearing to decide the format of inquests into the deaths of those killed in 2005.
Khan and three other suicide bombers killed themselves and 52 innocent people when they detonated their devices on three Tube trains and one bus.
Broad-ranging investigation
The coroner, Lady Justice Hallett, is holding a three-day hearing at the royal Courts of Justice in London to decide what form the inquests - expected to start in October - should take.
Lawyers for the families of those who died argue that they should include a broad-ranging investigation of whether the authorities could have prevented the attacks.
Patrick O'Connor QC, counsel for four of the bereaved families and 15 survivors, said: "The last time MI5 was accused of deception... the ceiling seemed to fall in, as if MI5 is incapable of deception.
"They aren't, and they deceived the ISC."
Deeply undermined
He went on: "MI5 left the ISC under this misunderstanding - and therefore the British public - for three years, thinking they had not identified Mohammad Sidique Khan before the 7/7 bombings."
He said the ISC's findings would be "deeply undermined" if MI5 had deliberately misled the committee.
Mr O'Connor strongly criticised MI5's involvement in the 7/7 case, saying the agency demonstrated flaws in its assessment policy, record-keeping and co-operation with other agencies.
He said of the second ISC report: "We submit that by contrast with its simple conclusion exonerating MI5, the material detailed in it exposes a profound criticism of MI5 and raises many more questions than answers.
"Those criticisms may well arguably become very considerably more powerful upon a proper analysis of the primary material."
The hearing continues.This article is from the BBC News website. ? British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.