An alleged Russian spy was questioned by British intelligence workers over whether he had met Donald Trump, his lawyers claim.
The Afghan refugee, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was accused of acting as an agent for the GLU, the Russian military intelligence service.
The individual, known as C2, previously held high-clearance roles in GCHQ and MI6 before he was stripped of his British citizenship in 2019.
He is appealing against the decision in a hearing before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
A court heard on Friday how C2 was invited to a meeting in a London hotel in 2019 with a man called “Robert”, who said he worked for the British intelligence services, and another called “Andy”, who worked for the FBI.
At this point, C2 was based in Afghanistan and no longer working for a UK government agency – but still had British citizenship.
The two men took him to the roof of the hotel and told him that “everything was fine” but that he would need to take a lie detector test.
‘I’d failed the test’
Robert Palmer KC, representing C2, said: “He had a three to four hour polygraph test.
“And then the slightly obscure suggestion was put to him of signals being issued to him from Moscow.”
Mr Palmer then said the men went “on to ask whether he worked for Russian Intelligence Services … whether he had met Donald Trump – he hadn’t.”
Reading C2’s witness statement, Mr Palmer said: “They asked the question [whether he worked for GLU] in about 10 different ways.
“It was decided I’d failed the test … it was my last chance to tell them everything.”
Later in 2019, C2 was informed he would be stripped of his British citizenship.
However, C2’s legal paperwork claims he was evacuated from Afghanistan by the UK two years later, when the country was captured by the Taliban.
Representing the Government, Rory Dunlop KC pointed to a dozen holes and inconsistencies in C2’s account.
He told the hearing: “What I submit is that C2 is not a credible witness. He’s told multiple lies to you and others, his evidence is misleading and implausible.”
“His evidence in relation to several issues is internally misleading or implausible.”
Mr Justice Jay reserved judgment. He asked the barristers to inform him if they would like to make further written submissions following the result of Shamima Begum’s appeal.