Tranche 1, Phase 2, Day 6

28 April 2021

Evidence from witnesses:

Piers Corbyn
Ernest Rodker

The Inquiry hearings of 28 April 2021 heard from witnesses targeted by undercover officers in 1970s London. First up was International Marxist Group (IMG) member and squatting activist Piers Corbyn, followed by anarchist and anti-apartheid activist Ernest Rodker.

Piers Corbyn

Piers Corbyn was an engaged witness, who had the measure of ‘Sir John’, as he referred to the Chair multiple times. There was a sense that he got something out of been taken back to memories of his activities in the 1970s. At times he complimented the Inquiry on bringing so much of the material on him together, calling it a useful diary of his activities.

Corbyn moved to London in 1965 to study and the first demonstration he can remember attending was for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He participated in many other campaigns and movements, and confirmed that he attended both of the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations in 1968.

VIETNAM WAR CAMPAIGNING

Corbyn was not a member of the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign (VSC) as such. However, he did mobilise people and banners for demos, and maybe even did some stewarding. He said that the war in Vietnam was:

‘a formative crisis for tens of thousands of young people at the time and I was one of them.’

He was asked if he remembered seeing any violence at these demos – to which he responded:

‘I wouldn’t say any violence was initiated by demonstrators.’

The Inquiry was interested in the make up of the VSC. Corbyn described the IMG as ‘one of the most influential’ groups involved in the VSC. He said the IMG’s role, historically, was to mobilise people and make them aware of the issues.

SPARTACUS LEAGUE & THE IMG

Corbyn became president of the Imperial College Students Union, and then the editor of a London student newspaper, The Senate, around 1970.

He also joined the Spartacus League, which he confirmed was part of the IMG, though it could be joined without being in the IMG – people would be invited to join the IMG if they ‘proved their worth’.

The Inquiry took him to a report on the Spartacus League, dated January 1972 [MPS-0732360]. As with similar meetings, this took place at Corbyn’s home in Rendle Street. The meeting had been attended by officer HN338 (cover name unknown) who Corbyn was unaware of.

On page two of the report, the author detailed a discussion about the ‘Red Defence Group’, and how the IMG could ‘take over, run and use the organisation’ in order to recruit into the IMG. Corbyn pointed out that this report was authored by a spycop, and most likely reflected his assumptions, and the police’s prejudices, rather than reflecting the IMG’s actual intentions.

Corbyn said that he was ‘always interested in getting people to join in and stay active and make propaganda’.

He said if these reports were less redacted, or he was supplied with photos, he might find it easier to recall the people and events of 50 years ago.

MERGER

A report from June 1972 [UCPI0000015694] covered a conference that took place in May that year to merge the Spartacus League into the IMG. Corbyn was asked which category of attendee he would have fallen into – a delegate, a consultative delegate, an observer, or a visitor? Corbyn thinks he may have been a delegate. The Inquiry noted that ‘visitors’ could not take part in any votes and asked if this meant the conference was open to the public. Corbyn said effectively no, you had to be invited – either via a branch or someone else.

He was then directed to look at section that covered a speech made by ‘Surgitt’ – the party name (see more below) of a female member critical of male chauvinism in the group and which got various reactions. Corbyn was asked if this was an accurate description of the speech and the atmosphere at the time. He said ‘maybe that description is a bit over the top’ but ‘those types of things were said’ – not remarking on the sexist nature of the police’s report which described it as being unconstructive and amounting to an attack on men.

DEFINING REVOLUTION

Elsewhere in the report there was a mention of ‘fraternal greetings’ from a Peruvian member of the Fourth International, a revolutionary socialist international organisation of Trotskyists seeking an international revolution to overthrow global capitalism and establish world socialism. The speaker gave a rousing speech on revolution which included the phrase ‘the Revolution will not be won until Marxist blood is spilled in the street’.

Asked about how much this reflected the IMGs own position, Corbyn replied:

‘the IMG would say – as a not very funny internal joke – “if you care to struggle, we will ‘solidimise’ with you”. This meant that they would support, which is not always the same as endorse, all kinds of people engaged in the anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist struggle.’

Corbyn said that at the time, capitalism was in crisis, so a transition to a more socialist and more democratic society was needed. He pointed out that ‘revolution’ need not mean violence but could also be taken to mean a ‘fundamental change in the way that society was organised’. The IMG was a small group of a few hundred people and knew that they could not make this kind of fundamental change in society without wider support.

Corbyn wondered aloud if he was an ‘armchair socialist’ like many others of the time, but added that he was also very keen on talking to people about all sorts of issues (citing Ireland, workers’ struggles, tenants’ and housing campaigns, etc).

SUPPORT AND SOLIDARITY

He was asked, in reference to report [UCPI000008948] to explain what ‘Red Circles’ were. These were public meetings, held in places like pubs, with a variety of speakers on all sorts of issues, and some ‘lively discussions’.

The IMG did support many groups and campaigns and did not always try to control them, he explained. Sometimes they would set up a ‘Support Committee’. From the same document, Corbyn noted they were supportive of the Claimants Union, which worked to make sure people got the benefits they were entitled to.

The report mentions a ‘perspectives’ document produced by Corbyn, ahead of a discussion about merging branches. The IMG used coded initials in case these internal documents fell into the hands of Special Branch, but the spycop submitting this report included a key to this code as an appendix.

A discussion followed about the IMG’s use of ‘party names’ – ie false names when undertaking political activity. In this context, Corbyn noted that he was under surveillance for a decade, an endeavour which was probably a waste of police time:

‘I didn’t do anything dangerous, nor did anybody to my knowledge in the IMG.’

Corbyn was next asked about the relationship between the IMG and trade unions. He explained that the IMG wanted to develop into a wider field and move away from being student-focused. When asked if the IMG tried to gain control of any trade unions, Corbyn repeated his point about the IMG offering support, rather than seeking to take control of campaigns or other organisations.

One of the common themes running through many Special Branch reports – and other related documents – is the interpretation of any involvement from the ‘extreme left’ in a movement is rarely entirely genuine but in fact was fuelled by ulterior, sinister motives.

The next report [UCPI00007940] returned to the IMG/Spartacus League in 1972 in relation to the miners’ strike. It noted Corbyn was among one of those who advocating a strong militant approach, involving the occupation of the National Coal Board headquarters. He laughed at this, and told us about his part in organising a march from Trafalgar Square to the Coal Board, and had no recollection of trying to occupy the Coal Board.

There was mention in the report of a call-out for ‘three volunteers to take part in a special task during the demonstration which would involve breaking the law’, so he was asked about the IMG’s attitude towards illegality.

Corbyn responded that he still believes that there are just laws and unjust laws, mentioning the CHIS Bill currently going through Parliament which would give yet more powers to the police. In those days, the Government was trying to limit the powers of trade unions and the right to strike, and unjust laws such as these should be challenged and broken, he explained.

NON-COOPERATION

The next document referred to is a June 1972 report and a leaflet attached [UCPI0000008798] on the subject of the Metro Youth demonstration. This was produced by Corbyn, so the Inquiry asked why he had advocated a policy of not engaging with the police in the future.

He said the police did not have demonstrators’ interests at heart, but wanted them to take a route that took them down empty streets. The group had been right, in his opinion, to disregard the police on this occasion and instead go down Portobello Road.

Developing his position, he said there were times when it was necessary to talk to the police such as times when squatting. However, as far as he was concerned, ‘we were running our own show’, they would listen to what the police had to say but we ‘had to maintain that we had the right to protest and demonstrate where we wanted’, subject to not endangering anyone.

ELECTION CAMPAIGN

He was next directed to a report from March 1977 [UCPI000017814] which noted that Corbyn was being put forward as the IMG candidate for Lambeth Central in the forthcoming Greater London Council elections. He replied he was proud to be a candidate, querying why Special Branch were interested in a local election campaign.

A further report from around the same time [UCPI0000017335] included reference to flyposting. Corbyn was asked if this meant illegal fly-posting. He said it depends, and pointed out that there was lots of corrugated iron around, and people would fly-post on it.

Given their focus on flyposting, the Inquiry seem to be considering it amounts to a serious crime, possibly justifying the undercover policing. If that is their view, then it is a transparently desperate and partisan position, especially given that spycops themselves did it while undercover.

THE BATTLE OF WOOD GREEN

There was then a discussion about the IMG’s participation in an anti-fascist demo on 23 April 1977 on Ducketts Common, which became known as ‘The Battle of Wood Green‘. This was a significant counter-Nazi mobilisation which Corbyn did not recall at first, though he subsequently remembered Tariq Ali and others ‘speaking from the back of a truck’ somewhere in Haringey.

FARE FIGHT

The next topic up was the Fare Fight campaign, referring to document [UCPI0000021485] from October 1976.

This was a campaign to not only stop the Greater London Council implementing unjust fare rises on London Transport but to reduce fare prices. It gave Corbyn an opportunity to educate the Inquiry on the campaign, which had wide support among the public.

The campaign was passive in nature and part of its tactic was to jam the legal system around fares. He was incredulous that it had been spied on, given its peaceful nature.

THE IMG ON IRISH REPUBLICANISM

The Inquiry then went back to April 1972 and a report [UCPI0000008129] about a meeting of London IMG members. In relation to this, Corbyn was asked about the IMG stance on the situation in Northern Ireland, in particular their apparent support for the Provisional IRA.

He averred that it depended on what you meant by ‘support’. He said the IMG supported the idea of a united Ireland but there were things the IRA did that they did not support. Then again, there were other things which they did agree with, such as building community groups to help the unemployed:

‘It covered a broad front of activities’.

In this context, support meant solidarity with the IRA, through solidarity with the struggle of Sinn Fein, which was the political angle of the struggle.

He was subsequently asked about his involvement in Irish support groups such as the Irish Solidarity Campaign and Anti-Internment League. Corbyn said he had supported them but not been particularly involved. He noted that republican in those days did not necessarily mean being active in the IRA but referred to people who supported there being a republic of all Ireland in general. The word had to be read in that context.

SQUATTING

We finally moved on to the topic of squatting for which Corbyn was best known for many years. He explained that he rented a place in Rendle Street but ended up taking the landlord to a rent tribunal. After this, he and his older brother Andrew took up squatting in the same area as a solution to their housing needs. Originally he thought of squatting as a hippy thing to do, but had eventually realised that it could be immensely useful. They set up an IMG ‘squatting faction’.

He was then asked about a January 1976 report which contained the Easy 111 news sheet of Maida Hill Squatters and Tenants Association [UCPI0000009509]. This led to a long discussion on the nature of the squatting struggle that Corbyn was involved with, in particular that of the Elgin Avenue squats. The campaigners there were in a struggle with the Greater London Council for housing.

However, Corbyn noted that squatting campaigns at the time often had a successful outcome in that people were rehoused rather than left homeless, particularly when it became clear that there would be resistance to eviction. It is in this sense that the following extract the Inquiry had focused on should be read:

‘Our collective organised strength and support meant that we could physically resist and in a confrontation, human justice would be on our side. So, whatever happened the Greater London Council had to lose and we had to win.’

Corbyn was asked for his views on eviction resistance. He explained that the barricades were both physical and symbolic/ political. The squatters were fighting for housing for everyone, and against properties being left empty.

The Inquiry read more of Corbyn’ comments from the newsletter and asked him about violence. Corbyn went to some lengths to explain the kind of eviction resistance that took place. Many squatters in the area would turn up and join in.

When directed to someone who was threatening to use sand and rubbish to resist and meet ‘violence with violence’, he replied that he was simply recording what people involved were saying, nothing more. It does not necessarily mean the squatters were adopting such tactics as a body.

Corbyn said he was surprised by the strength of feeling in Elgin Avenue, and how many people stayed put through that last weekend, despite the fear of eviction, and as a result they were rehoused.

He noted that he had begun squatting as a self-help housing solution and that the squatters of London were successful in that so many of them were eventually given more secure housing by councils.

ANARCHISTS – GUILT BY ASSOCIATION?

Following on from squatters, Corbyn was next questioned on his association with anarchists.
A report from April 1979 [UCPI0000021215] describes a meeting at Conway Hall on a ‘People’s Commission’.

There was a speaker from the ‘Persons Unknown’ trial (the support group which was spied upon by ‘Graham Coates’ (HN304, 1976-79) who is due to give evidence to the Inquiry all day on Friday 7 May).

Corbyn was asked if he shared aims and objectives with anarchists, to which he replied:

‘I don’t come and go to meetings based on who’s there. I come and go to meetings based on what needs to be said.’

Corbyn regarded the anarchists as part of the myriad other groups which existed at the time, including religious ones:

‘I just regarded them as people who were operating and hoped they would cooperate when we needed numbers to make a make a point, like getting someone’s gas reconnected if the gas company had disconnected them, for example.’

SPYCOP HN80 ‘COLIN CLARK’

Corbyn was questioned about his recollection of undercover officer ‘Colin Clark’ (HN80, 1977-82), who had infiltrated the Socialist Workers Party.

Corbyn admits he might have been confused when he said in his written statement about him selling the IMG publication Red Mole, and given that he did not recognise the photograph he had been shown, it might have been a case of mistaken identity. He did confirm that he remembered the name, however.

Thus, two and half hours in, the Inquiry had finally asked Corbyn about undercover policing, and that was the extent of it.

HUNTLEY STREET SQUAT

Corbyn, unprompted, brought up the issue of undercovers in the 1978 Huntley Street Squat.

In this case, two squatters, ‘Nigel’ and ‘Mary’ had come under scrutiny. During the eviction case the Under-sheriff of London admitted that the pair had worked for him, causing the judge in the case to get angry – not least because police agents had been helping build illegal barricades.

As a result, Corbyn invited ‘Sir John’ to extend the remit of the inquiry to the Under-sheriff of London. Mitting declined the invitation.

FINAL QUESTIONS

After another break, the hearing recommenced with the Inquiry asking Corbyn which other groups operated similarly to the IMG – in trying to ‘take over’ or control other campaigns.

The only example Corbyn gave was the International Socialists (later called the Socialist Workers Party) though added that, in comparison, the IMG was less controlling. He remembered anarchist groups were ‘very self-contained and wouldn’t want anyone interfering with them’ but then again:

‘the anarchist groups, to be fair, would just turn up at meetings and join into anything, so there wouldn’t be a consistent pattern with them.’

Rajiv Menon QC, Corbyn’s barrister, then took his turn, asking he had ever – during his 50 years of activism – taken part in:

‘any political activity that you consider was subversive in that it threatened the safety or well-being of the State and was intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary by political or industrial means.’

Corbyn was categorical that he had not.

Menon next asked about the accuracy of an August 1976 Special Branch report [UCPI0000010850] into squatting.

Corbyn said in reply that many of the details are correct, but the report over-simplifies things and betrays the bias of its unknown author. Corbyn emphasised that the squatters movement was much more diverse than this document suggests.

Particularly, it implied anarchism was far more prevalent than he thought it was:

‘Although squatters became political, you know, people squatted through desperation.’

The document claimed that 80% of squatters did not want council housing, but Corbyn disagreed with this. He doesn’t know who wrote this, but thought the author had a particular anarchistic perspective. He also disagreed with the report’s statement that:

‘the general attitude towards the police is one of complete non-cooperation.’

Corbyn said it was common for squatters to deal with the police as a practical matter.

Finally, Menon noted that Corbyn is surprised by the dearth of material about the squatting movement from that era among what was provided to him.

Corbyn replied that he thought that undercovers would have visited, or even moved into, the squats. He wondered why there were no reports about these places included?

Corbyn concluded his evidence by questioning why he was spied-on for all these years.

Full witness statement of Piers Corbyn

Ernest Rodker

Ernest Rodker is now 83 years old and in ill health, so an edited version of his full statement was read by his son Oli Rodker.

The Inquiry asked Rodker for evidence concerning his campaigning activities over three decades from 1968, when the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) was founded.

The Inquiry has told him he was spied on by:

• Mike Ferguson (HN135, late 1960s-early 1970s)
• ‘Michael Scott’ (HN298, 1971-76)
• ‘Jim Pickford’ (HN300, 1974-76)
• ‘Phil Cooper’ (HN155, 1979-83)
• Jim Boyling (‘Jim Sutton’ HN14, 1995-2000)
• Andy Coles (‘Andy Davey’ HN2, 1991-95)

The Inquiry has given Rodker a bundle of about 53 vintage police documents relating to him. His first response is that it isn’t complete. He has been an activist since 1958, and it’s clear that his early arrests and monitoring fed into the SDS’ interest in him.

He has seen other, largely Special Branch, material which is in the public domain, which refers to him and his activism. He wants to see all the secret police files on him.

ANTI-APARTHEID ACTIVISM

Apartheid was a system of institutionalised racial segregation that existed in South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) from 1948 until the early 1990s. It categorised people into a hierarchy of racial groups, with whites at the top.

The laws segregated all areas of life, reserving the best for whites. It affected everything from education, employment and housing to which bench to sit on or beach people could visit. Most of the population was denied the right to vote. Sexual relationships and marriages between people of different racial groups were illegal.

Rodker was a committed campaigner against the racist apartheid regime in South Africa. He was active in the Stop The Seventy Tour (STST).

STST’s immediate and principal aim was to stop the white-only South African cricket team from touring in the UK in 1970. More broadly, its aim was to make a very strong political point that people representing apartheid were not welcome in the UK.

He was active in STST throughout its existence, from 1969 until it was disbanded in May 1970 after the cancellation of the tour.

The main tactic of STST and was to run onto cricket and rugby pitches to disrupt play.

He explained:

‘We sought to impress on the South African teams the fact that as an all-white team effectively promoting the apartheid regime they were not welcome. We wanted them to know the level of opposition there was to what they stood for and for them to reflect on whether it was the right thing, practically and ethically, to tour the UK.

‘We used all classic forms of non-violent direct action (NVDA), pitch invasions being the most prominent. We understood and sought to follow the well known principles of NVDA and civil disobedience learned from recent history such as the struggles for Indian independence by Mahatma Ghandi and for Black civil rights by Dr Martin Luther King.’

He refuted spycop Mike Ferguson’s March 1970 SDS report [UCPI0000008660] which describes STST as ‘militant’, especially given the connotations of that word in that era. STST’s campaign was avowedly opposed to committing violence against people, and only in favour of minor damage to property.

Rodker ran on to cricket pitches and sat down. He remembers being carried out by security or police and being kicked by spectators. He painted slogans on the walls outside Lords cricket ground, and even these were things like ‘stop the tour’ and ‘go home’ rather than anything more profane or aggressive.

DIRECT ACTION GROUP

Rodker was also part of a smaller anti-apartheid direct action group. This was not concerned with publicity but was a small, secret group directly inhibiting South African sporting tours. He can no longer remember what name the group had, but was clear about what it did:

‘These activities included things like going to a team hotel to carry out demonstrations there. For example, in the campaign against the white-only South African rugby team in 1969 I booked into a hotel, in an affluent part of central London, overnight where the team were staying. I sat among the players in the lounge eavesdropping on them and getting their room numbers.

‘While they were still in the lounge or having supper, I may myself have glued their door locks and certainly shared the room numbers with other campaigners, who did so…

‘On other occasions we waited outside the team’s hotels, for them to get on their coaches. We then got on the coaches as well and refused to leave. We had to be carried out.’

Rodker stressed the relative restraint of the campaign and, not for the first time at the Inquiry, we heard an activist turn the inquiry’s question about violence around:

‘We were not even carrying out wanton acts like going into the South Africans’ rooms and trashing their belongings. We were doing nothing on the scale of what the South African State regime was doing to its majority black citizenship under apartheid, systematically and repeatedly, under cover of the law…

‘We did not want our principled message to be confused by adverse publicity about violence. One factor in our thinking was that we wanted to set ourselves apart from the extreme of violence which the apartheid South African regime was showing to its Black citizens.’

Campaigning against sports connections with South Africa continued beyond the 1970s, in other forms, and he remained involved in those campaigns.

‘It is worth underlining that we were effective in the sense that, in the short term, the rugby team was, we learned, keen to stop the tour and wanted to go home, as a result of our actions. In the medium term we contributed towards the decision to abandon the 1970 cricket tour plans. And in the long term we contributed to the isolation of apartheid South African from international sport, a factor in its eventual downfall.’

ANTI-NUCLEAR CAMPAIGNING

Before his anti-apartheid campaigning, Rodker had been active in campaigning against nuclear weapons. Although it’s not mentioned in his testimony, Rodker was also a founding member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

He was involved in publicising, and took part in, the first of the famous Aldermaston marches which, from 1958 onwards, opposed nuclear weapons, particularly those stored at AWE Aldermaston military. He was a member of the Committee of 100, a British anti-nuclear group of the 1960s.

It had come to the attention not only of the media, but also the police, prosecutors and the courts as a result of its high profile campaign and campaigning methods, involving NVDA.

Rodker and many others in the Committee, including the philosopher Bertrand Russell, had been jailed for planning disruptive demonstrations and civil disobedience against US military bases in the UK. Some of the evidence used against them in court had come from covert police surveillance.

As the Inquiry is limited to events from 1968 onwards, it cannot examine anything from this era, no matter how relevant it may be.

MEMORIES OF SPYCOPS

In saying that he can’t remember the spycop Mike Ferguson, Rodker once again highlighted the unforthcoming attitude of the Inquiry. If he were told the name Ferguson used undercover, shown a contemporaneous photo or told about his interactions with him, his memory may well be jogged. But the Inquiry refuses to do any of these things and thus prevents itself from fulfilling its remit of getting to the truth about spycops.

Rodker said the movement was aware that it was likely to be spied on by both British and South African state agents, using infiltrators, phone taps and more, but they would not let this deter them.

Asked about three other officers – Phil Cooper who reported on him in May 1980 [UCPI0000013986], Jim Boyling who reported on him in 1997 [MPS-0742877], and Andy Coles who ‘authored some of these reports’ the Inquiry has released, Rodker drew a blank but once again highlighted that the Inquiry’s reluctance to give him (and other witnesses) photos of officers and other information that might jog his memory.

PAVEMENT COLLECTIVE

The Pavement Collective was a grassroots community initiative, based mainly around its publication ‘Pavement’ in South West London in the 1970s. It supported and encouraged campaigns by local communities on issues like housing, race, and employment. It challenged the council on issues of housing and redevelopment, which brought it into conflict with developers. It held demonstrations at Wandsworth Town Hall on the evenings of council meetings, and asked questions in the meetings.

The Pavement newspaper was sold in local newsagents and on streets. It was a very open group with public support from the likes of Michael Foot MP (former Labour party leader), Donald Trelford (editor of the Observer). It ran for about 20 years, and Rodker was on the editorial committee throughout.

The committee was about ten strong, and not secretive. A couple of members were in the International Marxist Group, who were of particular interest to the SDS, but Rodker says of the IMG as an organisation:

‘we were wary of them and I think it was clear to everyone that our politics and interests were not the same as theirs’

Rodker notes that spycop ‘Jim Pickford’ (HN300, 1974-76) infiltrated the Pavement Collective. He is listed as one of the 13 people present in the minutes of the editorial meeting of 18 November 1976 [UCPI0000033629].

Similarly – again, without mention from the Inquiry – there’s a document [UCPI0000033631], that shows another spycop, ‘Michael Scott’ (HN298, 1971-76), was involved with Pavement sales at the time he was infiltrating the Young Liberals (the youth wing of the Liberal Party, now the Liberal Democrats).

Why were spycops infiltrating the Pavement Collective? What exactly did they do there? Was Scott’s involvement connected with his infiltration of STST and arrest at the hotel demonstration on 12 May 1972?

BATTERSEA REDEVELOPMENT ACTION GROUP

Battersea Redevelopment Action Group (BRAG) was purely concerned with development of Battersea Power Station and surrounding area.

Rodker was active in setting up BRAG in about 1972 and remained active until it disbanded more than ten years later. The core group was no more than 10 in number, and there was no formal structure.

They wanted to ensure that it wasn’t just turned into luxury flats but included affordable housing and community projects. They also opposed the council’s sell-off of social housing, believing that council developments and initiatives should be public and for the community, rather than private and for commercial interests. They leafleted, knocked on doors, and held public meetings.

And yet, for all this community-minded activity, there’s an SDS report on a BRAG meeting in December 1974 [UCPI0000015040], listing five members as extremists, including ‘Ernest Rodker (Anarchist)’, and other reports from 1975-77 [UCPI0000012093, UCPI0000012094, UCPI0000009594, UCPI0000011156] all of which were copied to MI5.

Rodker remembers suspicions in BRAG concerning one person did lead to a confrontation at a committee meeting and that person was excluded. Rodker wants the Inquiry to say if that person was a spycop. The Inquiry says Pickford also infiltrated this group.

Beyond that, he wants the Inquiry to tell him if any other undercover police officer, beyond those already named to him, were in the campaigns he was involved in. What information did spycops get from those campaigns? What was done with that information? Did any spycops attempt to disrupt campaigns? Did any spycops seek to have a genuine campaigner ejected from a campaign? What excuse is there for spycops being involved in the decision-making of small voluntary groups where every voice is significant?

VIOLENCE

Asked about violence in his campaigning, Rodker affirmed that there was a lot of it throughout his activist career, though perhaps not in the way that the Inquiry was driving at:

‘there was police violence against the Committee of 100. When there were demonstrations at the American embassy or a nuclear base, we were knocked about by the police when we were arrested or even moved from the base. Sometimes their physicality was quite severe. They dragged people by the hair, ‘accidentally’ stamping on people when trying to move them.

‘As to STST and the direct action group, I also experienced or witnessed violence. When I was involved in a demonstration in the centre of Lords cricket ground, I remember the stewards (or even members of the public) roughed us up unnecessarily when dragging us off the pitch’.

‘During the anti-nuclear campaign, in the late 1960s onwards, we occupied Grosvenor Square, Trafalgar Square, Whitehall and other sites in central London on various occasions. These were mass demonstrations, peaceful sit-downs with some campaigners linking arms and others using padlocks and chains to attach themselves to each other. It was clear to me that the police, frustrated by the task of having to remove us, lost control and used unnecessary force towards us. They punched, often surreptitiously; dragged people violently out of the way; stamped on people who were in the way of another person they sought to remove. This happened to me…’

Rodker said the police never took action against people who were violent to activists. Undercover officers have confirmed they were assaulted by uniformed police while undercover. They saw violence against genuine activists and yet they didn’t bother to report it or, if they did, nothing was done.

‘Looking back, on the basis of what we know now, it seems logical to conclude that there was a policy of allowing aggressive and violent behaviour towards activists to go unchecked.’

FOR SPYCOPS, THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL

Attention turned to two 1976 Special Branch reports containing very personal information about the birth of his son [UCPI0000012246] and a health condition of his [UCPI0000010719].

Rodker confirmed that, whilst not secret, these details would only have been known to personal friends and family. He said it was not only sinister that the reports were made, but also that we are able to see these reports at the Inquiry because they are still held in MI5’s files nearly 50 years later.

Rodker said that it underlined his desire to have the Inquiry obtain and hand over all information all spycops have recorded and stored about him, at any point in his life. Which officers did this? What did they do to get the information? What was the information used for?

THE STAR & GARTER ARRESTS

On 12 May 1972, Rodker took part in action at the Star & Garter Hotel, Richmond, to prevent the British Lions rugby team leaving for the airport to go on a tour of apartheid South Africa.

Though his memory has faded, Rodker accepts that he was the main organiser, and that the descriptions in the police reports are broadly accurate [MPS-0526782, MPS-0737087, MPS-0737109, MPS-0737108].

Spycop Michael Scott was part of the group, including the planning meeting at Rodker’s house on the day. He disputes Scott’s claim to have found out because Peter Hain’s mother told him on the phone. Rodker knew Mrs Hain well, she was security conscious and highly unlikely to have disclosed such sensitive information. It’s more likely that he found out another way and is lying in his report.

The objective was to make the players miss their flight. Skips were ordered to the hotel, cars were parked in the way, and individuals blocked the coach.

Rodker submitted a letter to the Inquiry that had been written to him a month later by a friend, attached to which was what his friend calls ‘my rather uninformative account of the events at the hotel’ [UCPI0000033628]. However, it is now vital evidence from our perspective as describes the incident, his role in it and he also describes what spycop ‘Mike Scott’ did.

THE TRIAL

Fourteen protesters were arrested and prosecuted for obstruction of the highway – including Scott. They were convicted. Scott had stolen the identity of a living person for his fake identity, so received a conviction for that real person.

It’s almost certain that Scott was party to the defendants’ discussions of how to defend their case, and what their lawyers thought. This breaches lawyer-client privilege.

More to the point, it meant that the trial was unfair. In a criminal case, the prosecution must give the defence all relevant evidence. Not only were Scott’s reports withheld, but the court was not given his testimony. Coming from a police officer, it would have been very credible indeed. It could have cleared up the disputed issue of whether the protest was blocking the public highway as alleged, or whether it was on the hotel’s private land.

Scott’s managers told him to go ahead with the trial under his false identity. Right from the first question in court, when he was asked his name, he was lying.

The police reports show no concern at all about deceiving the court and orchestrating a miscarriage of justice, only for ‘potential embarrassment to police’ if it became known that a spycop was involved.

Rodker sees this as part of a pattern that would repeat:

‘The failure to view activists as individuals with their own legitimate rights and interests and the decision to place those second to the unfettered gathering of information on them may be a precursor to some of the more gross abuses of activists that, I note, happened in later periods of undercover policing of campaigners.’

RELEASE THE FILES

Concluding, Rodker returned to the fact that he was spied on and demonised long before the SDS was founded in 1968, as the SDS themselves describe in a May 1972 report [MPS-0526782]. It describes the 14 people arrested on the Star & Garter action as:

‘anarchist-orientated extremists under the control of Ernest RODKER’. This man has been a thorn in the flesh for several years now, having had no fewer than 14 court appearances prior to 1963 for offences involving public disorder. He was considered to be a menace at the time of the protest demonstrations taking place in this country concerning the Springboks rugby tour in 1969 and the Stop The Seventy Tour in 1970.’

Rodker called for the release of all his secret police files, not only for his own benefit but also to correct false information and allow him to comment and contribute fully to the Inquiry.

The Inquiry Chair, Sir John Mitting, said that the Inquiry had done its best to give Rodker all relevant documents, but it doesn’t cover all of Special Branch, just the SDS. This contradicts the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference which state:

‘The inquiry’s investigation will include, but not be limited to, the undercover operations of the Special Demonstration Squad and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit.’

Mitting then indicated that he would be referring the Star & Garter incident to the Inquiry’s panel that is reviewing likely miscarriages of justice.

Full written statement of Ernest Rodker

<<Previous UCPI Daily Report (27 Apr 2021)<<
>>Next UCPI Daily Report (29 Apr 2021)>>

Tranche 1, Phase 2, Day 3

23 April 2021

Opening Statements from:

Heather Williams QC, representing Category F Core Participants: Relatives of Deceased Individuals
James Scobie QC, representing Richard Chessum and ‘Mary’
Rajiv Menon QC, representing Piers Corbyn
Kirsten Heaven, representing other Non-Police, Non-State Core Participants
Dave Morris

The current round of Undercover Policing Inquiry hearings covers the years 1973-82. This day was the last one of opening statements, from Monday 26th April there will be three weeks of taking evidence from witnesses of the era.

But first the Chair, Sir John Mitting, said a few words about Blair Peach and there was a minute’s silence.

Peach was a committed teacher, socialist and anti-fascist. Some 42 years ago to the day, on 23 April 1979, he was killed by police at an anti-racist demonstration in London. His partner, Celia Stubbs, has campaigned for justice for him ever since. That campaign was targeted by the Special Demonstration Squad.

We also now know that both Blair and Celia were spied on before that, though the Inquiry has not let them see any of the documents pertaining to the time before Blair’s death.

The Met’s own investigation at the time concluded Peach was killed by police, and identified Inspector Alan Murray as the likely culprit.

Yet Mitting could not bring himself to acknowledge these facts. Instead, he glossed over it, not mentioning the police and merely referring to Peach being killed by ‘a blow to the head’. In doing this, he insulted all victims of spycops and underlined his partisan nature that is draining the Inquiry of its potential to get to the truth.

Heather Williams QC
representing Category F Core Participants: Relatives of Deceased Individuals

Heather Williams QC spoke for relatives of dead people whose identities were stolen by Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) officers as the basis for their fake persona.

She is acting on behalf of:

Frank Bennett and Honor Robson, the bereaved brother and sister of Michael Hartley who died on 4 August 1968 at 18 years of age.

Faith Mason, the bereaved mother of Neil Robin Martin who died on 15 October 1969 at 6 years of age.

Liisa Crossland and Mark Crossland, the bereaved stepmother and brother of Kevin John Crossland who died on 1 September 1966 at 5 years of age.

Mr, Mrs and Ms Lewis, the bereaved father, mother and sister of Anthony Lewis who died on 31 July 1968 at 7 years of age.

Barbara Shaw, the bereaved mother of Rod Richardson who died on 7 January 1973 when he was two days old.

Williams said:

‘each of the clients experienced the death of a child; a life event among the most difficult it is possible to suffer. More recently, the families have also suffered the horror of learning that their loved one’s identity was used by an undercover police officer precisely because of their bereavement, because their son or daughter lost their life when a child. How did it start? At what level was it condoned? Were there no alternatives?’

They’ve been waiting for answers for years – Barbara Shaw found out about the theft of her baby son’s identity in 2013. She is now 80 years old, her health is failing, yet still she waits for answers.

NO SECURITY

Did the theft of identities serve any legitimate purpose? There appears no clear rationale, no justification for this repulsive practice. Earlier SDS officers, from 1968-72, simply made up names and none appeared vulnerable to exposure.

There seemed to be no change in circumstances to have made officers deviate from the practice of simply making-up identities. We have looked through the police documents released and there is no evidence for it.

The SDS annual report 1972 confirmed the advantages of using ‘a fictitious name’ that allows officers to return to their real identity at any time. The 1973 annual report talks of having had no ‘irretrievable exposure of any SDS officer’. There was no need to change the tactic to stealing real identities.

One officer was compromised in 1974 when someone who had known him as a uniformed officer recognised him in a meeting. His choice of fictitious identity, rather than a stolen one, played no part in his exposure.

Apart from ‘Michael Scott‘ (HN298, 1971-76) who stole the identity of a living person, it seems fictional identities were normal until a change of management in 1974. The rpactice continued into the late 1990s – the most recent known being ‘Rod Richardson’ (EN32/HN596, 1999-2003).

The 1990s SDS Tradecraft Manual cruelly talks of ‘finding a suitable ex person’ with a ‘natural or unspectacular death’ and the ‘respiratory status’ of the parents.

But from around 1974, undercovers used the identities of dead children and were instructed and/or expected to do so. Officers who queried this were told it was the usual process. They searched for people who had been born around the same time as the SDS officer, preferably with the same first name.

We have not been provided with any evidence that show why it happened, let alone any consideration of the damage to the families involved, and indeed police and policing. They seemed to assume they would never have to answer for it.

Police lawyers said some former officers were uncomfortable with stealing dead children’s identities but thought the families would never know. There is no evidence to show that it helped the officers in their deployments, even before we consider the ethical issues.

The National Crime Squad says none of the Regional Crime Squads they know of who had undercover officers stole dead people’s identities. So, why did the SDS feel it ‘had to’? The spycops say they were going into ‘more security conscious organisations’.

If that were true, why was there no increase in other measures to protect SDS officer’s security? One officer says his identity ‘was not particularly detailed’ as it was largely left to officers to invent it themselves, with little to no guidance. It hardly sounds like security was intense.

Another officer says ‘I made my legend’ up as I went along’ – and it was not tested by managers.

FACT MEETS FICTION

There was no imperative to steal the identity of a dead child. So where did it come from?

Frederick Forsyth’s novel The Day of the Jackal was published in 1971 and the film released in 1973, showing the practice of stealing dead children’s identities in just this way. So, rather than an official police document, was it instead a work of fiction that in fact inspired this ghoulish practice? Whistleblower SDS officer Peter Francis (1993-97) said that the process was known as ‘the jackal run’ among SDS officers.

In last year’s hearings, police lawyers spoke of the ‘essential operational imperative’ to steal real identities. While suspicious comrades might have doubts assuaged by finding a birth certificate, they would surely be alarmed to discover a matching death certificate.

There are plenty of reasons why a birth certificate might not be found (if someone was born abroad, or adopted). There are no reasons why a living person would have a death certificate.

And this is exactly what happened. Members of Big Flame became suspicious of their member ‘Rick Gibson’ (SDS officer Richard Clark, HN297), and found he was legally dead. They confronted him and he ended his deployment. (More detail on this in James Scobie’s section of this report, below).

Clark was one of the first infiltrators to steal a dead child’s identity, and it blew his cover. So why did the practice continue for over 20 years?

Fictitious identities actually offered better cover to spycops than stealing dead people’s identities. There was no justification to start the practice, and none to continue after Clark was exposed.

If security was so important, why did managers not properly prepare their officers and stop them from behaving in a way that compromised them? Why were they given so little direction and so much latitude to make up their own mission?

Very few former SDS officers seemed to have had any qualms of conscience about stealing dead children’s identities, let alone acting immorally in the dead person’s name, deceiving women into relationships, getting arrested and convicted.

One officer, ‘Colin Clark’ (HN80, 1977-82), said:

‘I knew that it would cause distress for the family if it was discovered’.

Did his managers who knew that stop to think? Did his colleagues discuss it? Were the undercovers given any choice?

Clark changed his identity using his own date of birth and a different forename. He went on to have a five year deployment without being discovered, probing that it was eminently possible to be undercover without a verifiable birth certificate.

NOT JUST THE NAME BUT THE PERSON

Another spycop ‘Michael James’ (HN96, 1978-83) instructed to visit Blackpool where the child whose identity he stole was born. The local Special Branch helped him ascertain if the family still lived there. It is hard to imagine this was a one-off. This obviously goes beyond simply stealing names.

‘Desmond/Barry Loader‘ (HN13, 1975-78) was convicted of public order offences in the name of a dead child. Was there any regard for the besmirching of good names, or the impacts on families who may find out?

The callous interference with bereaved families was consistent with the broader culture and practices of the SDS, with not a hint of consideration as to the proportionality of their actions, nor thoughts of consequences on others, and no review of efficacy or risk.
Stealing identities simply became an embedded practice in a unit that lacked accountability and effective supervision.

At the Undercover Policing Inquiry, we are seeing excessive redaction of the undercovers methods and told it is because it ‘may harm policing’. How can it do that if it is an abandoned practice from decades ago? It is the fact of the theft that harms policing. It looks a lot like yet another example of the police not wanting to admit the full awful truth of what they did to citizens and taking the Inquiry for a ride.

We want the Inquiry to check if the Met’s redactions of the evidence that damns them are actually justified, or if it is concealing for other reasons.

It also appears MI5 had helped with fictitious identities and helped with materials to support them. There is nothing to show why the SDS decided to move away from. The reason remains unexplained.

SHYING AWAY FROM THE TRUTH

Heather Williams finished her statement, but COPS adds a few additional comments about police shying away from the truth on this matter:

In 2013, Pat Gallan – then Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Met and head of Operation Herne, the Met’s self-investigation into spycops – told the Home Affairs Select Committee they had only found one case of dead child identity theft.

She said the combined efforts of Herne’s 31 staff had failed to find any more in the subsequent five months. She refused repeated requests to give an apology for the practice.

The Home Affairs Select Committee report insisted on the truth being told about SDS infiltrators stealing dead children’s identities and demanded all affected families be told and given an apology by the end of 2013. The Met simply ignored their publications.

Later in 2013, Operation Herne reported that, contrary to Gallan’s claim of it being isolated and unauthorised, identity theft of dead children was pretty much mandatory in the SDS for 20 years.

The Met Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe then issued a generalised apology for stealing dead children’s identities, addressed to nobody in particular. That was in 2013. It has fallen to the Inquiry to contact families, years after they had been identified. The Met has still not provided any answers.

It’s also worth asking who else knew about it. Bob Lambert (‘Bob Robinson’ HN10, 1984-89) was a spycop in the 1980s who went on the run the SDS in the 1990s. He told Channel 4 News that the practice of stealing dead children’s identities was ‘well known at the highest levels of the Home Office’.

When the Inquiry was announced, six former Home Secretaries from the period concerned were still alive. The Inquiry has taken so long to get going that only four are still alive, the youngest of whom is now 79 years old. We are not aware of any plans for any of them to be called to give evidence to the Inquiry.

Full opening statement from Heather Williams QC, representing relatives of deceased individuals

James Scobie QC
representing Richard Chessum and ‘Mary’

Scobie did a great job piecing together the career of undercover officer Richard Clark (‘Rick Gibson’ HN297, 1974-76) rising through Troops Out Movement (TOM) seemingly in order to get access to Big Flame – and how he was eventually found out.

Based on SDS reports and the statements of two people he spied on, Richard Chessum and ‘Mary’, Scobie shows that Clark abused his friendship with Chessum and his sexual relationship with ‘Mary’ (and three other women) to reach that goal.

Clark manipulated a democratic organisation to achieve high office and destabilise it. With this, the SDS went far beyond its remit, and the mangers were fully aware of it.

Scobie also explored how Clark’s deployment served to direct subsequent officers to follow his example and take office in organisations they infiltrated.

ANATOMY OF AN INFILTRATION

In December 1974, Richard Chessum and Mary were students at Goldsmiths College in London, studying sociology and teacher training respectively, and they both were in the college’s Socialist Society.

Mary had come from South Africa and campaigned on anti-racist and civil liberties issues. Chessum had been a Methodist lay preacher, and was political officer for his local Labour Party. He protested against war and for civil liberties.

At this time, undercover officer Richard Clark – 29, married with children – was deployed into Goldsmith’s College. He stole the identity of a dead child, Richard Gibson. His target was the Troops Out Movement (TOM).

TOM was advocating self-determination for the people of Ireland and withdrawal of British troops from Ireland. Their methods were lobbying MPs, drafting alternative legislation, and raising awareness with the occasional low-key demonstration, doing talks and film screenings.

TOM had already been infiltrated, as recently as 1974, by ‘Michael Scott‘ (HN298, 1971-76) who concluded that:

‘It had no subversive objectives and as far as I am aware did not employ or approve the use of violence to achieve its objectives.’

So why were they targeted? Richard Clark is dead, so we have no opportunity to question him. But his reports show what he did.

STEP 1 – IDENTIFYING A TARGET ORGANISATION

Clark’s deployment was well planned. He wrote to TOM head office in advance asking for a local branch to join in December 1974, knowing there wasn’t one.

Chessum had been in the Anti-Internment League and so was known to some in the national office of TOM. He had not joined and had no plans to do so, because he was studying hard and had recently been ill. Nonetheless the national office put him in touch with Clark.

By February 1975, using the Socialist Society as a tool, Clark had succeeded in creating an entirely new branch of the Troops Out Movement. There were five founder members of that branch; Mary, Richard Chessum, his partner, another student, and the undercover officer.

Clark had completed Step 1. He was in the Troops Out Movement. But rather than infiltrating a branch, he had actively established one. He generated something to spy on. He encouraged and organised demonstrations, such as the picketing of the local Woolwich barracks and the homes of local MPs.

Neither Mary, Chessum nor his partner had Special Branch files on them until their involvement with Clark. Their lives were then reported to an extent that was both sinister and ridiculous. This information was passed to MI5. Their physical appearances, commentary on their body size, health issues, addresses, theatres visited, holiday destinations, right down to the brand of cigarettes they smoked.

They were no threat to anyone. They were targeted first for their politics, and secondly, because they were useful. And Clark used them.

STEP 2 – DEVELOPING AN IDENTITY & BUILDING TRUST

Clark had no back history. He had just appeared. He needed to develop a place in the social network of political activists. He did that by exploitation. ‘Mary’ is unequivocal: Clark used sexual advances to ingratiate himself.

Clark established a close friendship with Richard Chessum and initiated a sexual relationship with Mary, having been invited into her home. And he had relationships with at least three other activists to gain position and tactical advantage. The other women were Mary’s flatmate, and two activists from the group Big Flame, Clark’s ultimate target. (His story also shows that forming targeted sexual relationships started early in the SDS.)

STEP 3 – TAKING POSITIONS & MOVING UP THE HIERARCHY

As one of the founder members of the South East London branch of TOM, Clark gained access to the national movement, with an astonishing level of ruthlessness.

By March 1975, he had got himself elected as the Secretary – the top position in the branch. He and Richard Chessum were then elected as voting delegates to the TOM Liaison Committee conference.

That move gave Clark access to the national leadership, knowing he’d be accompanied by Richard Chessum, a man with a proven track record of genuine commitment. His cultivated friendship with Richard Chessum gave him credibility.

In April 1975, Clark got himself elected as a delegate to the London Co-ordinating Committee of the Movement and the All London meeting. He pointedly took an opportunity to, in his own words, ‘severely criticise’ another section of the Movement. It was a move that appeared to ensure that he was elected as the branch’s delegate to TOM’s National Co-ordinating Committee.

He saw members of Workers’ Fight coming into the branch and at the national level. This would endanger his access leadership of the Movement. Clark attended a private meeting of senior members of TOM, with leader Gerry Lawless, to discuss Workers Fight’s attempt to take over. There were only ten people at the meeting, all key in supporting Lawless’s position in the national Movement against what they saw as an attempt by Workers Fight and the Revolutionary Communist Group to take control of the organisation.

In his report, he noted Big Flame had also formed an ‘uneasy alliance’ with Lawless.

Mary’s flatmate was in Workers Fight (WF), and she had attended TOM pickets. She attended a large TOM branch meeting stacked with WF members. Clark saw his post under threat. A WF person was elected to go to a London conference that would elect national posts. Clark competed against his supposed friend Chessum for the second post and won by two votes. It’s believed one of them would have been from Mary’s flatmate with whom, conveniently, Clark had recently begun a sexual relationship.

STEP 4 – SECURE A NATIONAL POSITION

It worked – Clark got elected to the Organising Committee for London, a national position. So here we are: a spycop deprived the movement of Chessum, a decent man who supported the movement, and put himself in, with the help of the second woman he just happened to have started a relationship with.

In Oct 1975, Clark resigned as Branch Secretary as, holding national office, he no longer needed the position any more. He says in his report he made a scathing attack on WF, but Chessum said it was nothing of the sort.

Lawless then nominated Clark for a position on the National Secretariat and he got it – he was now one of seven people in charge of the whole of TOM.

He continued to attend meetings at Richard Chessum’s home and reported on him. He recorded that Richard Chessum had started a new job at the London Electricity Board – information that was passed to MI5, something that becomes relevant later. Mary and her flat-mate largely disappeared from Clark’s reporting, now that they had served their purpose.

Clark organised a national TOM rally, but failed to secure the appearance of any of the headline acts. He arranged speakers for meetings and organised steward protection from attacks from fascists. That was a legitimate protective measure against a common threat at the time. Yet we expect to see those from Youth Against Racism in Europe, Anti-Nazi League and the Socialist Workers’ Party, criticised for the same thing in a later part of the Inquiry.

Due to Lawless’s paternity leave, Clark became acting head of TOM for several months. In that time, he cancelled delegations to Ireland. He criticised certain members. At least one prominent organisation withdrew its affiliation. By the time Gerry Lawless returned, two members of the Secretariat had resigned. Remember this was a serving Metropolitan Police officer, working undercover, making day to day decisions for a campaigning organisation.

STEP 5 – SABOTAGE THE ORGANISATION

Clark then turned against Lawless. He held a meeting with Big Flame in his cover flat to organise opposition to Lawless’ leadership, decapitating the Troops Out Movement of its long-time head.

They planned a coup in the next conference. The new leadership proposed was five people including Clark himself. Was this about TOM, or getting in Big Flame’s good books?

Clark also embarked on sexual relationships with two female members of the Big Flame. For him, sexual relationships were a tried and tested tactic of getting exactly where he wanted to go.

However, Clark overplayed his hand and Big Flame rumbled him. We don’t know quite how. Telling different stories to different women and them comparing? Was he seen as Machiavellian? Or was it simply a lack or political authenticity?

It was not unusual for Big Flame to investigate new people who wanted to join if they did not trust them entirely. Members of Big Flame went to the government’s birth and death records archive at Somerset House and they found Rick Gibson’s birth certificate. Then they found his death certificate.

They confronted Clark with both. Richard Chessum tells of how he heard about this confrontation from his friends in Big Flame. How Clark went white and nearly started to cry. His ambitious plot to unseat Gerry Lawless was over.

Clark took flight and disappeared from the political scene altogether. Richard Chessum later saw a dossier that Big Flame had prepared, that included a letter from Clark written to one of the female activists, saying that he ‘had to go away’.

There was no retribution against Clark after his exposure. It stands out that none of the groups infiltrated were interested in violence unless in self defence. This shows the Met’s applications for anonymity for spycops at the Undercover Policing Inquiry inquiry on safety grounds are highly questionable.

HOW HIGH DID IT GO?

Clark’s taking of high office was known to his superiors, all the way up to the Commander of the Metropolitan Police Service. It completely abandons the early principle of the Special Demonstration Squad:

‘members of the squad should be told, in no uncertain terms, that they must not take office in a group, chair meetings, draft leaflets, speak in public or initiate activity’

Equally, the fact that he engaged in sexual relationships with activists was no secret either. Two officers, to date, have been honest enough to disclose that they knew of Clark’s behaviour. One of those officers, ‘Graham Coates’ (HN304, 1976-79), has gone further and admitted that sexual relationships were talked about at the weekly officer meetings and that his supervising officers would have been aware because they were present.

Senior officers knew of Clark’s history of sexual abuse, yet he left the police with a special medal, a Detective Inspector’s pension, and his conduct certified as ‘exemplary’.

There is only one explanation for this. His conduct was deemed acceptable. It continued for years, and dozens, probably hundreds, of women were sexually abused at the hands of these officers.

NOT JUST CLARK

Following Clark’s deployment, spycops taking of positions of responsibility and trust in infiltrated organisations was commonplace. ‘Michael James’ (HN96, 1978-83), started his deployment in the Socialist Workers Party where he was elected to a position on the Hackney District Committee. After two years he moved on into the Troops Out Movement, where Clark had been four years before in top positions.

James is an interesting officer because he gives different accounts of the position he reached. In his Inquiry impact statement – a document arguing the case for him being granted anonymity – he stressed his seniority, saying he was National Secretary of TOM, ie the top role. Once his anonymity was secure, he shifted, and tried to downplay and minimise the importance of his position.

The fact is was the National Membership and Affiliation Secretary of TOM for a good 18 months. He now seems to suggest he just happened to fall into his roles rather than actively pursuing them. But he was on the top level of the organisation, the National Steering Committee, which he occasionally chaired. He was one of nine people with a direct influence over the direction of the movement.

In this era, from Clark onwards, every single spycop took a role in the organisation they infiltrated, except for Graham Coates who was infiltrating anarchists without hierarchy or official roles. In some case officers took national leading roles. What resulted from this was not just information, but also the opportunity to have a say in the direction of the organisation, and ultimately the ability to derail that organisation.

Scobie then listed twelve more spycops who held office in the organisations they spied on in the 1970s. See Scobie’s written Opening Statement for the details.

‘Vince Miller‘ (HN354, 1976-79) was elected District Treasurer and on the social committee of the Outer East London District branch of Socialist Workers Party. He resigned from his position to mark the ‘disorder and ineffectiveness’ within the branch. Resignation combined with strong criticism is deliberately de-stabilising to the organisation.

‘Sandra Davies’ (HN348, 1971-73) has already said that she did not remember being elected to the Executive Committee of the Women’s Liberation Front – the group founded by Diane Langford who also did a strong opening statement yesterday. The undercover officer claimed she did not remember voting to oust the founding leader and create a completely new group, the Revolutionary Women’s Union.

Scobie warned the Inquiry that most undercover officers tend to ‘have forgotten’ the roles they had, or claimed they don’t know how they landed there. Alternatively, they say that the role was not really a position of trust at all. The institutionalised dishonesty creeps into every aspect of their evidence.

LYING ABOUT POINTLESS SPYING

While many spycops accurately described the Socialist Workers Party as not encouraging violence – indeed, expelling violent members – one officer who infiltrated them, ‘Paul Gray’ (HN126, 1977-82), has told the Inquiry there was a lot of violence (officers tend to say this to show they’d be at risk if they aren’t granted anonymity). Gray’s claims are undermined by his own reports, which show nothing of the kind. He is lying.

He says his time undercover had no impact whatsoever on his welfare but that answering questions for this Inquiry is impacting on his welfare. That is because he now has to justify the fact that in reality, he busied himself with pointless and personally intrusive reporting.

Gray reported on more children than any other officer. Recording the minutiae of their lives and sending them on to MI5. Almost all of these reports have photographs of the children attached. These children were either the children of Socialist Workers Party members or children who were engaged enough with their society to be part of the School Kids Against the Nazis.

During the course of Gray’s deployment, fascist group Column 88 were threatening to burn down the homes of SWP members. The National Front were attacking Bengalis in Brick Lane, smashing up reggae record shops and vandalising mosques. There was firebombing and murder. Instead of investigating the racist firebombing that killed 13 young black people in New Cross, the Special Demonstration Squad were reporting on school children and providing MI5 with copies of Socialist Workers Party babysitting rotas.

GOVERNMENT & CABINET KNOWLEDGE

Several of the spycops in the era now being examined, 1973-82, refer to visits to the SDS safe-house by the Commissioner of the Met. (This tallies with similar memories of officers both before and after the period).

One refers to congratulatory messages straight from 10 Downing Street. Another, who himself went on to become a Detective Chief Inspector, was told:

‘the continuation of the unit was one of the first decisions that a new Home Secretary had to make’.

The 1976 authorisation for the Special Demonstration Squad’s continued existence was signed off by Robert Armstrong, later Baron Armstrong of Ilminster. He was Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service. It is difficult to imagine a more highly placed civil servant.

MI5’s ‘Witness Z,’ has told the Inquiry:

‘the pressure to investigate these organisations often came from the Prime Minister and Whitehall’.

Put simply, the existence and functioning of the SDS was known of, and authorised, at the very top.

Every annual application for funding refers to the officers fully recognising ‘the political sensitivity’ of the unit’s existence. Authorisation is only ever granted ‘in view of the assurances about security’. In other words, as long as you can promise us we will not get caught, you can carry on.

The Met were protecting the Government from what they referred to in the 1977 Annual Report as ’embarrassment’. There is nothing embarrassing about preventing crime. But the destabilising of democratic movements, the wholesale and widespread intrusion on citizens, and their exploitation for political advantage? That is worth keeping secret.

Scobie ended with a plea:

‘This Inquiry has been set a challenge – to get to the truth. This means asking difficult questions, again and again, to uncover the truth.

‘Ordinary people have been involved in campaigns for a better society, for social equality, anti racism, anti-fascism, against apartheid and for trade union rights. The best of reasons, and the best of traditions.

‘We hope the Inquiry is ready, willing and equipped to meet that challenge. The Inquiry must be fearless and unflinching in the pursuit of the truth. The people of this country expect nothing less.’

Full opening statment from James Scobie QC, representing Richard Chessum & ‘Mary’

Rajiv Menon QC
representing Piers Corbyn

Piers Corbyn is now 74, but has not given up his lifelong activism. He was one of the first people to apply to be a Core Participant in the Inquiry, five years ago. He will give evidence via video next week.

But Rajiv Menon started his opening statement with some more general concerns, making seven points about undercover policing and the material disclosed for the new hearings (Tranche 1 Phase 2, covering 1973-82), and about the Inquiry’s approach to witnesses, redactions, and disclosure.

Firstly. What screams out of the pages is the fact that the SDS was never about protecting parliamentary democracy nor maintaining public order. It was to spy on people and organisations because of their ideas and politics.

The limited public disorder that some spycops describe was largely minor, and certainly did not justify the spying on an industrial scale that was unleashed on the British public in the 1970s or the consequent cost to the public purse.

Just to give two examples. There is a 21 page report on an International Marxist Group (IMG) conference in 1972, and 55 pages on another in 1976. These describe different currents and tendencies within the IMG and summarise debates, as well as details of attendees. What the reports do not include is anything touching upon the protection of parliamentary democracy or the prevention of public disorder.

In short, the SDS was engaged in secret political policing and pure intelligence gathering against the Left, at times Orwellian, at times more Monty Python. Several SDS officers admit gathering as much information as possible, however personal or trivial, because it was for others to decide what was relevant.

Secondly, the most significant document in the current bundle, we believe, is the statement of Witness Z on behalf of the Security Service, MI5, that confirms that the SDS has always been subordinate to MI5.

However, Witness Z is not being called to give evidence, and we cannot understand why this is. Their statement shows they have so much vital knowledge about the roles of the SDS and MI5, and their cooperation. About about MI5’s 1972 definition of subversion as ‘activities threatening the safety or well-being of the State and intended to undermine or overthrow Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means’, and how most if not all of those spied on by the SDS could not possibly be described as subversive according to this definition.

Thirdly, there are, on our count, 18 SDS officers who were deployed during the relevant period whose cover names have been disclosed and who are alive. But the Inquiry is only calling eight of them to give evidence. The 1970s was a critical period in the history of the SDS, the Inquiry should be hearing from as many spycops as possible.

Fourthly, we are also dismayed that the evidence of seven SDS officers whose real names and cover names have been restricted is not being disclosed. Instead it is redacted, edited and amalgamated into an eight page ‘gist’. We cannot say which officer did what. We need to know what they did individually if their information is any use to anyone at all.

Fifthly, many if not most of the SDS intelligence reports have been destroyed at some stage by the Met. Many of the disclosed reports that have survived are only in existence because copies had been retained by MI5. Interestingly, whilst MI5 is apparently happy to disclose copies of police documents, they are rather more circumspect in disclosing any of their own documents that might reveal the nature and extent of their own spying operations on political activists and others.

Sixthly, redactions. Most frustrating is the redaction of the names of many groups spied on and infiltrated by the SDS between 1969 and 1984. None of this is justifiable. We are looking at 35-50 years ago so what’s the problem? What are they hiding?

The Undercover Research Group compiled a first list of groups spied on according to the Inquiry in 2019. After the first set of hearings of the Inquiry in November 2020, more than 100 groups were added.

The SDS Annual Reports on the years 1969-84 have 130 group names redacted. Why must these remain secret forever, at the insistence of those who did the spying? It’s a betrayal of the purpose of the Inquiry.

Seventh and finally, disclosure. We are not being given enough time to read and digest material by the Inquiry. We were meant to get documents in mid March, but another 2000+ pages have been added in April. Nobody can go through all that in a matter of a couple of weeks.

PIERS CORBYN

Piers Corbyn had no idea of the extent of the spying on him. He has always been open about his politics and has nothing to hide, in contrast with the anonymous spycops who spied on him. Despite having been a Core Participant at the Inquiry for over 5 years, he knew little until recently.

He had only been provided with 53 Special Branch intelligence reports (most of which were relatively unrevealing) and no witness statements from any of the undercover police officers who had spied on him, still less any photographs of those officers to help him recollect these events that took place between 40 and 50 years ago.

Why was Piers Corbyn of interest? Special Branch opened a file on him over 50 years ago, in 1969, and he still can’t see it.

He was President of the Imperial College Union. He attended rallies against the Vietnam War. He joined the International Marxist Group (IMG). He supported Irish civil rights, anti racism, and trade union rights.

He was very active in London squatting in the 1970s. In 1982, he left the IMG and joined the Labour Party. In the 1980s, he was active in the ‘Fare Fight’ campaign to keep down the cost of public transport. In 1986, he became a Labour councillor in Southwark, a position he held for four years.

Piers Corbyn barely learned anything about the spying on him from the new documents disclosed by the Inquiry. He is mentioned in passing in a one report and in the witness statement of two others, who will not be giving evidence. The Inquiry has shown him pictures of some spycops but not the ones who spied on him!

Piers Corbyn was granted Core Participant status by the Inquiry for being one of the main organisers of squatting groups in London between 1972 and 1982, but this barely features in the intelligence reports in which he is named. In short, what is revealed by the disclosure is a damp squib.

What would tell us far more about the secret state’s interest in Piers Corbyn is his Special Branch Registry File. But nobody ever gets to see their Registry File, not even during a public inquiry into undercover policing.

We want to see is his file to see the full nature of why he was spied on. Why won’t they let him see it? Why can’t the Inquiry compel the police to do it? Is it because it’s so tedious and unnecessary that it will embarrass them? Or something else?

Whilst secrecy continues to trump openness, the Inquiry will only scratch the surface, however interesting and revealing some of the documents it is disclosing may be.

The victims of spycops are dismayed at the new delays to the Inquiry. This benefits those who want delay. More documents will be lost and destroyed, more witnesses will die. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Full opening statement from Rajiv Menon QC, representing Piers Corbyn

Kirsten Heaven
representing other Non-Police, Non-State Core Participants

Kirsten Heaven began by expressing the disappointment and anger felt by core participants last week, when they learnt that the next set of hearings, scheduled to take place in October 2021, would be delayed until sometime in the first half of 2022.

The Chair, Sir John Mitting, interrupted her with his reason for this delay – the excuse that the Inquiry want to disclose evidence to a new core participant from the Socialist Workers Party and then collect her witness statement, and says there is so much SWP material that it cannot be done between now and October.

Heaven went on to say that core participants had also just learnt for the first time – in the Counsel to the Inquiry’s Opening Statement two days ago – that the Tranche 2 hearings (covering the years 1983-1992) would no longer be heard in 2022, and would be delayed until at least 2023.

Waiting for another two years is not acceptable for the core participants who have already suffered from many years of delay. She reminded Mitting that his predecessor (Lord Pitchford, the original Chair of this Inquiry) had intended to conclude in 2018.

We are losing crucial evidence with every year that passes, as both officers and witnesses get older. We heard yesterday that, despite being in contact with spycops ‘Alan Bond‘ (HN67, 1981-86) for at least three years, the Inquiry has failed to take a witness statement from him and he is now said to be too ill to provide any evidence.

Heaven recommended that the Inquiry make it an urgent priority to collect statements from all former officers and managers. And that they provide the group with a full list of all Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) managers from the years 1968-82 who are due to give evidence in Phase 3, along with regular updates on their state of health.

The main cause of delay in this Inquiry has been the excessive demands for redactions made by the police and State bodies.

WHO WAS SPIED ON?

Heaven then moved on to analyse some of the facts in the documents recently released by the Inquiry covering the years 1973-82.

It is clear from looking at the newly disclosed evidence just how widespread this political policing was, and the wide range of left-wing groups which were infiltrated and spied upon. This included justice campaigns and defence campaigns, and even their lawyers. Trade unions & mainstream political parties were spied on. There was excessive surveillance of many sections of society, including children and young people. Spycops were involved in criminality, miscarriages of justice, and illegal blacklisting. They had begun stealing the identities of deceased children.

Information – including people’s details – was routinely copied to MI5, meaning the security service. There was deep collaboration between them and the spycops.

She described the SDS’ ‘oblique approach’ – unashamedly described by the unit’s founder Conrad Dixon as “the infiltration of relatively innocuous organisations” as a stepping stone to others.

The women’s liberation movement were targeted, with reports detailing such subversive events as jumble sales & a children’s Christmas party. The youth wing of the Liberal Party was targeted by ‘Michael Scott‘ (HN298, 1971-76) in order to gather intelligence about anti-apartheid activist Peter Hain. The spycops cynically targeted all sorts of non-radical groups, displaying an utter contempt for civil society.

According to a 1973 report from officer HN294, the International Socialists & International Marxist Group made for ‘disappointing’ targets as they did not do anything warranting police interest. It is clear that many of the spycops quickly realised that the groups they’d joined were not a serious threat to public order, or violent in any way. It is also clear that no meaningful risk or threat assessment seems to have been carried out, so how did the SDS know who should be targeted?

We now have a witness statement from ‘Witness Z’ made on behalf of the security services. It contains an admission that subversive organisations were not actually considered a high threat at this time, but that pressure to spy on them often came from the Prime Minister/ Whitehall. No stone should be left unturned in investigating this.

TARGETING JUSTICE

We see the continuation of reporting on lawyers & material that may be subject to legal privilege, often around justice campaigns following police misconduct.

An early example was ‘Alex Sloan‘ (HN347, 1971 reporting on the justice campaign that sprang up in 1971 after the death of teenager Stephen McCarthy (following his arrest and alleged assault by police). Sloan is also known to have taken part in a visit to an asylum seeker being held in Holloway Prison – why was the SDS interested in her case?

Heaven listed a selection of the groups and individuals whose names have appeared in Special Branch’s files or in the latest disclosure:

• Shrewsbury Two Defence Committee
• Roach Family Support Committee
• Stoke Newington and Hackney Defence Campaign
• Persons Unknown Defence Campaign
• Murray Defence Campaign
• Deptford Action Massacre Committee
• Friends of Blair Peach Committee
• Celia Stubbs (partner of Blair Peach and now a Core Participant)
• Graham Smith (another Core Participant)
• Justice for David Ewen Campaign July 1995
• Deborah Coles (Director of INQUEST, set up to monitor deaths in custody and support bereaved families)

It is clear that these justice campaigns were directly targeted by the spycops, despite the denials of police lawyers at the Inquiry.

Another development in this period was that the spycops reporting included children. One report, signed off by very senior officers and copied to MI5, included details about someone’s brother and his wife, and contained a line about the couple having a ‘Mongol child’.

The police’s lawyers say there is no need for concern because reporting on children ‘did not cause any harm’. But it was a gross invasion of privacy and family, and harmful to society.

‘Paul Gray’ (HN126, 1977-82) reported extensively on young people (and their teachers), and would send descriptions, details and even photographs of children off to his bosses (and MI5). One of the groups he targeted was School Kids Against the Nazis (SKAN) but none of them are here to speak for themselves, and we have no idea if the Inquiry has tried to contact any of them or not.

Heaven showed the Inquiry a short archival film from 1979 featuring the kids of Hackney SKAN handing out leaflets at schools and talking about racist scapegoating and the need to drive the National Front out.

DIVERSITY OF TARGETS

The next list of groups read out demonstrates the extent to which the SDS’s interests had grown since the unit started:

• Christian Aid
• Fellowship Party (No Racism No Violence say yes to Fellowship)
• Numerous branches of the Labour Party
• Orpington Young Liberals
• Lewisham Humanists
• 6 London Trade Union Councils
• National Union of Students
• Teachers’ unions
• Transport & General Workers Union Legal Workers Branch

There are many examples of intrusive reporting of women:

• Women’s Voice
• Spare Rib Collective
• Women Workers League
• Brixton Black Womens Group
• Greenham Common Women’s Support Group
• Lambeth Women For Peace

One report attributed to ‘Barry Tompkins‘ (HN106, 1979-83), includes details of a woman activist who had an abortion, and speculation about ‘the putative father’. This kind of invasion of privacy cannot be justified.

According to the police’s lawyers, the spycops were politically neutral and did not favour or target one group over another. However this is patently not true. Hundreds of groups and individuals perceived to be on ‘the left’ were targeted, while the rising far-right, who created fear through their use of violence, were not policed in the same way.

The SDS’s annual reports consistently downplayed the threat posed by the far-right.
An earlier statement by the police’s lawyers suggested that there was no need to infiltrate groups like the National Front because they tended to cooperate’ with Special Branch. There appears to be no evidence to support this.

Neither is there any evidence that the police were able (or willing?) to pre-empt or prevent National Front violence and racist public disorder during this period.

This makes for a stark comparison with the lengths the SDS went to in order to infiltrate the left. Heaven referenced one example: ‘Gary Roberts’ (HN353, 1974-78) was enrolled on a degree course as part of his cover. He attended classes four days a week for several years, and got involved in student politics (becoming an NUS vice-president).

BLACKLISTING

Many eyebrows were raised by the police lawyers’ insistence in their November Opening Statement that the SDS did not infiltrate trade unions and were not involved in blacklisting.

The SDS’s own report from 1972 contains references to trade union activity and strikes (the miners, the dockers and building workers), as well as the union-initiated Shrewsbury Two campaign.

‘David Hughes’ (HN299/342, 1971-76) joined the TGWU and attended their meetings. It appears that many of his reports (including those on the Claimants Union) are missing, but the Inquiry has decided that we do not need to hear more from him.

The Blacklisting Support Group are outraged by the police lawyers reference this week to “so-called blacklisting organisations”. There is no doubt that blacklisting occurred and any attempt to belittle it is deeply offensive to its many victims and their families.

Heaven reminded the Inquiry that it was Operation Reuben, the Met’s own investigation, that found:

‘police, including Special Branches and the security services, supplied information to the blacklist funded by the country’s major construction firms, the Consulting Association and other agencies.’

SPYCOPS – FOOTSOLDIERS OF MI5?

The SDS seem to have infiltrated all sorts of groups, even those which posed no threat to law and order, at the behest of MI5, harvesting photographs, bank account details, membership lists, phone numbers etc.

We are told by police lawyers that the SDS was ‘neither an agent nor a servant of MI5’, but at the same time they tell us the SDS was not in a position to challenge MI5 in any way. Which is true? It can’t be both.

It’s the job of this Inquiry to work out who really controlled the SDS, and answer more questions about this relationship.

The Home Office did provide some official guidance to Special Branch in 1967, 1970 and 1984, but these documents do not answer all of the pertinent questions. The SDS and Special Branch were specifically cautioned in 1984 to seek advice from the security services before targeting any alleged ‘subversives’, and warned against undermining ‘the legitimate expression of ideas’ or ‘interfering in the exercise of political and civil liberties’.

INEQUALITY OF INFORMATION

Before finishing her submissions, Heaven moved on to summarise some procedural points.

At the last hearings, the problems around disclosure and only having a live transcript rather than a proper live stream meant many core participants couldn’t participate fully.

Disclosure of documents has been little better this time, but a large number of documents were missing from what was initially disclosed and a month later it seemed that the volume made available to us fell far short of what had been promised.

This reinforces the unfairness and inequality embedded in this Inquiry.

We can see that there was significant cooperation between the spycops and the security services and, once again, we demand disclosure of all Special Branch ‘registry files’ and other information being held about core participants.

We ask for explanation of the file reference numbering systems so we can understand what the files were.

The Inquiry must be more proactive in encouraging members of the public to come forward with evidence. Publishing the cover names used by officers and photographs of them would be helpful.

We ask again for the full list of groups reported on to be published, and for groups’ names not to be redacted from evidence.

We are still extremely concerned about the withholding of some spycops’ cover names.

Are secret ‘closed’ hearings really required for certain officers? At least one of these men appeared in the BBC’s True Spies documentary talking about his career so it is unclear why he cannot give public evidence to the Inquiry.

MORE OFFICERS, MORE EVIDENCE

Out of the eighteen officers from 1973-82 who are still alive, the Inquiry only plans to call eight to give evidence at these hearings.

‘Gary Roberts’ (HN353, 1974-78) initially supplied a statement in 2019. He has left the UK since then, so the Inquiry has decided to only provide a summary of his evidence. He was present at the 1974 Red Lion Square anti-fascist protest when Kevin Gately was killed, and at the Battle of Lewisham, but his reports seem to be missing.

Being abroad is no excuse to exclude him, he could still give evidence via Zoom like the other witnesses are in the UK.

Another officer who is not being called to give evidence or answer questions is ‘David Hughes’ (HN299/342, 1971-76). One of his reports was described on Wednesday by Counsel to the Inquiry as ‘the most disturbing document that we have found’. This referred to one person interrupting a reading group to talk about how TWO million people would be killed ‘when the socialist revolution took place’. The Inquiry needs to be able to better discern rhetoric and overstatement from actual threats.

Another spycop, ‘Bob Stubbs’ (HN301, 1971-76) was also at Red Lion Square, where he was punched in the face by a uniformed officer. We have not been supplied with all of the evidence about this day, the advance intelligence or any debriefing. The lack of them suggests they have been destroyed, making oral evidence all the more important.

‘Barry Tompkins‘ (HN106, 1979-83) denies reports of deceiving a woman into a relationship. We are now told that he will not be giving evidence due to ill health. However we have not seen any evidence that his condition has been properly verified by the Inquiry. There needs to be more transparency about such medical evidence.

RELEASE THE FILES

There was widespread, systematic contempt for the rights of those on the left of the political spectrum, whose common law rights and human rights have both been breached by the actions of the spycops. Any assurances from SDS & MI5 cannot be trusted.

Those who were spied upon must be shown their files so they can appraise what was done and correct the false information they undoubtedly contain. The whole purpose of this Inquiry was to learn from the mistakes of the past, so such human rights abuses would not be repeated in the future.

Heaven ended her submissions by suggesting that the sheer scale of the spycops scandal, the huge number of people spied upon, the apparent lack of accountability, exaggeration of risk, and the obvious political biases of the police all contribute to the belief that these undercover operations were unjustified and illegitimate. Instead they constituted an unlawful enterprise, conducted for political purposes and motivated by a desire to protect the Establishment rather than the wider public interest.

Full opening statement from Kirsten Heaven representing other Non-Police, Non-State Core Participants

Dave Morris

This was Dave Morris’ second opening statement to the Undercover Policing Inquiry, having already made a fuller statement at the November hearings. This one was mainly made in regard to the recently disclosed documents about undercover officer ‘Graham Coates’ (HN304, 1976-79) who used his association with Morris to gain access to the anarchist milieu in London during the mid to late 1970s.

Coates has been said by the Counsel to the Inquiry to have infiltrated the International Socialists/Socialist Workers Party and the collectives who ran Anarchy and Zero Magazines, as well as the ‘Persons Unknown’ defendants solidarity group. He also used a dead child’s identity and visited the area where he was born. We have also been told that in his written statement, he refers to SDS officers jokingly discussing sexual relationships with activists and that management were aware of the practice.

Morris started by reiterating his previous statement, and endorsing Kirsten Heaven’s description of the spycops activity:

‘an unlawful enterprise conducted for political purposes and motivated by the desire to preserve the power of the establishment rather than protect the wider public interest.’

ORIGINS

Morris told how had had come across anarchist/libertarian ideas through a BBC documentary series ‘Open Doors’. In early 1975 he attended Freedom Newspaper collective meetings, and then went to Anarchy Magazine, discussing housing, poverty, feminism, exploitation at meetings of the friendly, sociable, advertised and open group.

He said that printed articles representing a wide range of views, inevitably including some he disagreed with. He was also a postal worker and was local branch secretary of the Union of Postal Workers.

By the end of the 1970s, Morris had begun to get involved with environmental campaigns such as London Greenpeace and, with fellow London Greenpeace member Helen Steel, was one of two defendants in the famous McLibel trial.

A life-long community activist, Morris is currently Secretary of the Haringey Federation of Residents Associations, and Chair of the National Federation of Parks and Green Spaces.

He explained the common thread running through his activism:

‘The essence of my personal motivation and political beliefs has remained constant throughout the last 50 years or so – the desire to tackle injustice, to seek improvements in society in the public interest, and to encourage and empower people to have as much control over their lives as possible.’

TARGETED

Turning to the early spying he’s just been told about, Morris said:

‘Looking back on the surveillance and infiltration of groups I was involved within in the 1970s… and how I was personally targeted, I feel disgust at this cynical and blatant breach of trust. Not just for me but also for the other victims I knew and know – such as the family with young children whose home was where the Anarchy Collective held meetings. Of course, I am outraged not just by the tactics used but also by the very existence and purpose of the whole spying operation. This Stasi-like behaviour is totally unacceptable.’

All of Morris’ activity was standard campaigning activism, albeit at the left of the spectrum. Organising public meetings, social events, protests, defence for people whose rights were infringed. These are rights enshrined in international law and should have the highest protection.

Indeed, a lot of his work has been about upholding rights and the law.

The McLibel trial – the longest running court case in English history – helped defeat McDonald’s attempt to silence critics. Corporations haven’t tried that sort of thing again.

The McLibel 2 then won an additional victory against the UK government at the European Court of Human Rights because the McLibel trial had been unfair.

After the Climate Camp in 2008, Morris won a case against the police and showed that mass stop and search of campaigners was in fact illegal. In both of these legal cases, he rolled back infringements on the rights of people to voice their dissent against oppressive powers.

The spycop Coates has said:

‘anarchists I reported on posed a minimal challenge to public order… didn’t even discuss activities that could be a public order threat… I do not not think any information I provided was significant’.

Coates reported many personal details, naming the area Morris was brought up in, what A levels he did and more – and got all those details are wrong! What less subjective stuff in their reports were they also wrong about? Some spycop reports are written a month after the event described & may have been embellished by officers who weren’t even there.

A spycop report says Morris suggested that the Anarchy Collective should be involved in fire-raising activity on government building in support of a firefighters strike. But he remembers the group deciding to produce stickers and join local picket lines. It’s possible someone may have made an offhand joke, but the police should be able to discern between that and genuine beliefs or intent.

THE REAL THREAT

Morris also said that while the coverage of left-wing activists seemed to be very thorough, those on the far-right of the political system have had little attention.

Morris said that a proper risk assessment of threats to society at the time would have set its sights on other dangers.

London Greenpeace’s opposition to McDonald’s was wide ranging – not just the harm caused in the manufacture of the food, but its workers rights, its subversion of the parent-child relationship and more. Why was this subversion not targeted by the SDS?

Beyond that were fossil fuel companies, tobacco companies, tax havens, car companies, the military intervention in Northern Ireland, and major construction companies who ran an industry blacklist (that both Morris and Helen Steel were added to!). Why didn’t the police, who nominally exist to protect the public, target people organising these serious threats?

He concluded by saying:

‘It was a gross breach of peoples’ trust and human rights, which maybe could have raised an arguable case if targeting active gangs of mass killers but has no shred of legitimacy when it was actually being used to protect those who control society’s wealth and power from the real needs of the public.’

Full opening statement from Dave Morris