Victims Condemn Secret Hearings in Spycops Public Inquiry

Spycop victims accuse Inquiry of misreading public mood over secret hearings, and call for review of anonymity orders granted to former undercover offices, and for no more secret hearings.

Victims of political undercover policing are angry that the Undercover Policing Public Inquiry announced last week that it had just heard evidence from five former undercover police officers in secret.

The Inquiry was set up following the revelation that a unit of Metropolitan Police officers had secretly infiltrated and targeted over 1000 mostly left-wing organisations and campaigns for over 40 years, committing many abuses along the way.

The five officers, known only by numbers, who served in the 1970s and early 1980s, gave evidence before Inquiry Chair, Sir John Mitting. All the victims and their lawyers were excluded and it can only be guessed which representatives of the state attended.

Such is the extent of the secrecy that the Inquiry will not even give reasons for the hearings nor explain how they will work. Members of the public will not even get to know if evidence is given about them, which is of concern given previous mis-characteristions of groups by other undercover officers at open hearings.

Hence, a number of unknown former police spies have just given secret evidence to a public inquiry about unknown organisations and activities they had secretly targeted.

Victims designated as ‘core participants’ by the Inquiry say that denying them access is a betrayal of the need for fundamental openness within this public inquiry. Once again, they see an undermining of trust in the fairness of of Mitting.

One of the core participants, Lois Austin,pointed out:

“These officers were given anonymity years ago. Given all we have learned about the process and abuses, that anonymity needs to be reviewed immediately. These officers were involved in a unit that abused people and democracy, running unchecked for forty years.

“The idea that any of them are at any kind of risk is simply ridiculous and we do not buy the police line. As far as we are concerned this is all about the police trying to protect senior officers. By contrast, when evidence is given live we get remarkable insight into the institutional sexism and racism of these state-sanctioned units.”

The campaigners’ anger has been exacerbated by the release last month of the real name of undercover officer Vincent Harvey. As “Vince Miller” he was undercover in the 1970s, where he used his position to target women for sexual relationships.

It has since transpired that Harvey went on to become a high ranking officer and a Director of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Core participants were not given the chance to question him when he gave evidence earlier this year.

Core participant Donal O’Driscoll said:

“It boils down to the State protecting a senior officer. We were denied the right to put important questions to Mr Harvey when he gave evidence. Our worry is how much this pattern is repeating now. With this unnecessary secrecy, how many other important facts are being covered, what further miscarriages of justice are being buried?”

‘Jane’ one of the women targeted for relationships, added:

“These officers, who are having all their evidence heard in secret by the inquiry, spied improperly on people participating in legitimate political protest groups – this has been demonstrated by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal’s recent judgment against the Metropolitan Police in the Kate Wilson case.

“The Inquiry, in the light of this far reaching and extremely critical judgement of undercover policing, has to stop this approach of secrecy and protecting the police. The broad sweeping tactic of sending in undercover officers into the lives of people participating in left-wing politics has been shown to be wrong in the IPT.

The whole sorry debacle of political undercover policing has to be exposed, and the citizens, who have had their right to participate in politics violated, deserve to have the whole truth of what has happened to them.”

 

---

Notes:

1. The five undercover officers have the ‘nominals’ HN21; HN41; HN109; HN302, and HN341. Other than that they served during the period 1968-1982, little else is known of them, though one may have had a relationship with a civilian woman, and others are likely to have stolen identities from dead children.

2. The Undercover Policing Inquiry was set up in 2014 by then-Home Secretary Theresa May. It is on track to be one of the biggest and longest public inquiries in history, beset by numerous delays. It began hearing evidence in November 2020, and held a second set of evidence hearings in April 2021. It is expected to conclude around 2026. Campaigners have long pointed to its bowing to excessive police demands for secrecy as the root of its problems.