The public inquiry into Britain’s political secret police is publishing more names of undercover officers. Despite this, their list of known spycops is incomplete.

Is this is a catalogue of innocent incompetence despite spending £17m? Or deliberate obfuscation to protect the wrongdoers whose deeds the Inquiry exists to expose?

Whichever, it adds to the list of obstructions that have been the hallmark of this Inquiry.

TOO LITTLE TOO LATE

Last week the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI) named the officer previously known as HN78. ‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’ is the only known black officer in the history of Britain’s political secret police. He spied on Stephen Lawrence’s family campaign as part of his infiltration of the Socialist Workers Party and Anti-Nazi League between 1991 and 1995.

There are known to have been at least 139 undercover officers in the 50 year history of the spycops units the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) & National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU). Lewis is the 26th to have infiltrated the Socialist Workers Party, which means – even ignoring all as-yet unnamed officers – nearly 20% of all spycops targeted that one organisation. It is, by far, the most targeted group, attracting far more attention than the entirety of the far right.

The Inquiry was announced by the Home Secretary more than five years ago and was originally expected to have finished in summer 2018. Last week the Inquiry said it is hoping to start properly in summer 2020. We expect the final report to be published around 2025.

The release of Lewis’ fake name comes more than a year after the Inquiry decided to do it. With their new natty graphics on Twitter, the casual observer might think the Inquiry was starting to become more communicative with the public whose funds it so ravenously consumes.

However, they still haven’t even published a complete list of the officer names that they’ve agreed to publish. Their incomplete list that does exist doesn’t link to any further information on the officers (not even the stuff the Inquiry has published elsewhere on the same site). It is given in order of the officers’ fake surnames, and is not interactive, so you can’t order it by year of deployment, group infiltrated, or even just first name.

THE TRUTH, NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH

Additionally, the list of groups for each officer is incomplete. For example, for ‘Andy Davey’ – the undercover identity of officer Andy Coles – it only lists animal rights groups, but his brief as given in an internal SDS document was ‘Anarcho/ Animal rights/ Environmentalist & Pacifist’.

Coles spent a lot of time infiltrating various environmental and peace groups and going on their demos. However, if people from those organisations word-search the Inquiry site for their group’s name, they’ll draw a blank and the Inquiry will never hear their testimony.

Most of the spycops on the Inquiry website have only a limited amount of groups behind their name, or some none at all (just ‘anarchist groups’ for instance).

Also, because of the organic and intertwined way many of the groups were/are organised, targeting one group meant lots of information was gathered on closely linked groups and people as well.

Organisations like the Socialist Workers Party (and their forerunner International Socialists) were specifically targeted over the years because of their involvement in a wide variety of then-current campaigns.

For a spycop, a position next to a key organiser who knew a lot of people was a goldmine, they would get insights into how things were set up and who were the key players. Chumming up with such organisers also meant that the undercover officer could ask their buddy about people of interest, instead of having to approach that person directly with questions that could raise suspicion.

FILLING THE GAPS

The Undercover Research Group and the Guardian made a list of the groups targeted by spycops but, lacking the Inquiry’s access to police files, it cannot be a comprehensive list.

We keep our post How Many Spycops Have There Been? updated as new names are revealed. It currently stands at 75 named officers out of the total of 139.

Beyond our simple list, the Undercover Research Group have collated the Inquiry’s documents that use code numbers with ‘N’ prefixes for officers. They’ve collated the information along with that of independent researchers produced a more complete rundown of the N-numbered officers.

They have also made an interactive spycops timeline that shows which officers were deployed when and into what political movements. Just imagine what a thorough job the URG could do with a decent fraction of the millions that the Inquiry has wasted. If you’d like to help them, you can donate.

The Inquiry list contains the names used by 68 officers. Fifty of the others have already been granted total anonymity, so the Inquiry will not even publish their fake name. The Inquiry is going to withhold almost all officers’ real names. This means that, even if their deeds become known, they will not be held to account.

Victims of spycops, and the wider public, deserve the truth about what was done to them. The Inquiry is more concerned with protecting abusive officers from suffering any consequences of their abuses. We should all be given the fullest information.

Here’s what we know is missing from the Inquiry’s list of Special Demonstration Squad spycops.

SPYCOPS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL BY THE INQUIRY

These four officers may be among those identified by the Inquiry’s anonymising N-numbers, but there aren’t enough details given for researchers to be able to identify them. If this is deliberate then, given that their names have long been in the public domain, it is ludicrous.

“RC”

‘RC’ was involved in animal rights campaigns around Oxford 2002-06. Like so many spycops, he was an active organiser who used his vehicle to help out, and would occasionally denounce others as spies. He was exposed in February 2016. Although researchers find it overwhelmingly likely he was a spycop, the sliver of doubt means they have withheld his full name and picture.

Full profile of ‘RC’.

“Gary R” & “Abigail L”

‘Gary R’ appears to have been the successor to ‘RC’ in Oxford. He was joined for some of the time by a partner, ‘Abigail L’. They were exposed in July 2016. As with ‘RC’, researchers are withholding full names in case of the unlikely event that they’ve misidentified them.

Full profile of ‘Gary R’ & ‘Abigail L’.

These three officers are likely to have been from the National Public Order Intelligence Unit. Though they worked in parallel with the SDS performing the same function, and indeed some personnel moved between the two, the Inquiry has been much more secretive about this unit. There is no significant information on the NPOIU from the Inquiry that wasn’t already uncovered by activists and researchers.

“Mike Ferguson”

This SDS officer infiltrated the Anti Apartheid Movement in 1969-70, and was actively involved in the Stop The Seventy Tour campaign against South African sporting teams touring Britain.

The campaign was chaired by Peter Hain, later to become a Labour MP and afterwards a member of the House of Lords. ‘Ferguson’ rose to become Hain’s deputy.

After a plan to throw smoke bombs and metal tacks onto a pitch got rumbled by police, Hain realised there was a spy and ejected a member – it wasn’t ‘Ferguson’, who stayed on to continue his espionage.

‘Ferguson’ was exposed in True Spies, a 2002 BBC documentary series on the SDS [transcript, video]. Hain is one of 200 significantly affected people who have been made core participants at the Inquiry. They acknowledged ‘Ferguson’ when granting Hain this status, yet have not mentioned him anywhere else before or since.

In 2015, ‘Ferguson’s daughter wrote an article for the Guardian about growing up with a spycop for a father – including identifying details about him – and described the impact of discovering the truth years later whilst watching True Spies. But for the Inquiry, the fact that he was outed on national TV nearly 20 years ago by his own police handler doesn’t seem to count for anything.

CONFIRMED BY INQUIRY BUT MISSING FROM THEIR LIST

The Inquiry’s list only covers undercover officers of the SDS. In their most recent Update Note, the Inquiry said it will publish a table of NPOIU officers ‘in due course’. The following four officers from the NPOIU have already been officially confirmed by the Inquiry, but they are not included in the cover names list.

Mark Kennedy aka “Mark Stone”

The NPOIU officer whose unmasking in 2010 caused the whole spycops scandal to erupt. Deployed from 2003-09 into environmental, anti-capitalist and anti-fascist groups, Kennedy deceived several women he spied on into long-term intimate relationships (four of whom – Lisa, Kate, Naomi & Sarah – have taken legal action against the Metropolitan Police and received apologies).

Kennedy worked in at least 11 countries beyond the Inquiry’s remit of England and Wales. He was arrested several times during his time undercover, and caused at least 49 people to be wrongfully convicted.

After he left the police, he continued spying on the same activist community for corporate paymasters until he was caught by suspicious comrades.

“Rod Richardson” HN 596

(Inquiry also refer to him as EN 36)

‘Rod Richardson’ infiltrated environmental, anarchist and animal rights groups from 2000-2003, as Mark Kennedy’s predecessor. He is one of – if not the very – first officers in the NPOIU. He was trained by Andy Coles, the SDS officer who’d updated that unit’s Tradecraft Manual after his own deployment ended in 1995.

Coles instructed him to use a technique that was, by then, anachronistic; stealing the identity of a dead child as the basis of a fake persona. In the online age, this became hugely risky, and it was a websearch of death certificates that led to the spycop ‘Richardson’ being unmasked in 2013.

The Met refused to confirm or deny it, much to the distress of the mother of the real Rod Richardson who had died as a baby.

In December 2016, the Inquiry confirmed that ‘Rod Richardson’ was an undercover officer of the NPOIU. His name, photo and details have been published in the mainstream media for six years, and the Inquiry has made quite a few references to him, yet because he is an NPOIU officer he does not appear in the Inquiry’s current list of names.

Full profile of ‘Rod Richardson’.

“Lynn Watson” EN34

Based in Leeds from 2002-06, ‘Lynn Watson’ infiltrated environmental, anti-capitalist and peace groups, and was treasurer of The Common Place, a political social centre in the city.

She was especially active in the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army, and there is video of her in a clown outfit arsing around in the car park of Hilary Benn MP’s office.

As well as being arrested on a couple of climate change protests, she also committed an offence under the Companies Act 2006 by filing the Common Place’s accounts under a false identity.

Her name and picture were published in the mainstream media in 2011. There was a ten-page section devoted to her deployment in the 2013 book Undercover: The True Story of Britain’s Secret Police by Guardian journalists Rob Evans & Paul Lewis.

Despite all this public knowledge, it wasn’t until 30 October 2018 the Inquiry confirmed her identity by name as it granted her core participant status. The Inquiry will not be publishing her real name.

Full profile of Lynn Watson.

“Marco Jacobs” HN 519

‘Marco’ began his deployment in Brighton in 2004, but after failing to fit in he was redeployed to Cardiff. There, he involved himself in a range of anti-war, anarchist and other causes.

In a dramatic court hearing in 2015 – presided over by Sir John Mitting who would later become Chair of the public inquiry – police conceded they wouldn’t contest the assertion that ‘Jacobs’ was a spycop. Just like his NPOIU contemporary Mark Kennedy, ‘Jacobs’ not only had multiple relationships with women he spied on but actually accompanied one of them to the funeral of her father.

As with ‘Lynn Watson’, ‘Jacobs’ had his cover name, photo and story published in the mainstream media in January 2011 and had a detailed section in the Undercover book. The Inquiry eventually confirmed his identity when making him a core participant in November 2016.

Full profile of Marco Jacobs.

COVER NAME LISTED BUT REAL NAME IS ALSO KNOWN

“Peter Johnson”, “Peter Daley”, “Peter Black” HN 43
Real name: Peter Francis. On Twitter @realspycop

“Jim Sutton” HN 14
Real name: Jim Boyling

“Mark Cassidy” HN 15
Real name: Mark Jenner

“Bob Robinson” HN 10
Real name: Bob Lambert

“John Barker” HN 5
Real name: John Dines

“Mike Blake” HN 11
Real name: Mike Chitty

“Roger Thorley” HN 85
Real name: Roger Pearce

“Andy Davey” HN 2
Real name: Andy Coles

ON THE INQUIRY LIST BUT WITHOUT A NAME

HN 89

This SDS officer infiltrated the far-right in the 1990s. He is now dead. No application has been made by the family to withhold the real name or the cover name. The Inquiry said in November 2017 that it was intending to publish both.

The last two officers to be named by the Inquiry were Paul Gray and Bobby Lewis – both over a year after the Inquiry had announced its decision to do so. How much longer we’ll have to wait for HN 89 is anyone’s guess. We know that waiting for the full truth will take a lot longer, and it will not be something delivered by the Inquiry.

We’re pleased to announce our Trade Union Conference on Saturday November 16th in London.

The one-day event will increase understanding of the impact of political policing on trade unions and movements for social change since 1968.

Over three thousand workers were blacklisted, over one thousand organisations were spied on by undercover police, and tens of thousands of citizens have files held on them by Special Branch.

Bringing together trade unionists, activists and other campaigners, this conference will strengthen our campaign to ensure the forthcoming public inquiry is not a cover-up but exposes the truth of Britain’s political secret police. It will strengthen our struggle for justice and the protection of human rights.

CONSOLIDATING KNOWLEDGE

This conference will be an opportunity to consolidate knowledge and understanding about the political secret police units and the lessons learned for political and trade union activism today, as well as building support for the campaign opposing political policing and those still fighting for justice.

Due to ongoing delays and police obfuscation, the public inquiry into undercover policing is not due to report until at least 2023, and is realistically expected to be much later. We want the conference to lead to greater involvement by trade unions in applying pressure to make the public inquiry as open and democratic as possible.

INTERLOCKING IMPACTS

Another key element of this conference will be exploring the different and interlocking ways in which political policing and surveillance has adversely and disproportionately impacted on trade unions, women, and working class and diverse communities.

For example, several of the officers who deceived women into relationships and spied on anti-racist organisations are known to have infiltrated trade unions, and their intelligence reports were passed onto the companies involved in blacklisting.

The public inquiry into undercover policing will – hopefully – begin hearing evidence in June 2020, so our conference in November 2019 will offer an excellent opportunity for trade unionists to review its progress to date and become involved with campaigning on this issue.

This date also allows opportunities to highlight the anniversary of the apology received by the first seven women from the Metropolitan Police, and the conference is timed to link to the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (25th November).

By sharing and documenting these experiences and building on the recommendations from the ‘People’s Inquiry’ of July 2018, the conference will increase understanding of institutional sexism and racism in the police and call for action to support those still fighting for justice.

The conference will be jointly hosted by:

• Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance (COPS), an umbrella organisation campaigning on behalf of many of those spied upon by Britain’s political secret police.
• Police Spies Out of Lives (PSOOL) a campaign and support group for women affected by abusive relationships with undercover police officers.
• The Blacklist Support Group (BSG), a justice campaign and support network for anyone caught up in UK construction industry blacklisting scandal.

CONFERENCE DETAILS

WHEN: Saturday November 16th, 10:00 – 17:00

WHERE: University of Greenwich Stephen Lawrence Building, Old Naval College, 30 Park Row, London SE10 9LS

COST: The conference is free, and food will be provided.

REGISTRATION: If you wish to attend, please register here.

Spread the word with the Facebook event.

If your trade union branch or organisation wants to affiliate to COPS, you can find details and a form on our Affiliation page.

An explosive new report on spycops in Scotland proves the need for a proper inquiry into their activity. The Scottish government is refusing to address the issue, so victims are launching a legal case to force them to act.

Officers from Britain’s political secret police worked all over the UK and beyond. They undermined campaigns, invaded families and violated the fundamental human rights that police are sworn to uphold. Everyone affected deserves answers, but people in Scotland are being shut out.

HALF AN INQUIRY

In March 2014 the Home Secretary announced there would be a full-scale public inquiry into political undercover policing. It came as a shock when, a year later, the Inquiry’s terms of reference said it would be limited to events in England and Wales.

There were voices of outrage. The German government officially asked to be included. Irish parliamentarians challenged ministers to do the same. A judicial review of Northern Ireland’s exclusion is underway, backed by Amnesty International. But nowhere has the objection to exclusion been stronger than in Scotland.

Many of the known spycops were active in Scotland, over a period of decades. Every known active officer was at the 2005 protests against the G8 meeting in Gleneagles.

A number of officers initiated and furthered intimate relationships with women they were spying on whilst in Scotland. Some of them took the women on special trips to Scotland purely to cement and deepen the relationships.

By the Metropolitan Police’s own admission,

‘these relationships were a violation of the women’s human rights, an abuse of police power and caused significant trauma.’

All these visits to Scotland should have been sanctioned by the local police forces. Either Scottish police were complicit, or else they weren’t told, which would be a serious breach of protocol. Either way, it warrants investigation.

The matter has been twice debated in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Justice Minister met with victims of spycops in Scotland. The Scottish government, supported by every party in the parliament, made repeated official requests to be included in the public inquiry. The Home Office refused.

POLICE ASKED TO EXONERATE THEMSELVES

The Scottish government’s response to the rebuff was as baffling as it was insulting to victims. They hired HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) – a body of career police officers – to conduct a review.

HMICS decided to put the task in the hands of Stephen Whitelock, who had worked in and alongside the posts that deployed undercover officers, including authorising Strathclyde’s deployments of the very Met officers his review examines. It was a corrupt self-investigation. Victims protested to no avail, and so it went ahead without actually speaking to anyone who was subjected to the abuses.

It got worse. When the Strategic Review of Undercover Policing in Scotland was published in February 2018, it went beyond the anticipated whitewash. Much of its content was given over to other kinds of undercover policing, information that was utterly irrelevant to the political infiltrations. It didn’t even mention officers having relationships with women they spied on, let alone what happened and who was responsible.

The Scottish government accepted this vacuous decoy of a review and said there was no need for a further inquiry.

THE TRUTH ABOUT SPYCOPS IN SCOTLAND

Earlier this year, the Scottish Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance published Political Undercover Policing in Scotland: The facts about spycops in Scotland & the questions that remain unanswered [PDF].

Written by academic Dr Eveline Lubbers, it focuses on the two main spycops units, the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU).

There are extensive details on the activity of nine officers in Scotland, their relationships, and the groups they targeted. It also covers Scottish issues affected by political policing (as opposed to officers visiting the country as part of UK or international issues) including anti-nuclear, anti-war, climate and trade union campaigns.

Additionally, the SCOPS report profiles a number of senior Scottish officers seconded to one of the Met’s spycops units. One of them, Phil Gormley, went on to become Chief Constable of Scotland.

Dr Lubbers told Bella Caledonia:

‘Our research found that Scottish officers had crucial leading management roles in both the NPOIU and the overseeing body ACPO TAM, and were as such involved in setting the agenda for the secret undercover units. Our findings confirm that the NPOIU acted on a national level, and that Scotland was within its remit.’

The SCOPS report vaporises any credibility that the HMICS report may have had. SCOPS has delivered a copy of the report to every MSP, including Justice Minister Humza Yousaf. Mr Yousaf has yet to respond.

You can download the report for free, or order a paper copy to be delivered, at the bottome of the SCOPS page.

JUSTICE FOR ALL

The spycops committed crimes, some of them serious. They were agents provocateur, lied in court and set people up for wrongful convictions. They are known to have orchestrated dozens of miscarriages of justice, and the true figure may be in the thousands. They systematically sexually and psychologically abused women they spied on. They stole the identities of dead children from bereaved families.

Every instance of these abuses should be exposed wherever it happened. Every officer should be held accountable. Everyone targeted by these officers and tactics deserves the truth, and the state should give victims all the support and opportunity for redress that they need. They, and the public, must have answers.

‘Andrea‘, who had a long-term relationship with officer Carlo Soracchi, told The Scotsman:

‘As a victim of political policing in Scotland, I seek the truth as to why I was spied upon and why my life and the lives of my family were so cruelly disrupted. I want to know who was responsible for (Soracchi’s) activities in Scotland and which of his handlers secretly travelled with us.’

It cannot be right that people violated by unlawful and unethical political policing in England and Wales have a judge-led inquiry, whilst those in Scotland get nothing at all.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

Tilly Gifford, an activist targeted by political secret police in Scotland, is bringing a legal case to compel the Scottish government into having a credible inquiry into spycops in Scotland.

She has launched a crowdfund appeal for the costs. Please share the link and, if you can afford it, contribute.

On 25^th March, the Undercover Policing Inquiry will hold its second hearing into how it is affected by the General Data Protection Regulations – GDPR.

It’s more than five years since the Inquiry was announced and we are still quibbling over legal points that require specialist barristers to be brought in. The evidence-hearing phase, arguably the most import section, has been put back yet again, probably to 2020.

From the beginning, those spied on have consistently demanded to see their Special Branch files. Only then would it be possible to understand how the undercovers infiltrated their personal lives, and in too many cases, people’s beds, or destroyed their ability to get jobs.

Sir John Mitting, the Chair of the Undercover Policing Inquiry, has replied, saying it would be too much work and would delay the inquiry further. It’s a slap in the face to all who have waited through years of wilful police delays, which Mitting has readily acquiesced to. Indeed, many find it grimly ironic that he is now talking about wasting resources given the amount squandered on police anonymity orders.

The Non-Police/State Core Participants (NPSCPs), the victims in all this, are treated as second class people. They object to police and ex-police being given access to their files while not knowing what personal content is in there, or how accurate it may be. They object to the Inquiry deciding what is and what is not important in those files and thus what the victims will get to see.

Challenging the Secrecy

From the few released Special Branch files it’s clear that political undercover police misinterpret events, they exaggerate, and they lie. People’s lives are ruined on the basis of biased or false information.

What the Inquiry proposes, is that the people whose files are at the centre of things will be the last to see that material, and even then only part of it – that is, only those bits the Inquiry decides is relevant to its work. The NPSCPs only get a say over how some of it is made public, and even then only after everyone else has had a go first. From the NPSCPs’ point of view, what Mitting is proposing will only increase the emotional stress many of them are already currently subject to.

So, last year, the NPSCPs raised the point that under the new GDPR regulations they did actually have rights over their data in the hands of the Inquiry, and such rights were over all such data, not just what the Inquiry decided was important. What matters is not what the Inquiry wishes but what are the rights protected in law.

The Inquiry clearly realised there was an issue as they quickly ordered a hearing. That took place at the end of January, and it was a bit of a shambles. Only the NPSCPs’ lawyers effectively grasped the issues, necessitating a second hearing to address the legal points that had been raised.

The rest of this article sets out the legal points which will be discussed (links to all submission documents are here). Hopefully, it will assist anyone seeking to follow the arguments on the day and give a quick reference to the various paragraphs and articles which will be cited.

Welcome to the GDPR

The GDPR has a number of articles which set out conditions for processing data, rights over that data and what exceptions to those rights and conditions which may exist. The Data Protection Act 2018 codes all this into UK law, updating previous acts. The regime is tougher and more comprehensive than previous legislation; it is also relatively new, which means interpretation of the finer points still have to be worked out in the courts. Some reliance can be placed on previous case law arising from the 1998 Data Protection Act, but it does not always apply.

There is also the issue of what sort of body the Undercover Policing Inquiry is. It is not a court but is in fact established by a piece of stand-alone legislation, the 2005 Inquiries Act. It may seem like semantics, which for the most part such discussions are, but in this case it is an important question.

So, the GDPR Articles of most relevance for the hearing of 25^th March are:

• 13: Information to be provided where personal data are collected from the data subject.
• 14: Information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject.
• 15: Right of access by the data subject.

Several others which might play a role are Articles 16 (the right to correct), 17 (the right to be forgotten) and 18 (the right to restrict processing). These are not likely to be a focus of attention as it is accepted by core participants that to get to the truth, the Inquiry and those involved need to have access to the information gathered by the police as it was, in order to understand the abuses that went on.

A particular complication is how to share documents where more than one person is named. In some cases – such as a small, tight group where everyone knew everyone else – this is not likely to be that much an issue. However, quite a few documents name multiple people, not all of whom will know each other. In the jargon, this is called ‘third party rights’, and can be used to restrict material, for example where giving you your data may cause a third party’s data to be revealed. In this case, you both lose out.

This becomes more focused when looking at what is called ‘special category’ data. This is material considered sensitive and of a highly personal nature – family life, addresses, sexuality and so on. Even political opinions are caught here. It is a balancing exercise, but NPSCPs are aware such material is in police documents, and the prospect of further sharing of them without a chance to check over it is compounding their violation and pain. For this reason, the Inquiry is becoming part of the problem.

Exemptions from Disclosure

The files, whether personal files, intelligence reports, or others, all fall under Article 14 as the Inquiry is processing data it got from the police. Under normal conditions the Inquiry would be required to give the data subjects notice and what data it holds before it can process it, such as passing it on to retired police officers. However, there are exceptions, two of which the Inquiry seems keen to rely on.

Clause 5(b) of Article 14, ‘the paragraph 5 exemption’, says that the data controller (in this Inquiry, Mitting) is exempt from his obligations if ‘the provision of such information proves impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort’. However, it is still required to protect the data rights of the individuals.

The second is known as ‘paragraph 7(2)’, and comes from the Data Protection Act 2018. The Act states the data controller can claim an exemption from complying with the data rights where complying would ‘prejudice the proper discharge’ of the function the data is being processed for. Provided that function is ‘designed to protect members of the public against dishonesty, malpractice or other seriously improper conduct’ and is ‘of a public nature, and is exercised in the public interest’.

The extent to which the Inquiry can rely on these two exemptions are central points for the Inquiry’s hearing on March 25^th.

Both the Inquiry and, unsurprisingly, the police say they can rely on them, and furthermore they are ‘blanket exemptions’ which cover all cases. So if and when the Inquiry decides they are available to it to use, then it’s effectively game over. The Information Commissioner’s submissions say that the Inquiry can rely on them, but they are not blanket exemptions.

Victims Claim Their Rights

The NPSCPs say it is far more nuanced than that, and even where the exemptions apply, it is only on a case-by-case basis, and does not excuse the Inquiry from all its rights. There are measures it can and should be taking which will alert people to the fact that they may be named in documents – for example through their presence at a certain meeting, or role in a group.

The NPSCPs are also emphatic that they should be seeing their information much earlier on in the process so that they can make representation over sensitive material that might be in the files (and finally get to see what has been said about them).

The Inquiry is arguing that NPSCPs should only see their files only after all the other redactions have been made in terms of national security, protection of police tactics and so on, and that early disclosure to the NPSCPs will delay getting statements back from the undercovers and their managers. This is where it is supposedly disproportionate and would cause delays.

NPSCPs say this is not good enough; it is the Inquiry’s fault for letting the police cause delays for the last three years and now this is being thrown back in in the victim’s faces. It is granting privileges to the police that it doesn’t give to those who were inappropriately spied upon, and implies the latter can be treated with less concern for their rights.

The NPSCPs also do not accept that the work that will have to be done in providing disclosure to them first is disproportionate. Looking at the greater volume of material handled by other public inquiries which also require extensive redactions, it is clear the Inquiry is overstating the impact. Nor does the Undercover Policing Inquiry make the effort to actually justify its claims. The Inquiry simply relies on broad statements with very little supporting material.

The NPSCPs want the Inquiry to succeed, so they accept compromises have to be made; but they want to be respected also. To this end they have accepted a curtailment of their rights and put forward pragmatic proposals that would have some impact on the Inquiry, but bring them into it in a way that will help the Inquiry in the long run. The core of what they propose is a re-arrangement of the order of things, not anything new.

The Judicial Exemption

There is a second route where the Inquiry can argue it is given an exemption from complying with its obligations under the GDPR. If it can successfully be argued that the Chair is not acting in a “judicial capacity” in ’judicial proceedings” then the Inquiry can say it is exempt. Simple, eh?

Well, this is where the lawyers earn their money and it all goes down the technical hill from there. It’s not that straightforward as “judicial proceedings” is not explicitly defined and the meaning of the term itself relies on a lot of case law rather than legal statute. Nor does the Inquiries Act make it clear what the case is.

So, while on the surface the Chair does appear to be acting in a judicial capacity, there are various problems. For instance, an Inquiry is not necessarily judge-led, and unlike other tribunals, it only makes recommendations and deliberately doesn’t have the power to consider liabilities. The key point is that while the Chair will report to the Home Secretary (and may make referrals to other bodies), he does not have the power to make binding decisions and has no powers of enforcement.

Any Rulings are made under the Inquiries Act and are not necessarily court derived, even though they can be judicially reviewed. But then, many decisions not just court ones can be judicially reviewed. And so on.

The good news is that the Information Commissioner agrees with the NPSCPs on this and they have put that in their submissions (see below).

The Submissions to the Inquiry

With the exception of one or two, most of the police / state submissions for the new hearing continue the bare-bones approach that lead to the January debacle. Despite the many thousands of pounds being spent on this, it is clear that barristers are prepared to rely on broad-stroke assertions that make little effort to unpick the arguments. Naturally such an approach suits the police who want to ensure as little as possible reaches light of day.

All brush any sense of nuance under the carpet; their willingness to trust it all to Mitting is indicative of how on side their they clearly consider him to be. Thus there is no attempt to actually consider the non-blanket approach, to reason through the wider obligations presented by the GDPR, which the law requires.

Even where there are exemptions allowed, data rights do not vanish like that; they still exist and so have to be properly considered. That means paying attention to the nuance to develop a working framework that meets everyone’s needs, not just the side of the abusers.

And let us remember, it was the Metropolitan Police who admitted that its officers were engaged in human rights abuses.

Victimising the Victims

The NPSCPs accept the situation is far from ideal but are willing to work with the Inquiry to find a way forward. In not asserting their rights entirely, there needs to be a quid pro quo. Unfortunately, the Inquiry is more determined than ever to keep the victims at arm’s length from the process, treating them as an irritant with little to contribute.

The NPSCPs argument is that it should be the opposite, that the Inquiry is causing itself these problems by this attitude. If instead, it sought to work properly with NPSCPs it could have avoided reaching this point in the first place.

As once core participant told us:

“We have practical and pragmatic solutions that would prevent further pain and contribute to the process, while recognising our legal rights. In sticking to the hypocritical mantra that it would only delay the process, that the police have absolute right to see everything but we only get scraps, Mitting places himself firmly on the side of the police. His farce is our pain”.

If you can, please support the crowdjustice fundraiser for women targeted by spycops to take their cases to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the UN.