This summary covers the fourth week (22-25 July 2024) of Tranche 2 hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), which continues to examine the activities of the Metropolitan Police’s secret political unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, from 1983-92.

The UCPI is an independent, judge-led inquiry into undercover policing in England and Wales. Its main focus is the activity of two units who deployed long-term undercover officers into a variety of political groups: the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS, 1968-2008) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU, 1999-2011). Spycops from these units lived as activists for years at a time, spying on more than 1,000 groups.

CONTENTS
Introduction
Observations

Monday 22nd July (Day 11)
Live: HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’
1987-1991: Troops Out Movement / Haringey, and Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign

Tuesday 23rd July (Day 12):
The Case of HN95 Stefan Scutt ‘Stefan Wesolowski’
1985-1988: Socialist Workers Party / Hackney

Live: HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’
1988-1992: SWP / South London

Wednesday 24th July (Day 13)
Live: HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’
1990-1991: British National Party, Loughton

Thursday 25th July (Day 14)
Live: Lindsey German, Socialist Workers Party

INTRODUCTION

This week’s hearings over-ran from the expected three days into four. In the first three we heard live evidence from three former SDS undercover officers:

• HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’, deployed in Haringey against the Troops Out Movement and the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign in the late 1980s and early 1990s
• HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’, who infiltrated various Socialist Workers Party branches in South London in the late 1980s and early 1990s
• HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ who was briefly deployed to infiltrate the British National Party (BNP) in Loughton 1990/91

We also had the unusual presentation of the case of HN95 Stefan Scutt ‘Stefan Wesolowski’, a former SDS officer. He was deployed into the SWP in Hackney 1985-88, but is not cooperating with the Inquiry. His troubled time in the SDS and subsequent mental health issues caused something of a crisis within the unit.

On the fourth and final day we heard powerful testimony from Lindsey German, for 30 years a key figure in the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and currently the convener of the Stop the War Coalition.

German, who had been on the SWP’s central committee from 1979-2009, provided crucial insights into the party’s activities, its involvement in various social justice campaigns, and the impact of undercover policing on political groups.

She offered a refreshing counterpoint to the police narratives heard earlier in the week, challenging the inaccuracies and bias in the secret police reports, the offensive characterisations of activists, and highlighting the long-term consequences of surveillance on political organisations and civil liberties.

OBSERVATIONS

The case of Stefan Scutt was extraordinary, both for the significant ethical and operational breaches that occurred during his deployment and for the handling of his subsequent mental health crisis, details of which were kept secret from both the Home Office and the Security Service.

Another interesting departure from the norm in these hearings was the evidence of HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ who, unlike every officer to give evidence so far, was deployed (albeit briefly) against the far-right rather than against the left. It was bizarre that the local British National Party group he was ordered to infiltrate was virtually dormant.

Perhaps the most striking moment of his evidence was his revelation that for some of the time he was undercover he was terrified he might be ‘outed’ by a fellow police officer who may have had far-right sympathies.

The other two undercover officers (HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’, and HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’) hammered home more familiar themes of minimal training and unclear guidelines.

Evidence continued to reveal the shocking breadth and depth of reporting of private and personal information with questionable relevance to policing concerns, with the striking admission from HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ that one reason for recording such personal details was for the potential it created to ‘recruit informants’ (ie through blackmail).

Yet again questions were raised about the ideological and political (rather than policing) motivations behind a lot of the surveillance, particularly in relation to the Socialist Workers Party, and the events and campaigns it supported.

Throughout the week we saw a profound disconnect between perceived or alleged ‘public order threats’, and observed reality. In many cases, the groups under surveillance for alleged public order concerns were described as non-violent and posing little actual threat, raising yet more questions about the necessity and proportionality of the operations.

Indeed, once again it demonstrated the police’s unacceptable and anti-democratic efforts to snoop on and undermine people committed to promoting and defending the interests and rights of the public, and to challenge oppression and injustice in our society.

Monday 22nd July (Day 11)

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Live: HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ provided testimony about his infiltration of the Haringey Troops Out Movement and the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

He joined the Metropolitan Police in the early 1980s, initially working with C Squad investigating the extreme right wing before moving to B Squad, which focused on Irish nationalism. He then joined the SDS.

Recruitment and Training

His path to the SDS began with gossip and innuendo in the police canteen. Despite being in Special Branch, he claimed not to know exactly what the SDS was, though he was aware of intelligence coming from covert sources. He noted that officers would disappear and reappear after a couple of years, hinting at undercover activities.

The recruitment process for the SDS was informal, relying on word of mouth. HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ volunteered because he was ‘interested in politics and how society worked’. He spoke to HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ at a social gathering about putting his name forward and also discussed applying with HN350 Paul Croyden, with whom he had worked previously.

He didn’t feel the need for any special preparation for his SDS interview, stating that he ‘always kept a close eye on political issues’. The interview, conducted by three senior officers, focused on his motivations to join and what he thought would make a good undercover officer. Notably, the legal and ethical parameters of the role were not discussed during this process (nor it seems at any time afterwards).

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ described joining the SDS as prestigious, calling it ‘the ultimate for a Special Branch officer’.

Training and Preparation

He described the SDS tradecraft manual as ‘formal’, which is quite hilarious considering its content. He (incorrectly) emphasised that it did not contain any guidance on sexual relationships, saying, ‘it was very safe advice’. He believed lying was sometimes necessary for the greater good:

‘As a policeman you are given tremendous powers. You are in many ways implementing the law which fundamentally requires honesty’

Asked about the dishonesty inherent to his undercover role, he said:

‘It comes back to the greater good, the necessity to sometimes lie in order to achieve issues’

Before his field deployment, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ worked in the SDS back office, handling administrative reports. He stated that he never edited the content of reports and, when unsure about the value of information, would ‘err on the side of caution and report it’. This approach would later be reflected in his own extensive reporting during his deployment.

Cover Identity and Infiltration

Like many SDS officers, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ stole the identity of a dead child. He followed the tradecraft manual in this process, despite feeling uncomfortable due to his own mother having lost a young child.

He shockingly defended the practice:

‘You would hope you would do justice to the youngster involved’

Stealing not only the child’s name but also parts of his life story, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ travelled to Newcastle to familiarise himself with the area where the real Kevin Douglas had been born.

The ghoulish advice he says he was given was that the longer the child had survived, the better for using the identity as cover (as it would be harder for anyone to research and find a death certificate). Incredibly, he was not asked to hand back the stolen birth certificate at the end of the deployment, so he kept it.

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ went to great lengths to change his appearance for his undercover role. He mentioned getting a perm, growing and dying his hair, and acquiring a new wardrobe.

During his deployment, he lodged with a family in Ponders End, eating meals and watching TV with them. He even attended a baby’s christening with them, explaining that it would be rude not to. Despite feeling uneasy about this arrangement (ie lying to them about who he really was), he had trouble finding somewhere else that suited him.

Infiltration Activities, Reporting Practices and Personal Views

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ infiltrated the Troops Out Movement (TOM) in Haringey, but took five months to make contact, claiming there were no public events to attend in that period.

Once embedded, he provided extensive reporting on the group’s activities (including the people active at London and national level), membership numbers, and potential physical threats against TOM members by right-wing groups.

Notably, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ admitted that the Troops Out Movement did not pose any kind of public order risk:

‘They would not be the aggressors’

Despite this, he continued to report on their activities, as well as on various justice campaigns, including those for the Tottenham Three, Birmingham Six, and Guildford Four, linking them with terrorism in his reports, despite the fact that all those concerned were innocent.

He attended and reported on a local public meeting of over 500 people, including a disparaging summary of a speech by local MP Bernie Grant.

He reported on the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign, referring to the Tottenham Three as the ‘convicted murderers of Police Constable Blakelock’ even though the convictions were quashed in 1991.

He was also concerned that TOM and the various defence campaigns seemed to be communicating with and supporting each other.

When questioned about this he claimed that it was ‘all part of what was seen as an anti-colonial broad front, Ireland being the original colony in the view of Troops Out Movement’.

Challenged on his dismissive tone, he said he makes ‘no apology for that’. He also admitted, without irony, that part of his role was to ‘prevent embarrassment… not just to the Government but to the United Kingdom’.

Despite the Metropolitan Police apologising at the start of these hearings for this kind of unacceptable reporting on justice campaigns, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ claimed he saw no problem with it, not even with his continued reporting on those groups after the Court of Appeal granted the release of those imprisoned as they had been framed by police.

In his first witness statement to the Inquiry he had justified spying on justice campaigns by suggesting it would ‘make the job of the uniformed officers more straightforward’, a sentiment he defended when challenged.

Sexual Relationships

A significant part of the questioning was about his 2013 statement to Operation Herne, the police’s internal inquiry into spycops before the Undercover Policing Inquiry was ordered. In it, he admitted to regular occurrences of sleeping with women and suggested senior management knew about it.

Some of his reports included sexist comments about women activists, described as ‘attractive’ or ‘well-built’.

‘There was a regular occurrence in respect of sleeping with women. It wasn’t regarded as wrong at the time, the person would have to undertake a dynamic risk assessment. I feel sorry for the woman Bob [Lambert, HN10] slept with who was not a target as such’

In fact HN10 Bob Lambert had four sexual relationships, including fathering a child.

In that statement to Operaton Herne, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ had written:

‘The Senior Management Team probably suspected that these relationships took place and that it was not an issue. Most knew of it “in play”. There was nothing direct in place as to not conduct such practices’

He claimed he was mixed up with Bob Lambert to show Lambert wasn’t a rogue officer. He suggested officers used sex to gather intelligence, a justification he later denied.

He told Operation Herne:

‘I think bringing a child into the world as part of an operational decision is wrong’

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ was asked about the accusation that HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ had placed a timed incendiary device in the Harrow branch of Debenhams while undercover in an animal rights group opposed to the sale of fur. The incident resulted in major damage.

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ claimed he wasn’t privy to discussions about the incident, but was aware of Lambert’s infiltration of the Animal Liberation Front. He noted that HN10 Bob Lambert was the only SDS officer who visited a certain Special Branch building in Vincent Square and that he had to check Lambert wasn’t being followed.

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ also mentioned HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ had a fraudulent sexual relationship with Helen Steel, learning about it through gossip.

He wasn’t particularly surprised, outrageously claiming that it was to be expected because:

‘it was more the area he was employed… a place of squats, of that sort of living’

He backtracked on some of these statements during his time in the witness box. He insisted that Operation Herne ‘was meant to go nowhere fast, and not leave the room’, ie never see the light of day.

This is very revealing, as Operation Herne, the police investigation into undercover policing, has long been criticised by victims of undercover policing as essentially a cover up allowing the police to ‘mark their own homework’.

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ appeared visibly stressed when confronted with his Herne statement, talking over the questions, moving back and forth in his seat, sweating, and red-faced in his anxiety to retract the answers he gave in 2013.

Post-Deployment Activities and Reflections

After his deployment, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ mentored new officers for over six years. He believed it was important to pass on knowledge:

‘If you feel you can do some good, and they think you’ve got something relevant to say, I think it is important that you do that’

His mentoring of the first undercover officer went well, but he experienced difficulties with the second and third, possibly due to concerns about the official caveat that information obtained could be passed to senior management.

Reflecting on the impact of undercover work, HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ described the difficulty of living a double life:

‘You live in a world of lies. It’s not easy to do and it’s not pleasant to do… the problem being undercover is you tell one lie, you have to tell 100 lies’

We are not entirely sure how he resolved this against his previously expressed view that it would be a huge dislocation to have a police officer who didn’t believe that honesty is the right course.

Tuesday 23rd July (Day 12)

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

The Case of HN95 Stefan Scutt

The Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) deployment of HN95 Stefan Scutt ‘Stefan Wesolowski’ was marred by significant ethical and operational breaches.

He reported on the Socialist Workers’ Party in Hackney and related campaigns, including the year-long industrial dispute in Wapping against the mass sacking of 5,000 printworkers by newspaper bosses.

He informed another officer about sexual misconduct by an undercover operative, hinting at the widespread nature of such unethical behaviour.

After his withdrawal, it was claimed that Scutt had apparently embellished his army career on his application to the SDS (claiming he’d been involved in intelligence in Northern Ireland), was allegedly secretly living with a partner and children in Norfolk while supposedly undercover, falsified entries in his SDS rent book, and claimed overtime he wasn’t entitled to.

In May 1988, Superintendent Evans identified the root of Scutt’s problems as a breakdown in his relationship with his superior officer Detective Inspector HN109, noting they were ‘not complementary characters’.

Despite these issues, HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’, HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’, and HN8 (names withheld) defended Scutt and sought more time for his withdrawal, revealing the unit’s reluctance to address internal problems.

The toxic atmosphere within the unit was further exemplified by reports of HN10 Bob Lambert physically confronting HN109, allegedly pushing him against a wall and making threats if he didn’t leave ‘Stef’ alone.

Mental Health Crisis and Mishandling

Following his withdrawal, Scutt experienced a significant mental health crisis. Superintendent Evans described him as ‘looking grey and drawn’ and ‘quite ill with worry’.

Scutt was removed from the list of authorised firearms officers and subsequently went absent without leave. He was eventually found disoriented in the grounds of York Cathedral, where he disclosed details about his deployments to uniformed officers.

Scutt was later diagnosed with an ‘alter ego problem’. However, management had intervened to protect the unit by insisting this diagnosis pre-dated his deployment.

In the face of these serious issues, Special Branch decided against disciplinary proceedings. DCS Parker justified this decision by arguing that it would be complicated to establish the facts and risked exposing the unit to unwelcome publicity. The events surrounding Scutt’s withdrawal were kept as quiet as possible. Though documents show the Director General of the Security Service was informed, a note from the agency shows:

‘the SDS consider this to be an internal matter only. They may decide to allude to it in their 1988 annual report but were very exercised at the idea of the problem being brought to the immediate attention of the Home Office’

Scutt’s case had broader implications for the SDS. The controversy was followed by changes in how the SDS was funded, with the Home Office switching from annual to rolling funding, effectively reducing oversight.

SDS managers feared that if details of Scutt’s case became public, it could lead to the unit being shut down. We note that the Inquiry, in its Interim Report in 2023, has already concluded that the unit should have been closed down anyway, way back in the early 1970s.

Live: HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ testified about his infiltration of various Socialist Workers Party branches in South London in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Recruitment and Training

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ joined the Metropolitan Police in the early 1980s, serving in uniform before joining Special Branch in the mid-1980s. His path to the Special Demonstration Squad began with a casual conversation with a colleague in April 1988, highlighting the informal nature of SDS recruitment.

During his selection meeting, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ had expressed his views on protest:

‘I said that I believed that people had a right to protest, and I had no problem with that. However, because of the disorder that, you know, I had seen, I didn’t believe that protesters had perhaps the right to impact so much on other people’s lives’

Like HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ received minimal training for his role. He confirmed that there was ‘no formal course or training’ while inside the SDS. Instead, preparation for deployment involved regular meetings and conversations with experienced undercover officers and managers.

After his deployment, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ went on to serve as a mentor to undercover officers, attending training sessions to prepare for the role, including one with a psychologist. However, he felt the mentoring scheme had limitations:

‘we may have been ex-field officers but at the end of the day, we weren’t counsellors. So didn’t have, obviously, the benefit of psychologist training or something similar’

This lack of formal training and guidance is a recurring theme in evidence from officers in the SDS.

Stolen Identity

As was standard SDS practice, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ stole the identity of a dead child for his time undercover. He conducted research into the real Mark Kerry’s background, including visiting the area where the boy had lived.

‘It was simply so I could familiarise myself with the locality. So if at some point I should be asked on where I was born, et cetera, then I would at least be able to describe something of, you know, where I had been born and brought up’

Influence, Intrusion and Blackmail

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ first infiltrated the City of London Anti-Apartheid Group, who had a permanent 24hours-a-day protest outside the South African embassy.

He then infiltrated various Socialist Workers Party (SWP) branches, including Lambeth South, South-West London, Kingston, and Lambeth North. He played an active role in SWP activities, even helping to establish a new branch in Kingston.

As with colleagues who took roles of influence on the groups they spied on, he was at pains to downplay it. When questioned about the appropriateness of his level of involvement, he unconvincingly claimed:

‘my contribution would have made no difference to whether that group would have carried out that activity at Kingston or not’

His deep involvement in SWP activities included attending the party’s annual 2,000-strong rally/social gathering at Skegness, where he shared accommodation with other activists. He drove at least one activist to the event and rented a caravan with three others.

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ appeared to be completely oblivious to the inappropriateness of this, responding when asked ‘I just simply didn’t see it as an intrusion’

He provided extensive reporting on SWP activities and members’ personal lives. He consistently argued that all information was potentially valuable and that it was standard practice to report everything he could remember.

Asked about the necessity of reporting all this information, he responded

‘I think really I included everything that I thought was relevant to the character of that person, or to the physical appearance of that person’

His reports often included sensitive personal information. For example, one report from March 1992, detailed someone described as a ‘practising homosexual’ who was no longer a member of the SWP.

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ defended reporting such information:

‘It was relevant to report that this ex-member of the SWP went to events about “homosexual rights” despite the fact these events were not subversive of public order issues’

Most significantly, he acknowledged that a range of such personal information (including regarding sexuality and family issues) would be reported because:

‘this might be useful for anyone seeking to recruit [the person] as an informer’

When asked if it was within his remit to report such information, he responded:

‘Sometimes it was, yes’

He claimed someone had undertaken a ‘marriage of convenience’, and ‘this sort of information may have assisted with any efforts to recruit the individual as a source’, ie coerced into becoming a police informant.

The only possible conclusion of this shocking admission is that the SDS was routinely collecting such information on hundreds if not thousands of people to be potentially used by police or security services to threaten and blackmail vulnerable people into becoming informants.

It will be interesting to see how many future SDS witnesses, including managers, admit to this vile tactic.

The Poll Tax Demonstrations

As the grassroots movement against the Government’s poll tax continued to grow hugely in 1989 and early 1990, SDS officers monitored the many local protests, especially the mass protests at local Town Halls setting the ‘rates’.

There was planned a national demonstration to Trafalgar Square on 31 March 1990, the day before the new tax was to be implemented. SDS officers met to pool their ‘intelligence’ on the numbers expected.

The SDS’s ability to provide such pre-demonstration estimates is regularly used to try to ‘justify’ its extensive and intrusive spying. The officers came up with an estimate of 15,000 people.

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ stated:

‘I said, personally, it was going to be as big as the CND demonstration of – I forget how many years before. So my estimate was probably around 30,000 people.’

In fact, over 200,000 attended. So much for SDS ‘intelligence’.

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ said that he was aware that fellow SDS officer HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ had been arrested during what had turned into a riot in and around Trafalgar Square (Dines later boasted of the event, writing an article and making a poster)

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ recalled:

‘he had, I think, marbles in his pocket in the riot. I don’t know how that came to police notice, but I understand he was arrested’

HN90 explained that marbles could be thrown in front of police horses (to deter mounted charges).

‘Justification’?

Throughout his testimony, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ appeared to have no concept of the inappropriateness of police interfering in political processes. He defended the SDS operations as necessary for maintaining public order and assessing the potential for subversion.

‘I didn’t see that the SDS was trying to achieve a shutdown of political organisations, but more to monitor what was going on and to report back’

When questioned about reporting on democratically elected representatives, he responded

‘I was just simply reporting, you know, on their appearance at a public event and what they had to say. So I didn’t see that as any problem whatsoever’

Unlike some previous officers who expressed regret in hindsight, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ remained steadfast in his belief that all his actions and infiltrations were fully justified, even when viewed from today’s perspective. When asked if his infiltration of the Socialist Workers Party remained justifiable on public order grounds, he responded, ‘Yes, I do’.

Relationships with Management and MI5

Meetings between SDS managers and the Security Service were regular occurrences, with the Security Service providing assessments of the value of SDS intelligence. HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ acknowledged regular contact with his managers and noted the Security Service’s interest in his deployment, describing them as ‘one of our main customers’.

The Security Service played a significant role in influencing targeting decisions for undercover officers, showing interest in specific groups and individuals, and making regular requests for information.

HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ was aware of these interactions:

‘I knew right from the outset that the Security Service, you know, was an important customer, shall we say, of our intelligence reports’

Spying on the Lawrence Family

While working in C Squad in Special Branch after his deployment, HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ admitted seeing SDS reports on the Stephen Lawrence family campaign, which was seeking justice for their son who was murdered by a gang of racists.

‘Yes, I – I do [recall seeing such reports], because that was – that was something that, um, obviously the Metropolitan Police were interested obviously in the murder and that question there, whether or not there was any extreme right wing involvement in that. So that was – so any reporting that concerned that campaign, I would sometimes see that material’

He claimed that such reports were ‘very, very, very rare’.

The Inquiry failed to question him further about this highly controversial issue, and one of the key controversies fundamental to the setting up of the whole undercover policing inquiry. We know that former SDS officer Peter Francis has stated that the SDS were spying on the family campaign, trying to ‘find dirt’ with which to smear them.

C Squad was clearly investigating if the racist assailants who murdered Stephen Lawrence had connections with right-wing political groups, and yet were getting the SDS secret reports on the family campaign. Why were such reports written, and how were they used? Why did the police investigation fail to nail the murderers?

Wednesday 24th July (Day 13)

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Live: HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’

HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ was a notable witness as, unlike all the other officers giving evidence in open hearings about spying on the political left, he was deployed to infiltrate the far-right.

In 1990, he was sent to spy on the British National Party (BNP). His deployment was remarkably short lived, lasting less than a year, and therefore sits in sharp contrast to the officers who were deployed into left wing groups for years on end.

Bizarrely he was ordered by the SDS, backed by the Security Service, to join an inactive, even dormant, BNP branch in Loughton. Was this just a token deployment to pretend to ‘balance’ the widespread targeting of the left? Or was it more the case, as we had heard during the evidence in Tranche 1 of the hearings, that fascist groups weren’t infiltrated as they were ‘too violent’?

The testimony of HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ revealed the SDS as a highly secretive unit, even within the Metropolitan Police. He described first noticing SDS officers as ‘strange people’ with ‘long hair and beards’ appearing in the office, but ‘nobody would really talk about it’.

The selection process was equally opaque, ‘unlike any sort of selection board I had been through before’.

Once in the SDS, officers worked largely in isolation. Training was informal, as HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ described:

‘I believe all of my pre-deployment knowledge was gained through discussions with the officers already in the field’

These discussions often occurred during twice-weekly meetings. HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ emphasised the lack of structure as he corrected the implications of the Inquiry’s questioning:

‘Unfortunately you make it sound like a lecture. It isn’t, it’s like a cup of coffee chat’

HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ did not steal a dead child’s identity, contrasting with a significant proportion of earlier officers. He also revealed the interesting detail that SDS officers did not know each other’s cover names and that it was considered ‘taboo’ to ask.

Infiltration of Far-Right Groups

The deployment of HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ into the British National Party provided insights into the SDS’s approach (or lack of it) to far-right groups.

He seems to have been selected for this role due to being ‘a black belt in Karate’.

At a national BNP rally, he reported hearing a speech claiming that ‘obviously a large number of police understood the sentiments if not supported the British National Party’” and that:

‘if these officers did not soon cast off their uniforms and throw in their lot with the British National Party and join in the struggle for racial purity they would find themselves the targets of British National Party wrath when it finally achieved power – an hypothesis which was greeted by almost deafening agreement in the form of applause by the audience’.

HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ also reported on a speech by BNP chairman John Tyndall, who said that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner ‘was no more than a puppet dancing to the tune of the [Jewish] British Board of Deputies’.

Despite the BNP’s well known anti-semitism, HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ was renting a flat from a Jewish family. BNP members visited him there, and the Inquiry questioned him about the potential risk to his landlords – he said that the visitors were unaware of the situation.

He admitted to witnessing a brazen physical assault on a left wing supporter by a BNP activist at a march without reporting it, rationalising, ‘there was no point in me trying to report’.

When questioned further, he attempted to justify his inaction:

‘Well, there may have been a crime, whether it was a common assault, actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, I couldn’t tell’

He later said that he had ‘significant discretion’ in what he reported, but also claimed he would report ‘anything, really, that was going on that was of interest to the police’.

The deployment of HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ focused on the Loughton branch of the British National Party, which he described as ‘moribund’, maybe just one or two activists selling the BNP paper.

This led to periods of limited reporting, causing some concern among his managers about his productivity. He explained:

‘they were not doing anything… I found it quite boring to be perfectly honest’.

He told the Inquiry that the BNP members he interacted with were ‘quite a law abiding bunch of people’ and that he didn’t witness organised attacks, which contrasts somewhat with his statements about the broader far-right being prone to violence.

At a BNP ‘Rights for Whites’ demonstration HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ saw that one of the leaders was talking conspiratorially with a member of the Loughton branch, and pointing over at him. He believed that he may have been identified as a policeman. He reported that he was followed twice whist driving in his car.

After being asked by the SDS to attend a BNP branch meeting elsewhere in East London, he refused as he felt was too dangerous. ‘I was concerned that I could have been killed’, he explained.

‘It would have been suspicious for a Loughton British National Party member to turn up to another group’s meeting out of the blue’

HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ said that after this the managers turned on him.

This, combined with his earlier safety concerns, led to his unilateral decision to withdraw from the operation. HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ ended his own deployment, cleared out his operational flat and reverted to his usual appearance. SDS managers were ‘horrified’ about this, but could do nothing.

He was questioned about an incident from his written evidence where he described a ‘complicated relationship’ with one of the other SDS officers:. He suspected that the colleague done things which could have exposed him. The colleague had asked HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ for his cover name at a biweekly meeting. Afterwards two other officers had expressed their shock, because asking for someone’s cover name was taboo.

The implication here is that an officer with right wing sympathies, or maybe an axe to grind, may have sought to expose HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ to the BNP.

Sexual Relationships

His testimony highlighted numerous ethical complexities. He admitted to wearing a wedding ring partly as a ‘deterrent’ to romantic entanglements in his cover identity. However, he claimed ignorance of any sexual relationships between SDS officers and targets until media revelations years later:

‘I had never, ever heard of a relationship with a woman’

This claim seems at odds with the widespread nature of such relationships later revealed. When asked about his reaction to eventually learning about HN10 Bob Lambert‘s abuses, he said he had been ‘astonished’:

‘It just seemed ridiculous that he could have been so stupid and irresponsible, and, if you want, immoral. That he could do that to his family’

Nonetheless, he described Lambert as ‘a very capable police officer… a very intelligent man… the most professional SDS officer ever’

That’s certainly a novel view of one of the most controversial of all the spycops.

Management, Oversight and the Impact of Undercover Work

Like so many officers at the Inquiry, the evidence of HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ illuminated significant failings in SDS management. He provided insights into his own relationship with other officers and managers. He described HN109’s management style as ‘very difficult’ and said he ‘mistrusted him’.

In contrast, he praised Detective Chief Inspector Martin Gray as one of the best managers he ever had. About Chris Hyde, he said he was ‘one of the boys… not really a very good manager’. When asked if he felt supported after his deployment ended, HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ replied simply ‘not at all, no’.

He highlighted the lack of formal support structures within the SDS, both during and after deployments. His experiences suggest a unit that often operated on informal practices and personal relationships, rather than established protocols. Regarding welfare support, he said:

‘There was no welfare or support for me as a former undercover officer. With hindsight, it was not adequate for my needs although I was able to quash any rumours about my deployment’

When he ended his own deployment, HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ felt unsupported by management, describing ‘a couple of unpleasant months at work’ where he was ‘treated with some disdain by some colleagues’.

He left us with an impression of a culture where management was quick to blame individual officers rather than examine systemic issues, recounting a particularly telling interaction with superintendent in the corridor in Special Branch:

‘he shook my hand and said “it takes a brave man to admit that he is not up to the job” ‘

The psychological toll of undercover work was evident in the evidence HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’, which highlights the intense pressure and isolation felt by undercover officers.

He mentioned officers who left the police immediately after their deployments, and spoke about one officer, HN4, who ‘took to drink’ following his undercover work. When asked about HN4’s struggles, HN56 said ‘it was obvious. He got into trouble’.

His account of how fellow officers confronted HN4 about a drink driving arrest was interesting, revealing a deeply dysfunctional approach to internal discipline. He described a ‘self-appointed “Court of the Star Chamber” ‘ in which HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’ and another officer asked managers to leave the room (which they did):

‘they were interrogating HN4 over his behaviour… and it wasn’t just the drink drive’

HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ also expressed scepticism about HN5 John Dines claiming to having been beaten up by police following being arrested at the Trafalgar Square poll tax demonstration.

He was present when HN5 John Dines came into the SDS office and said it looked like he’d faked it in a bid for martyrdom credibility:

‘The injuries that he sustained, in my mind, were not consistent with having been beaten up in the back of a police van. In other words, they were self-inflicted, in my opinion. The injuries I witnessed on his face did not resemble being battered’

Taken as a whole, his evidence suggested a toxic culture where officers (for example Dines) took discipline into their own hands and may have exaggerated incidents for ‘glory’ or ‘notoriety’.

While he denied any difference in attitudes towards women or racial minorities between police and non-police organisations, he belied this by suggesting that officers who joined the police young were ‘less likely to recognise’ sexist behaviour as problematic, describing it as ‘the norm’ in some instances. He attributed his own different perspective to his background:

‘Because I think – because I was a late joiner, I was not moulded by the Metropolitan Police like a young man can be when they join at 18’

This is an implicit admission that sexism and racism are normalised and instilled by the police. It is an institutional problem.

Financial Incentives

Documents showed HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’ received significant overtime payments of over £1000 per month.

When asked if this was a substantial amount in 1990, he confirmed ‘yes, huge, yes’. He insisted money was not an incentive, because ‘if it had been an incentive I would have stayed on’.

Nevertheless, the substantial sums involved raise questions about other officers motivations for undertaking, and seeking to extend, undercover operations and continue useless, potentially traumatic or ethically dubious deployments.

The fact that this officer had collected so much money for infrequent reports and failure to infiltrate any group properly shows how easily the overtime and lack of oversight could add up to a cushy scam.

Thursday 25th July (Day 14)

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Live: Lindsey German
Socialist Workers’ Party

The final day of the week’s hearings featured testimony from Lindsey German, for 30 years a pivotal figure in the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and currently the convener of the Stop the War Coalition. German’s testimony provided a crucial counterpoint to police narratives heard earlier in the week.

German was elected to the SWP central committee in 1979 and remained in the role throughout the Inquiry’s Tranche 2 period (1983-1992). She was involved in organising meetings, editing publications, and supporting campaigns, demonstrations and strikes.

German said that the committee met weekly to discuss strategic matters. She also mentioned her regular attendance at national demonstrations, though she was less frequent at local protests. She described how the SWP also supported a range of social justice causes, from the Poll Tax protests to the campaign against the 1994 Criminal Justice Bill.

She discussed the annual ‘Marxism’ events organised by the SWP, describing them as public, academic gatherings that attracted a wide range of people, over 6,000 attendees, including many non-SWP members.

2,000 people, including children and many non-members, also attended the SWP’s annual gathering at Skegness. She bluntly condemned the heavy SDS surveillance of all these events:

‘The idea that there was any need for any kind of undercover policing is just ludicrous really’

SWP Activities and Police Mischaracterisations

A significant part of German’s testimony was dedicated to examining documents like the Security Service’s ‘Brief Guide to Subversion in Great Britain’ from 1985 and 1995, which described the SWP as a Trotskyite organisation advocating for the overthrow of the capitalist system, aiming to replace it with workers’ councils.

German agreed with the general description but emphasised the SWP’s commitment to democracy:

‘We believed that you could only achieve socialism, I still do believe this, by an organic movement based on working class people organising themselves, and therefore presenting an alternative to existing government’

German strongly rejected characterisations of SWP members as aggressive or disruptive in police reports.

She pointed out the inaccuracies in many of the reports, and their often derogatory comments – for example she criticised an SDS officer’s description of Wayman Bennett, a university-educated black man, who had been characterised as being ‘not particularly intelligent’.

The relaunch of the Anti-Nazi League (ANL) in the early 1990’s was also addressed with German explaining the SWP’s role in this, emphasising that while the SWP initiated the relaunch, the ANL was a broad organisation with many non-SWP members.

German addressed SDS officer claims about the alleged formation of a group of ‘hitters’ within the SWP or ANL – a supposed group of activists set up to physically defend events from fascist attacks. She denied any knowledge or approval of such a group:

‘I don’t think that would have been sanctioned by the central committee’

The Welling Demonstration and Police Tactics

A significant portion of German’s testimony focused on the mass anti-BNP demonstration at Welling on 16 October 1993. It was organised by a range of groups, and up to 40,000 attended, calling for the closure of a BNP ‘bookshop’ in the area.

The establishment of this ‘bookshop’, in reality an organising base for racists and fascists, had led to a massive growth in racist attacks on local black residents, including murders (for example of Stephen Lawrence).

German explained how the police had banned the march from going past the ‘bookshop’, and agreed an alternative route with the organisers. However, on the day the police halted and surrounded the march at a junction, and then attacked it.

She described the events as a ‘medieval battle’, noting the aggressive police presence, including 83 mounted officers, which was more than twice the number used at the notorious Orgreave miners’ demonstration attacked by police in 1984.

German recounted how the police cordoned off all exits, creating a chaotic and dangerous environment.

A fellow SWP Central Committee member, Julie Waterson, was badly injured.

‘People were injured by police truncheons in numerous police charges. It was extremely fortunate that no one died from police charges that day’

This view was based on her personal experiences, having been present at the 1974 Red Lion Square anti-fascist protest when Kevin Gately had been killed by police, and at a 2001 protest in Genoa, Italy, where anti-capitalist demonstrator Carlo Giuliani was shot dead by police.

German dismissed allegations that the SWP planned to incite violence at the demonstration, including the supposed intention to burn down the BNP bookshop. She explained that the police’s violent tactics, not the demonstrators’ actions, led to injuries and chaos. German emphasised the pattern of police instigating violence at certain demonstrations, a recurring theme in her testimony.

German’s testimony also covered the SWP’s support for various justice campaigns, including those for the Tottenham Three, Joy Gardner, Brian Douglas, and Stephen Lawrence. She explained that the SWP’s involvement was driven by their politics, which opposed injustice and supported those wronged by the system. German firmly rejected SDS slurs that the SWP supported these campaigns for their own political gain.

Reflections on Impact of Undercover Policing and Social Justice

German’s testimony concluded with broader reflections on the role of policing in society and the importance of social justice movements. She discussed the SWP’s view on the role of the police in maintaining capitalist power structures and defended the SWP’s support for industrial disputes, emphasising their role in standing up for better wages and working conditions, and trade union rights.

German was critical of the undercover policing operations and the reports they produced:

‘there is such a level of self-promotion, aggrandisement and inaccuracy about these reports’

She described the emotional toll of undercover policing on activist groups, including a pervasive sense of mistrust and suspicion that lingered long after the operations ended, undermining the work of social justice organisations.

German also touched on the changing nature of protest and political activism over the years, noting the impact of events like the Poll Tax protests and the rise of the BNP on SWP membership and activities.

Her testimony provided valuable historical context for understanding the political climate in which the SDS operated and the motivations of the groups and campaigns they targeted.

This summary covers the second week of Tranche 2 hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), examining the activities of the Metropolitan Police’s secret political unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, from 1983-92.

It was the first of this set of hearings to hear live evidence and question witnesses.

The UCPI is an independent, judge-led inquiry into undercover policing in England and Wales. Its main focus is the activity of two units who deployed long-term undercover officers into a variety of political groups; the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS, 1968-2008) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU, 1999-2011). Spycops from these units lived as activists for years at a time, spying on more than 1,000 groups.

INTRODUCTION

It was a devastating week for Special Demonstration Squad officers at the Undercover Policing Inquiry hearings.

An officer confirmed that a colleague, HN67 ‘Alan Bond’, had admitted having a child with a woman he spied on. This is the the fourth such child that we know of. Officers knew they would be abandoning the children as toddlers and leaving the women with all the work and costs of parenthood.

Another officer, HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’, was exposed not only for racism and misogyny in his pointless reporting, but also as a fantasist who made up bomb threats that made his work seem more important. It’s not only damning for him but for the Met as a whole, as he was promoted up to running Special Branch and being the Met’s Head of Intelligence.

On the opening day of the live hearings, the Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance, Police Spies Out of Lives, the Blacklist Support Group and other campaigners holding a demonstration outside the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London, before live in-person hearings began inside.

On Monday 8 July, the hearings dealt with the deployments of officer HN20 ‘Tony Williams’, and HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ spying on anarchist groups. The ‘non-state witnesses’ – those who were spied on – gave evidence first.

The hearing began with the Inquiry Legal Team (ILT) reading summaries of written evidence for officer HN20 ‘Tony Williams’, and civilian witnesses ‘MSW’ and Albert Beale. Then Dave Morris stepped up to speak about the London Worker’s Group and the Persons Unknown defence campaign.

In the afternoon Stephen Sorba gave evidence on behalf of Friends of Freedom Press.

On Tuesday 9 July, spycop HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ gave evidence all day and was subjected to a blistering cross-examination that ran several hours over the allotted time.

Wednesday 10 July saw summaries of the evidence relating to the deployments of HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’, HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ and HN67 ‘Alan Bond’, as well as one live witness, Michael Chant, general secretary of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

On Thursday 11 July we heard the harrowing testimony of Frank Bennett, the half-brother of Michael Hartley, who was lost at sea in his late teens and whose identity was stolen by HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’ for his undercover deployment.

In the afternoon, HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ gave evidence including about his statement to the effect that HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ fathered a child whilst undercover.

OBSERVATIONS

There really is no substitute for live evidence, and you will see in the summaries below how effectively the testimony we heard showcased not only the arrogance and abhorrent practices of the SDS officers but also the integrity and commitment of the groups and individuals they targeted – and whose trust they abused.

The Inquiry has put off hearings about some of the most controversial deployments in this Tranche until ‘Phase 2’ (which will take place in the autumn). However, this first week of evidence proved to be surprisingly exciting, and we saw further indications of changing attitudes on the part of the Inquiry Legal Team.

In particular, the cross examination of HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ was far from the forgiving ‘friendly chat’ format that was frustratingly common during cross examination of ex-undercover officers in Tranche 1.

If you have time to watch one video from this week, we would highly recommend the last couple of hours of the afternoon session of the cross examination of HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ from Day 5, Tuesday 9 July. Unfortunately, unlike the other hearings this week, the video has not yet been published by the Inquiry.

CONTENTS

Monday 8 July (Day 4)
Summaries of written evidence:
HN20 ‘Tony Williams’, MSW, and Albert Beale
Live: Dave Morris
Live: Stephen Sorba, on behalf of Friends of Freedom Press

Tuesday 9 July (Day 5)
Live: HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’

Wednesday 10 July (Day 6)
Summaries of written evidence:
HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’, HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’, and HN67 ‘Alan Bond’.
Live: Michael Chant

Thursday 11 July (Day 7)
Live: Frank Bennett, family of the real Michael Hartley.
Live: HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’.

Day 4: Monday 8 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Summaries of written evidence: HN20, MSW and Albert Beale
These were read onto the record, and the corresponding documents and full written statements are available online.

HN20 ‘Tony Williams’

We were told that HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ provided a witness statement to the Inquiry in January 2020.

He was deployed undercover by the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) from February 1978 to October 1982, into the London Workers Group (LWG), Persons Unknown and the Revolutionary Prisoners Group. There is a Restriction Order over his real name.

‘Williams’ said he ‘could not recall’ many details from 40 years ago, and he reported no real training, no recollection of any manual and generally described his deployment as being ‘left to our own devices’ with no tasking once they were undercover.

He described the LWG as a group supporting workers in ways which would ‘ultimately lead to revolution’, and which was dominated by anarchist politics. His reports contain evidence of him attending a birthday party in someone’s home, speaking at meetings and reporting on debates within the group. He also took positions of responsibility, including ‘publicity manager’, treasurer and secretary.

It’s clear from his reporting that the group was small and largely educational in character and hence posed no ‘threat’, and he claims he continued attending in order to maintain his cover.

However, that doesn’t explain why he would continue reporting on the group. That appears to be explained by the keen interest of the Security Service (also known as MI5) in anarchism at the time. ‘Williams’ says he was debriefed by MI5 at an SDS flat after his deployment ended and he believes they were seeing his reports.

MSW

MSW is a civilian who was reported on by SDS undercover officers, principally HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ and HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’, although he has no recollection of meeting either of them. He is known only by his initials as he was granted anonymity at his request. His witness statement is dated 16 May 2024.

From 1979 to 1984, MSW was involved in ‘anarchist workerist communist circles’.

He states:

‘I was not involved in any covert illegal activity at any point when I was politically active’.

He describes his involvement with three groups in particular, the Anarchy Collective, publishing an anarchist theory magazine called Anarchy; his support for the Autonomy Club, ‘to establish and run an anarchist social centre and event space’; and the London Workers Group (LWG). The LWG was an open group of around 10 regular attendees and ‘did not have a formal organisation structure but there was always someone who was in charge of the money and took the minutes, so in theory, performing treasurer and secretary roles’.

He describes Group as publishing ‘rebellious’ content in its bulletin such as the article ‘We Want to Riot, not to Work’, which he considers:

‘should probably be understood as an expression of “punk attitude” to societal norms about the compulsion to wage labour, rather than actually advocating public disorder – it was riffing on the Brixton riots’

They supported and took part in workers’ picketing during industrial disputes, including actions ‘later deemed to be illegal on grounds like obstruction or breach of the peace’.

He states that none of the three groups used ‘violence’ to achieve their aims.

The groups variously theorised, propagandised, and organised ‘towards a generalised social revolution, which would produce its own organisational structures’. He was not surprised to learn undercover officers had reported on the groups with which he was involved, but he was shocked they entered private homes. He feels vulnerable and disgusted that the information about him was recorded, retained, used, and disseminated by Special Branch.

Albert Beale

Albert Beale is a 77-year-old civilian who was reported on by SDS officers; HN20 ‘Tony Williams’, HN65 ‘John Kerry’ and HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’. His witness statement along with exhibits AB1 to AB9 are dated 8 March 2024.

Beale says he is a pacifist and has spent much of his life ‘concerned with issues of peace, justice, and sustainability and trying to act on those concerns’.

He gives an account of his early activism and later groups, he was involved with, including London Peace Action ‘a local group of antimilitarist activists’; the Anti-Falklands War Support Network in supporting ‘pacifists and others… because of their opposition to the Falklands War’; the Peace Pledge Union, which he describes as the main British pacifist organisation; War Resisters International, an international pacifist and antimilitarist network; Peace News Trustees Limited; Campaign Against Arms Trade; and the ABC Defence Campaign, defending two journalists and a soldier charged under the Official Secrets Act.

The main group Beale was – and still is – involved in was London Greenpeace, being a founder in the early 1970s. London Greenpeace was the first Greenpeace group in Europe, having been set up following an article published in Peace News in 1971.

He addresses the notions of public order and disorder in the context of the groups and campaigns, explaining that order is:

‘based on people’s acquiescence to a system of economic injustice and to a system which is producing an ecosystem which will soon be inimical to the future existence of our species’.

He defoned disorder:

‘a matter of shaking up the status quo; in my view, our world is in greater need of some “disordering”.’

He thinks most others involved in similar groups would have taken a similar view.

‘I see myself as generally committed to [direct action]. In other words, when doing what is necessary to follow my conscience, if that is judged to be in breach of some law, then so be it.’

On violence he said it ‘relate[s] essentially to harming another person’ and that damage to property is not in itself violent. He doubts that any of the groups or campaigns with which he was involved considered violence to be necessary to achieve their aims.

Beale finds the notion of ‘overthrowing parliamentary democracy’ – the spycops’ and MI5’s definition of subversion that made someone worth spying on – a puzzling one, something that was not discussed in any of the groups or campaigns.

Beale has considered the cover names of the officers that have been named as active at the time and does not recall knowing any of them well, if at all. On learning that he had been reported on by undercover officers, he said he found it unnerving. He felt betrayed and extremely unsettled. He still considers the situation to be intolerable and he is left ‘wondering if there were other people I have known who might have been doing the same’.

Live evidence: Dave Morris

Dave Morris is an influential activist throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and up to today. He has submitted a written statement for Tranche 2 Phase 1 (T2P1), dated 5 June 2024. He appeared live to be questioned by Ms Gargitter of the Inquiry Legal Team (ILT).

Due to the Inquiry’s failure to properly manage the process of disclosing police documents, he will be asked to submit further written evidence and he will be called back to speak again in Tranche 2 Phase 2 in this autumn.

His T2P1 testimony, both live and in writing, provided a detailed and nuanced perspective on his activism and the activities of the groups he was involved with. His responses highlighted the contentious nature of the reports by undercover officers and underscored ethical concerns surrounding undercover policing.

His emphasis on collective action, mutual aid and peaceful protest painted a stark contrast to the reports implying violent intent. Morris was clear on the need for a thorough and transparent inquiry and it was obvious that, as the Inquiry progresses, his insights will be crucial in understanding the broader implications of undercover operations on activist movements.

INFILTRATION IMPACTS

Morris began by detailing some of his activism, starting as a postal worker active in his trade union in the 1970s. He co-founded the London Workers Group in the mid-1970s and was active in housing issues in Islington and Hackney.

By the early 1980s, his focus shifted mainly to his local community in Tottenham, helping to set up the Tottenham Claimants’ Union. He also got involced in London Greenpeace – and beame embroiled in the McDonald’s libel case, or ‘McLibel’, which consumed a significant portion of his life for nearly a decade.

London Greenpeace was infiltrated by multiple undercover officers.

He specifically mentioned spycops HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’, HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’, and others who had deeply infiltrated their activities. They influenced the course of events and acted as agents provocateur.

One of the most striking aspects of Morris’ testimony was his account of the personal betrayals experienced by group members. He cited HN5 John Dines:

‘He engineered a long fraudulent sexual relationship with Helen Steel while she was preparing for the legal battle with McDonald’s…

He gave every impression that he was in love with Helen and that they were a couple preparing for a long relationship together. His sudden disappearance faking a mental breakdown certainly caused her intense trauma and stress for over 20 years.’

Meanwhile HN10 Bob Lambert had four sexual relationships with activists and fathered a child, later abandoning the child and his mother.

Morris emphasised the emotional toll such deceit took on individuals.

‘These weren’t just professional relationships; they were deeply personal. The police exploited our trust and used it against us.’

Morris highlighted the broader impact of undercover policing on activism. He argued that this was a deliberate tactic to try to manipulate and undermine social movements.

Spying on London Greenpeace will be looked at in detail in T2P2.

SUBVERSION AND LAWBREAKING

Morris explained that anarchism advocates for a harmonious society run by people themselves, organised on a voluntary cooperative basis without hierarchical government.

He highlighted the conclusion of SDS officer HN304 ‘Graham Coates’ who, after four years’ deployment in the 1970s, declared that:

‘The anarchists I reported on posed a minimal challenge to public order… I do not think either the International Socialists or the anarchist movement were subversive in terms of their actions….

I do not believe any information I provided whilst I was deployed was particularly significant. I do not think it would have made any difference to public
order if I had not worked for the SDS.’

Morris went further, asserting that powerful institutions, driven by self-serving elites, are the true subversives in society, subverting human cooperation and genuine democracy.

‘Such powerful institutions are generally tightly controlled by a small self-serving elite, continually obsessed with power and profit… are prepared to use violence routinely to maintain their power and control over people and society.’

He explained that while the campaigns he was involved in didn’t set out to break the law, they did encourage collective action to defend people and change things. This included challenging unfair and unjust laws which only serve to protect the rich and powerful, and the unfair and unacceptable status quo.

Morris stressed the importance of collective action and self-defence – pointing out that the right of self-defence is enshrined in law and backed by 99% of the population. Self-defence was justified particularly in response to systemic violence and exploitation, such as evictions by landlords and threats of sacking by employers.

The groups he was active in were open, publicised their activities, and encouraged collective participation.

Morris personally never used or encouraged ‘violence’, pointing to the dictionary definition of violence as ‘unjustifiable force’.

‘It’s not a question of: how can we break the law? It’s more: what do people need to do to change things? And that may include activities that are breaking the law.’

Reports by SDS officer HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ describe Morris as a key figure in the anarchist movement, a notion Morris refuted, pointing out the failure of the police to understand the collective and non-hierarchical nature of anarchist groups, which had no leaders.

‘Williams’ also described Morris as:

‘an archetypical anarchist cherishing the ideals and theories laid down by Kropotkin… frequently talks of resorting to violence to achieve these aims.’

Morris countered:

‘I have never, as far as I can recall, encouraged people to resort to violence.’

He explained that this was in contrast to all political philosophies and parties seeking power, which are based on weilding routine Government and institutional violence, with the exeption of complete Gandhian non-violence advocates.’

HN20 ‘TONY WILLIAMS’ & THE LONDON WORKERS GROUP

The London Workers Group was a collective that met weekly for over eight years. It produced leaflets and bulletins, held regular public meetings on a range of workplace-related issues, supported industrial disputes and strikes, and encouraged workers to set up their own workplace ‘shop-floor’ organisation.

Morris disagreed with the assessment from ‘Williams’ that the group was merely a talking shop, noting their practical contributions and ongoing support for workers’ rights.

When asked about the group’s size and influence, Morris explained:

‘We were a small organisation. I think you can be influential as a small group of people in different circumstances.’

He noted that they had a mailing list of about 120 supporters and publicised their meetings in publications like Time Out.

Reflecting on the role of HN20 ‘Tony Williams’, and also the impact of being told the LWG was infiltrated – but not, initially, being told by whom – Morris returned to one of the core demands of those targeted by Britain’s political secret police:

‘I think it’s really important that all the spies’ cover names and photos are released.’

He explained that the people involved with those groups are entitled to know who spied on them, and without full details might otherwise suspect other people’.

Several vintage reports by HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ were examined to establish their accuracy. One report alleged Morris encouraged a range of support tactics including ‘smashing restaurant windows’ during a strike at Garners Steak House.

He recalled the conversation but denied advocating such actions:

‘I don’t remember anything about smashing restaurant windows, and I certainly would not advocate that, especially if there were people in the restaurant’.

The group agreed to focus on support for the strikers’ picket lines.

HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ took on influential roles at various times in the London Workers Group, including treasurer and secretary, with access to sensitive personal information like financial details and mailing lists. These were sent to MI5, presumably for blacklisting purposes.

TORNESS

The Torness anti-nuclear protests in 1980 were part of a campaign against the construction of a nuclear power station in Scotland. 10,000 had attended the year before, 3,000 of whom had occupied the construction site. ‘It was a big focus for the whole anti-nuclear movement,’ Morris explained.

HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ and Morris attended a much smaller 1980 mini-festival camp and protest. Morris acknowledged that some people wanted to cut the fence:

‘I am sure the idea was to try to enter the site and occupy it, basically.’

In the end Morris took in a part in a peaceful sit-down blockade of the main entrance, which was attacked by police. Morris was arrested.

It is instructive that HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ in his witness statement admits that:

‘I did not witness nor become involved in violence whilst deployed undercover save that the police in Scotland in Torness were somewhat heavy-handed in dealing with what was essentially non-aggressive trespass’.

Hence after four years infiltrating the anarchist movement the only violence he witnessed was from the police!

PERSONS UNKNOWN

The Persons Unknown campaign was a defence campaign supporting anarchists charged with conspiracy to cause explosions. Morris described it as a traditional defence campaign, providing support to the defendants and publicising the high-profile case ‘to counter police and media hysteria’.

HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ reported Morris’ support for the campaign as an indication of sympathy for violent actions. However, Morris emphasised the importance of supporting individuals facing legal challenges without necessarily endorsing their alleged actions.

In relation to the charges, Morris maintained:

‘No, I don’t support explosions and bombs. You know, the biggest culprit is the government. They have loads of bombs and they are prepared to use them.’

In reality, the more serious charges were eventually dropped, the ‘dangerous anarchists’ given bail, and the ‘Persons Unknown’ defendants found not guilty.

QUESTIONABLE JUSTIFICATIONS

Morris did not shy away from addressing the accusations against him and his fellow activists:

He left no room for doubt that the real extremists are those in power, or who infiltrate campaign groups for their own agendas.

He argued that the police’s actions were disproportionate and unjustified, and more interested in protecting corporate interests than public safety.

Morris dismissed man of the police reports as ‘exaggerated and often inaccurate,’ citing specific examples where police reports were proven false, and pointed to moments where the police were forced to admit wrongdoing.

WRONGFUL ACCUSATIONS

Morris was also questioned about a surprise accusation made by HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ two years ago, but which had only been disclosed to Morris by the Inquiry at the very last minute before submitting his statement.

Pearce named Dave Morris in connection with an alleged recce of a ‘bomb site’ at a military barracks in Aldershot.

Pearce said in his 2022 witness statement:

‘I went to Aldershot with Dave Morris, [someone else] and possibly one other man. We were in my car, there could have been four or five of us, but I only recall those two names.’

This isn’t from an old undercover report 40 years ago, but from his recent and carefully composed declaration of fact to the Inquiry.

On Monday, Morris, giving evidence to the Inquiry, bluntly responded that the claim was ‘a load of rubbish’ and other intelligence reporting from the time appeared to back him up. Morris condemned much of Pearce’s reporting as ‘unreliable, sensationalist, sectarian, and unprofessional’.

On Tuesday, Pearce was challenged on the point by David Barr, KC the Inquiry’s barrister, and was forced to sheepishly concede that he had made ‘a mistake’.

CALL FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

In closing, Morris called for greater accountability and transparency in the Inquiry.

‘We need to know the full extent of these operations. The public deserves to know how and why their tax money was spent undermining campaigning for a better society.’

He demanded that those responsible for authorising and conducting these operations be held accountable.

‘It’s not enough to say mistakes were made. There must be consequences for these abuses of power.’

Stephen Charles Sorba

Sorba is the company secretary of Friends of Freedom Press Limited, and has been involved with the organisation since the 1970s. Freedom Press runs an anarchist publisher and bookshop in East London.

Sorba made a witness statement on behalf of the organisation, which included contributions from Dr Martin Peacock and David McCabe. During the session it was emphasized that McCabe, who had a closer relationship with HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’, could provide a fuller picture. McCabe had offered to give evidence, but despite his clear recollection of Pearce, the Inquiry inexplicably refused his offer.

FREEDOM PRESS HISTORY

Freedom was established in the nineteenth century and is the longest running anarchist publishing house in Europe. Sorba explained that Freedom operated out of a four-story Victorian building known as Angel Alley. The building hosted a bookshop, various offices and, until the early 1990s, a printing press known as Aldgate Press.

The press was established to print the anarchist newspaper, Freedom, and other commercial work to subsidise its operations. The editorial collective responsible for the newspaper’s content operated on a voluntary basis, with only one paid employee in the bookshop during the 1980s.

Sorba explained:

‘The group depended on volunteers and enthusiastic people coming in, showing an interest, getting involved’.

Freedom was a focal point for anarchists in London, with individuals from various groups passing through:

‘We were one of the few organisations that had a building in London. So if you wanted to come and find out what the anarchists were doing and what were they thinking and buy one of their magazines, we were the obvious place to come to.’

HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ infiltrated Freedom between 1980 and 1984. He wrote articles for the Freedom newspaper on topics such as jury vetting, the Irish Republican Army, prison officer strikes, and critiques of police and the state.

Sorba highlighted how Pearce’s articles sometimes exacerbated internal debates within Freedom. He speculated that Pearce’s motivation might have been ‘to stir the pot somewhat.’

A significant point of contention was the publication of ‘My Little Black Book’, which contained instructions for urban guerrilla activities.

Sorba clarified that Aldgate Press took on the project as a commercial job, aware of its controversial nature but not intending to provoke direct action. ‘We were keen to print it because we were going to be paid,’ he explained.

The police searched the premises in 1982, in relation to the project, resulting in Sorba and others being detained. No charges were ever brought.

Another event discussed was the publication of a communique from the Angry Brigades Resistance Movement in the Freedom newspaper. Sorba denied any potential harm or connection to the group, explaining that they were simply reporting on a piece of news.

FUELLING DIVISIONS

The Inquiry examined intelligence reports of activities and interactions within the Freedom collective, including ideological differences, particularly regarding the Irish Republican cause.

HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’ wrote several articles for the paper, including one entitled ‘Prisoners of Politics’ supporting the IRA’s demand for political status for its imprisoned members.

Sorba recalled:

‘It was certainly more sympathetic [to the IRA] than most of the editors would have felt comfortable with.’

The article was in fact published with a footnote from the editors disagreeing with Pearce’s stance, emphasising the collective’s opposition to the IRA’s methods and goals.

The inquiry focused on one vintage secret police report highlighting a particularly contentious meeting where the discussion centred on Pearce’s article:

‘The seminar on Ireland… was not wholly successful. Even in the calmer atmosphere left by the absence of [a key figure], the discussion was centred on a reply from Belfast Anarchist Collective to the Freedom review on Ireland… What should the response of Freedom Collective be to such a critical letter?’

This debate exemplified the ideological divide the article exacerbated within the collective, with most members opposing Pearce’s sympathetic view of the IRA.

‘His language is interesting in certain cases,’ Sorba also noted, reflecting how Pearce’s report of these discussions (and indeed all of his reporting) tended towards disparaging and provocative language. This was to become a key issue for Pearce’s devastating cross examination the following day.

UNDERMINING

Reflecting on Pearce’s infiltration, Sorba acknowledged that while he contributed to the physical production and distribution of the Freedom newspaper, his ultimate goal was to undermine Freedom by spying and providing information to Special Branch.

Despite this, Freedom continued to operate and has persisted beyond Pearce’s infiltration. ‘We survived that blow,’ Sorba remarked.

Sorba also noted the personal impact, ‘I have no recollection of him, but he stole my address book and knew a lot about me.’

Day 5: Tuesday 9 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

All of Day 5 was given over to the evidence of former SDS officer HN85 Roger Pearce ‘Roger Thorley’, and it produced some genuine courtroom drama.

Despite his best efforts, Pearce’s testimony revealed a damning picture of undercover policing practices in the early 1980s. Due to a last minute Restriction Order being granted to a civilian named in some of the reports, live video wasn’t available to the public, which turned out to be a real shame as the session was one of the most interesting to date.

Pearce is a particularly significant officer because of his later career. After his time as an undercover officer he went on to be promoted through the ranks to become Commander of Metropolitan Police Special Branch and Director of Intelligence.

Questioning in this session was limited to his time undercover, so he will have to be called back at a later date to discuss his further activity as a manager. However, in the light of his self-defeating performance on the stand this week, no-one will be surprised if he emigrates or finds some ruse to avoid being cross-examined again about his time as a senior officer.

David Barr KC, the Counsel to the Inquiry, led the session. It ran over time by several hours, and proved to be a stark departure from the more congenial tone of earlier hearings. Pearce was subjected to quite gruelling questioning, with Barr proving far more adept than we’ve previously seen in exposing the depths of unethical behaviour and the broader culture within the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) and the Metropolitan Police.

Pearce provided a detailed account of creating his cover identity using the birth certificate of Roger Thorley, an 11-year-old boy who had died in a road accident. The theft of dead children’s identities was standard practice for SDS officers from the early 1970s to the mid 1990s.

Pearce admitted it was ghoulish:

‘This is a tragic death which we are exploiting really, to use for cover.’

Pearce’s initial infiltration of anti-nuclear groups like the Portobello Anti-Nuclear Group and London Peace Action was scrutinised. He had reported on their activities, including protests against the 1980 Royal Tournament at Earl’s Court.

When questioned about the justification for surveillance of these groups, Pearce admitted they were ‘not subversive’ and ‘not a law and order concern’. This led to extensive questioning about the scope of SDS operations and whether they were overreaching their mandate by monitoring peaceful protest groups.

The discussion revealed additional layers of Pearce’s actions, such as his reporting on the Greater London Council and public transport campaign Fare Fight. These organisations were mild in their activities, indeed, the former was an elected Local Authority. They were spied on solely due to their political stance.

The relationship between the SDS and MI5 was a major focus. Pearce mentioned ‘growing numbers of requests for assistance from MI5’ and noted that SDS managers ‘maintained and even developed the strong partnership with the Security Service.’

He described regular personal meetings with an MI5 contact, occurring every three to four months from around September 1982:

‘My clear understanding is that the initial meeting was set up as a result of an approach from MI5 to the DI [Detective Inspector] on SDS. But meetings subsequently, although not declared, were known about because I would make no secret of them and I think I would assume that I had told the office and they were encouraging it.’

The testimony covered visits by senior police officials to SDS safe houses. Pearce described visits from Gilbert Kelland (Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations), Geoffrey Dear (Assistant Commissioner Personnel), and Kenneth Newman (Commissioner).

Newman reportedly expressed appreciation for how his SDS visit ‘brought life to the dry and arid reports with which he was faced every day’ – a comment that was to acquire greater significance later on, when we saw the sordid and fanciful nature of Pearce’s reporting, which even he admitted had more ‘entertainment’ than ‘intelligence’ value).

RIGHT TO THE TOP

This reinforces the 2022 testimony from HN34 Geoffrey Craft who told the Inquiry that Newman and the Home Secretary had visited an SDS safe house together to personally congratulate officers.

We’ve now had testimony confirming that every Commissioner from the formation of the SDS in 1968 to 2000 was very much aware of the unit and personally congratulated its officers on their work.

This completely demolishes the Met’s earlier claims that the SDS was some kind of ‘rogue unit’ that senior officers were somehow unaware of.

1968-72 – John Waldron
Rajiv Menon QC told the Inquiry Waldron gave officers champagne after an October 1968 Vietnam War protest

1972-77 – Robert Mark
Officer HN304 Graham Coates told the Inquiry Mark visited the safe house to congratulate officers

1977-82 David McNee
Officer HN200 Roger Harris told the Inquiry Mark and McNee both visited the safe house

1982-87 – Kenneth Newman
Officer HN34 Geoff Craft told the Inquiry Newman visited with the Home Secretary

Newman’s successor, Peter Imbert (Commissioner from 1987-93) was previously a Special Branch officer who personally recruited spycop HN348 ‘Sandra Davies’ to the SDS, according to her testimony to the Inquiry.

Additionally, before the Inquiry began, whistleblower SDS officer Peter Francis described how the Commissioner he served under (Imbert’s successor Paul Condon, Commissioner 1993-2000) visited the unit’s safe house and gave out bottles of whisky as a token of his gratutude.

However, the Inquiry will not be hearing evidence from Sir Kenneth Newman, David McNee or Peter Imbert. All three of them have died since the Inquiry began.

ESPIONAGE WITHOUT ETHICS

Pearce’s testimony revealed a striking lack of formal guidance on various crucial aspects of undercover work. Regarding breaching legal professional privilege, reporting on MPs or journalists, or the risk of sexual relationships, Pearce claimed there was ‘no discussion at all’.

He elaborated:

‘These were such bright red flags that they weren’t raised as specific issues in advance of any field deployment by the office.’

This lack of guidance became a major point of contention, with questions focusing on how officers were expected to navigate these ethical minefields without proper training or instruction. The Inquiry was furious with Pearce’s cavalier attitude towards legal professional privilege and the justice system.

As a trained barrister himself, Pearce’s article about the ‘corrupt’ justice system published in the anarchist newspaper Freedom, advising people to plead guilty, was particularly offensive to the Inquiry.

Pearce’s infiltration of Freedom was examined in some detail, including the articles he wrote, and his impact on the dynamic within the collective (as discussed yesterday in Stephen Sorba’s evidence).

He had reported on various anarchist activities and publications, including the production of potentially incendiary literature like ‘My Little Black Book’. The police response to these publications, including raids on anarchist premises like Freedom Press, was examined in detail and Pearce’s role in these operations was questioned.

JOURNALISTS AREN’T JOURNALISTS

The Inquiry was particularly concerned about the impact of his activities be that as editor, author of articles or police officer, on journalistic freedom of speech.

Pearce’s defence was to say that Freedom were not journalists, but that they were ‘propagandists, in their own image, who were concerned with persuading/manipulating.’

This ludicrous display of political prejudice led David Barr KC to remind him that it still falls within the wider umbrella of journalism, to get one’s argument across and to freely express one’s beliefs.

On the subject of sexual relationships, Pearce repeatedly and offensively implied that the problem was that women would demand sex with male spies, rather than the proven reality that it was the male spies who cynically tricked women activists into sexual relationships.

He also mentioned that John Jones, Director F, allegedly said they couldn’t possibly deploy MI5 officers into these left-wing groups because ‘they are promiscuous’.

Pearce explained:

‘there are certain sacrifices that even an MI5 officer can’t make for his country… there was an assumption there that these were promiscuous. I don’t think it was entirely fair but it was assumed in both policing and MI5 circles’.

These distasteful comments made clear that, right up the chain, it was thought that infiltrating these political groups meant having sex. He also described how senior officers made a visit to his wife when he was deployed to tell her to contact them, behind his back, if she had any concerns.

An extremely significant moment was when Pearce admitted that the claim made in his witness statement, placing Dave Morris on a recce for an alleged bomb plot, was completely false. This admission severely undermined any credibility he has as a witness, and a police officer. It also starkly highlighted the unreliable and often fictional nature of his reports.

FICTIONAL BOMBS

He was questioned about numerous alleged ‘bomb threats’ mentioned in his reporting. He reported an alleged bomb explosion at the Prison Officers Training School in Wakefield on 13 November 1982, and his intelligence stated ‘three unconfirmed statements by [privacy] in recent weeks indicate the existence of anarchists both willing and equipped to execute such actions.’

On closer scrutiny, Pearce proved unable to recall any details about the Wakefield incident. When pressed, he conceded, ‘No, I can’t remember. But I am assuming that there was [an explosion]’, accepting that it ‘probably wasn’t much of an explosion’.

For the Inquiry, David Barr KC pressed on, asking about another alleged bomb: ‘You have mentioned in your witness statement that there was a bomb at Holborn Theatre… we are not told a great deal there. What can you recall about it?’

Pearce conceded:

‘I can’t recall a device in the theatre in Holborn. And I can’t recall anything being recovered there’.

If his reports were to be believed, Pearce may have single-handedly uncovered more bomb plots than the entire SDS in the course of its history. However, when pressed on those incidents, Pearce admitted that no-one was ever prosecuted for any of them, presumably because no corroborating evidence could be found to support his claims.

The testimony covered several other significant events, including the Royal Wedding Day on 29 July 1981, and the Brixton riots in April 1981. This touched on witness evidence that has not yet been published on the Inquiry’s website, making reporting of it difficult (and highlighting how the Inquiry’s incompetent handling of disclosure of evidence is making this process almost impossible for us to cover!). We will hopefully return to this evidence at a later date.

Pearce was repeatedly challenged on the balance between necessary intelligence gathering and potential overreach in his reporting. He often defended SDS practices but also made admissions like:

‘It is excessive reporting but it’s a question of reporting things which unknown to me as the reporter of them may have some relevance in the wider jigsaw that’s being built by MI5 or C squad in Special Branch.’

This acknowledgment of overreach became a focal point for questioning about the overall justification and proportionality of SDS operations.

Pearce’s reports were filled with irrelevant and inappropriate information, derogatory comments about individuals’ weight, sexual preferences, and skin colour, including particularly insulting and offensive comments against women. He defended his bigoted language by claiming ‘everybody thought like that in the 1980s’.

This was met with disbelief from many of those old enough to remember the era, and made even less credible when questioning moved on to attitudes within the SDS.

Pearce claimed never to have heard any sexist or racist language in the police (despite ‘everyone’ in the 1980s thinking like that). He admitted that much of the derogatory and sensationalist details, such as describing a female activist’s appearance in demeaning terms, had ‘absolutely no intelligence value’, and that what he wrote was to entertain his handlers.

In a report from July 1983 he described a member of the Freedom collective, saying:

‘her alarmingly intemperate sexual habits make [name] a difficult associate and worthy of a Government health warning’

However, he remained unapologetic. Wanting to portray the SDS in a positive light, he unconvincingly insisted that no-one found the repeated bigoted reference and inappropriate jokes in his reporting funny, and that they got ‘no reaction at all’.

He discussed the psychological aspects of undercover work in depth, describing it as leading a ‘double life’ and building ‘false friendships.’ He said undercover work required ‘great integrity’ despite being fundamentally dishonest.

Meanwhile, he consistently demonstrated his total lack of integrity throughout the day, including admitting that an irrelevant and offensive report on the personal sex life of Dave Morris, apparently written to discredit Morris, was based on falsehoods. Pearce denied being the author (but offered no explanation as to who else might have produced it). He also admitted that while he had claimed that Morris would have considered him a ‘trusted friend’, he actually only spent time with him on one occasion.

Indeed, despite a range of offensive and sectarian reports about Morris, he eventually conceded that Morris was a ‘deep anarchist thinker… and a well liked figure within the movement’.

FICTION AS FICTION

The cross examination took on a surreal feel as the afternoon progressed, and David Barr KC moved on from questioning Pearce about his fictional intelligence reports to reading aloud extracts from his actual fiction. Pearce is the author of at least two trashy spy novels. The Inquiry scrutinised their content, revealing they were based on real-life characters he had spied on – some clearly identifiable.

The books include details clearly drawn from his undercover work, including a theme about a child born of a deceptive sexual relationship. Articles breaking the story of HN10 Bob Lambert ‘Bob Robinson’ fathering a child while undercover were published shortly before the novel, but Pearce denied any knowledge of real undercover officers fathering children with activists.

Pearce claimed his books were written decades before, in the 1990s, however references to more recent events such as the Leveson Inquiry of 2012 make that claim untenable. He also denied glorifying deceptive sexual relationships, although the vile extracts read out by Barr suggested otherwise.

The depth of Pearce’s unethical behaviour, his unrepentant attitude, and the Inquiry’s rigorous cross-examination painted a damning picture, not just of him as an individual, but of the culture of his comrades. More significantly, it’s also damning of the Met itself which chose to promote him through the ranks to Head of Intelligence, and absolutely incredible choice given that he was clearly more suited to writing barely believable fiction even then.

Day 6: Wednesday 10 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

This was a short day, with summaries of the evidence surrounding the deployments of HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’, HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’, and HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ read onto the record, as well as live evidence from Michael Chant of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’

Now deceased, this officer infiltrated the Revolutionary Communist Group and later the Socialist Workers Party from April 1982 to July 1985, stealing the identity of the deceased Michael Hartley to construct his cover, incorporating real elements from Hartley’s life, a method he believed was ‘according to practice at the time.’

This included obtaining a birth certificate and using a driving license in the cover name, as well as using the real Michael Hartley’s father’s name and his parents’ separation.

HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’ reported on the Revolutionary Communist Group and their support for sub-campaigns like the Irish Solidarity Committee and the Stoke Newington Hackney Defence Campaign (SNHDC), including alarming elements of police racism and indications of a police strategy to monitor and disrupt black activism.

His reports on the SNHDC’s support for the family of Colin Roach, who was killed in Stoke Newington police station, claimed that the SNHDC aimed to influence the family’s justice campaign and recruit black community members, describing lectures on communism as attempts to ‘continue their indoctrination.’

In April 1983, HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’ reported that the Roach family support campaign deliberately disavowed the SNHDC, highlighting the police’s efforts to undermine unity and create distrust among activists.

HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’ was arrested in January 1984 while bill posting for the Revolutionary Communist Group. He entered a guilty plea in his cover name under orders from Detective Chief Inspector Short, resulting in a £5 fine.

This incident showing contempt for the justice system and for the Hartley family demonstrated the lengths to which undercover officers were willing to go to maintain their cover.

He recorded in an aide-memoire:

‘At my insistence, under orders from Detective Chief Inspector Short, I pleaded guilty, and my co-defendant agreed to do the same. We were both fined.’

This incident demonstrated the lengths to which undercover officers were willing to go to maintain their cover. It is in direct breach of a Home Office order that if there is any chance of misleading a court then an informer or undercover officer must be withdrawn or even exposed.

In September 1984, senior members of the Revolutionary Communist Group suspected HN12 of being a police informer. The suspicion arose from his frequent absences and behaviour, such as smelling of alcohol despite his cover job as a driver.

He then shifted his focus to the Socialist Workers Party, continuing to report on their activities. His second compromise came in June 1985, after his then-girlfriend showed a holiday photograph to a colleague of herself and her policeman boyfriend. The colleague happened also to be a Socialist Workers Party member, who recognised HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’.

Reflecting on his time in the SDS, he admitted to a brief sexual liaison with an activist and yet claimed:

‘Whatever I did in the SDS I believe to have been justified and proportionate.’

This raises significant ethical concerns about the conduct of undercover officers. He claimed the woman initiated the relationship and noted:

‘No long-term relationship developed, and shortly after the encounter, I formed a relationship with somebody else and left the group.’

The deployment of HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’ deployment had severe repercussions on his own health, contributing to stress and alcohol abuse:

‘I strongly believe that my tour of duty in the SDS was the major factor in my life and career being damaged by periods of stress and alcohol abuse.’

The impact of his undercover work on his mental health underscores the intense pressures faced by these officers. The Inquiry is publishing his sickness record, which describes treatment for depression and alcoholism prior to his retirement. He was treated in the Metropolitan Police Nursing Home in Hendon and NHS rehab facilities and received public and private consultations during treatment.

He said that in the course of his treatment, he ‘felt unable to speak openly about the SD’” and had felt that being unable to talk about his deployment precluded discussion on the possible causes of his alcoholism.

HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’

This officer, also deceased, infiltrated the Finsbury Park branch of the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) from mid-1982 to 1985 under the name ‘Nicholas Peter Green’.

His deployment focused on reporting plans for public demonstrations and industrial actions.

HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ also highlighted internal divisions within the SWP, particularly regarding their support for the Miners’ Strike. He reported that some members viewed the strike as a means to expand their message and increase membership, illustrating ideological divisions within the group.

He also reported that the general opinion within the Finsbury Park Socialist Workers’ Party was that an imminent revolution was unlikely and no practical preparations were being made for its arrival.

From September 1984, his reporting focused on the group Red Action and later Anti-Fascist Action (AFA), indicating that Red Action’s ideology included the ‘armed overthrow of the capitalist machine and collective control of wealth,’ and that they did not limit themselves to lawful activities.

On 28 January 1985, a Security Service note records:

‘[HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’] is finding it hard work gaining the confidence of members of Red Action. We agreed that it is worth persevering if only to demonstrate whether the group should or should not be taken seriously.’

HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ reported that Red Action lacked funding and organisation. He referenced violence and physical confrontation engaged in by Red Action members, though it is clear that he did not witness or become involved in any of it himself.

He reported that Red Action was supportive of Irish Republican groups and that some members travelled to an anti-internment rally in Belfast in August 1985, as well as the role played by Red Action in the creation of a coalition of groups determined to confront extreme right-wing groups directly. That coalition was named Anti-Fascist Action, and the group included members from around England.

HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ reported that within the coalition, Red Action was a group particularly keen on direct physical confrontation.

His surveillance and infiltration included detailed reporting of personal details, including employment, family heritage, and personal relationships, as well as assessments of individual ideologies, yet again underscoring the intrusive nature of SDS operations and raising serious ethical questions about the balance between state security and individual privacy.

During his deployment, HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ reported on core participants Lindsey German (who will be giving live evidence to this inquiry on 22 July) in her capacity as a speaker and Socialist Workers’ Party central committee member, and Jeremy Corbyn, as a Member of Parliament and speaker at an AFA meeting.

HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ was debriefed by the Security Service at the end of his deployment where it was noted that AFA membership was ‘very young, violent, and not essentially political.’ In another note it was stated that their political and ideological basis was essentially focused on hard drinking and violent confrontations with the National Front.

The Security Service note records gratitude to HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’, indicates that his deployment filled a gap in the knowledge of Red Action, and notes that he would be replaced in that role.

HN67 ‘Alan Bond’

HN67 ‘Alan Bond’, who suffers from Parkinson’s Disease and will not be giving evidence, was deployed from April 1982 to November 1985.

He infiltrated the Brixton branch of the Socialist Workers’ Party, reporting on routine activities and plans for demonstrations.

His reporting was particularly intrusive, often including personal details of individuals, such as their employment, family heritage, and personal relationships. He used inappropriate, racist language and his reports on the activities of children in connection with the Socialist Workers’ Party further highlight the invasive nature of SDS surveillance.

HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ admitted to a one-night stand with a woman from his target group, which he reported to his superiors. He denied allegations of fathering a child with a member of the target group, stating, ‘I had a one-night stand about a year before I left the field, and that was it.’

In 2002, HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ appeared in the True Spies documentary, using the pseudonym Richard, in which he discussed a product contamination threat to Lucozade, said to have been reported by HN5 John Dines ‘John Barker’.

HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ was John Dines’ manager in the SDS at the time when the Lucozade threat was reported. He said he became aware that John Dines was ‘involved in a relationship’ with London Greenpeace activist Helen Steel before he returned to the SDS as a manager, and that he approached Dines to voice his concern.

However, HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ did not take the matter further with police management owing to his close friendship with Dines. It is expected that this will be examined further in Tranche 2 Phase 2 later this year.

Live evidence: Michael Chant

Michael Chant, General Secretary of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), provided a detailed account of his involvement with the party and its activities.

Chant emphasised the party’s commitment to peaceful activism and their stance against fascist organisations, using the slogan, ‘self-defence is the only way.’

This directly contradicts outlandish assertions made by HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ that the Party was ‘small and very extreme, used petrol bombs and had taken up allegiance with Albania’.

Chant stressed:

‘we always decided on our own path. We fought on the same fronts around the world, as we would have said then, for socialism/communism.’

This challenges the narrative presented by HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ and highlights the complexity of the party’s ideological alliances.

Chant discussed troubling aspects of the infiltration by HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’. He reported at length on the group’s sporting and cultural events. He recounted an incident where ‘Shearing’ suggested breaking through police lines to confront National Front leader Martin Webster.

Chant described this suggestion as ‘provocative’ and noted, ‘if we had followed this strategy, we would have been brutally assaulted by the police.’

He also highlighted evidence of police racism and prejudice in HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’s reporting, with inappropriate terms used to describe ethnicity and extensive reporting on Black activists and their communities, reflecting systemic racial prejudices within the police force, as they targeted Black activists and sought to undermine their efforts for justice.

The day highlighted increasingly familiar systemic issues within the SDS, including the theft of deceased individuals’ identities, the lack of formal training, and the intrusive nature of their operations. The personal impacts on these officers, including stress and alcohol abuse, further underscore that the Met not only had no concern for the people spied on, but the spies themselves weren’t cared for either.

Day 7: Thursday 11 July 2024

Live evidence: Francis Bennett

Francis Bennett is the half-brother of Michael Anthony Hartley, whose identity was stolen by officer HN12.

Bennett provided the Inquiry hearing with photos of Michael and also a letter that he had written to his mum, showing his character and close relationship with his family.

Michael Hartley disappeared at sea when he was out working on a fisherman’s trawler. He was presumed drowned but his body was never found. He was 18 years old when he died.

As the trawler was only two miles out at sea, it was a calm day and he was a very fit person, his family believed he could have easily swum that distance and survived but may have lost his memory. His mum always held on to the hope that he had survived and would turn up one day. She eventually took her own life, a tragedy Bennett attributes in part to the unresolved grief over Michael’s disappearance.

When the family were first contacted about the police using Michael’s identity, they wondered whether Michael had been found. They then found out how then police had exploited their son’s name. Bennett described the shock, horror, disgust:

‘We just never imagined that anybody would do anything like that.’

Bennett and the family have suffered recurring grief because of this, since all the memories of Michael are tainted by this undercover officer.

Bennett described the ongoing impact of learning that HN12 used his brother Michael’s identity. He talked about the toll this revelation has taken on his health and well-being

‘Since we found out about the actions of HN12, I will admit that my health has deteriorated even quicker than it had done before. I am on antidepressants and finding it hard to sleep at night. It’s just constant thoughts going through the head, you know, about the actions of HN12.’

Part of HN12’s story was pretending that he had a mother with a chronic illness who he used to visit, which Bennett found particularly upsetting. He also baulked at the idea of HN12 committing crimes and getting convicted in his brother’s name:

‘I think it’s an outrage. Because all through his time growing up, Michael never got into trouble with anybody.’

Bennett also knew about HN12’s sexual relationships, conducted using Michael’s identity, and found this abhorrent and not at all what his brother Michael would have done.

‘When I think of Michael, there is this big dark image looking over his shoulder; an adult man pretending to be Michael, doing all sorts of nasty things’.

The Inquiry also covered HN12’s compromised deployment, where he was accused of being a police informer and quickly removed from the field.

Bennett expressed concerns about the potential danger to his family if individuals targeted Michael’s real family due to suspicions about HN12:

‘On the other hand, it made me wonder, well, what was to stop these people from coming forward and searching out Michael’s real family?’

Bennett highlighted the cynical language of the SDS tradecraft manual, with its utter lack of empathy and respect for the victims of identity theft, referred to as:

‘On finding a suitable ex-person, usually a deceased child or young person with a fairly anonymous name, the circumstances of his (or her) untimely demise was investigated.

If the death was natural or otherwise unspectacular, and therefore unlikely to be findable in newspapers or other public records, the SDS officer could apply for a copy of the dead person’s birth certificate.

Further research would follow to establish the respiratory status of the dead person’s family if any and, if they were still breathing, where they were living.

If all was suitably obscure and there was little chance of the SDS officer or, more importantly, one of the wearies running into the dead person’s parents/siblings etc., the SDS officer would assume squatters’ rights over the unfortunate’s identity for the next four years.’

Bennett reflected on:

‘the total disdain the SDS had for the victims of identity theft by the undercover officers.’

He also pointed out that HN12 selected Michael’s identity from public death registers and ignored guidelines intended to prevent the use of identities with publicised deaths.

Bennett was further appalled by this further proof that the SDS were a law unto themselves, given that they hadn’t even followed their own protocol, given that Michael’s death had been publicly reported.

The Inquiry highlighted the Metropolitan Police’s apologies for the theft of dead children’s identities. Bennett dismissed these as insincere and disingenuous, feeling they were issued only because the police were compelled to do so:

‘It really doesn’t hold any water to me. It’s insincere and it’s almost like it was an afterthought.’

He demanded an assurance that the practice it will never be used again.

Live evidence: HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’

HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ confirmed that he joined the Metropolitan Police in the early 1970s. He described the distinct culture within Special Branch, focusing more on gathering information rather than arresting people.

Reflecting on his recruitment to the SDS by HN297 Rick Clark ‘Rick Gibson’, he described the process as informal, involving casual discussions and even a dinner with a former SDS officer and their wives to discuss the work/life balance.

HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ was aware of the controversial practice of stealing dead children’s identities. He described visiting the birth and death records office at St Catherine’s House to search for a suitable identity:

‘It was a very chilling experience looking for young lives that had been taken… It was not a pleasant experience’

Despite recognising the moral issues, he explained that he accepted this practice as necessary for obtaining a false driving license, essential for his undercover role. He admitted, ‘perhaps I was just compliant but I accepted it.’

The session delved into the deployment of HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ into left-wing political groups. Initially focused on Maoist groups, he soon discovered that the term ‘Maoist’ was used very loosely.

He recounted attending a Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) May Day meeting at Conway Hall in London, observing that the proceedings were ‘pedestrian in nature’ with ‘no attendance at demonstrations’.

He described how he moved on to the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (RCPB-ML), highlighting the group’s ‘irrelevance’ and internal ideological shifts. He admitted that his political awareness and understanding of the group’s political theories was limited, and that he lacked accurate information because Special Branch records were outdated, leading to misdirected efforts.

HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ reported on activities like a conference against racism and fascism, and a sports and cultural festival, noting the involvement of the ‘Pakistan National Kabbadi team’ and ‘several troops of Bhangra dancers.’

Despite acknowledging the limited policing value of these reports, HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ admitted there may have been requests from the Security Service.

SPYING ON CHILDREN

His interactions with group members, included young and school-aged individuals, raising serious ethical concerns. He reported on a school-aged youth from Stockwell who spoke about ‘attacking National Front supporters’. When asked about the propriety of reporting on children, HN19 admitted, ‘no, I didn’t see any reason not to do that’.

Towards the end of his deployment, HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ produced a report summarising the state of the RCPB-ML, concluding they were a spent force with ‘tediously complicated slogans’, yet he justified continued surveillance, because the Security Service was interested.

Indeed, it seems the Security Service wase highly influential in his deployment. He acknowledged receiving briefings from them, although he did not always recall specific documents. When asked if their descriptions like ‘highly security conscious’ and ‘slightly sinister’ matched his own findings about the RCPB-ML, he responded that they did not.

HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ also described the informal culture among undercover SDS officers, including sharing details about their deployments during social gatherings.

ANOTHER TACTICAL CHILD

He mentioned a specific instance where another officer, HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’, gave a presentation about his arrest, handled with a mix of seriousness and levity.

One of the most contentious issues during the session was HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ confirming that HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ had fathered a child with a female activist.

HN67 ‘Alan Bond’, who has Parkinson’s Disease and will not be giving evidence, submitted a statement in which he denies having fathered a child whilst undercover. However, HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ recounted how ‘Bond’ casually disclosed the pregnancy to him, leaving him ‘dumbfounded’.

HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ knew the woman concerned, had seen her and HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ together, and later seen her with a baby.

Despite recognising the serious ethical implications of a fellow officer fathering a child, HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ chose not to report the matter at the time:

‘I just wanted to be away from it and not get involved’.

How many more spycops violated women to father children they knew they’d abandon? How many others knew about these gross abuses but did not report it?

In a powerful moment in the Inquiry, HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ admitted in the witness box that he had wrestled with his conscience and was determined to come clean now.

This is only the second example of an undercover officer (since Peter Francis, who revealed the targeting of the Stephen Lawrence family campaign) publicly breaking ranks on a major SDS scandal. It is hoped that other officers due to give evidence will start to do the same.

This summary covers the opening week of Tranche 2 hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), examining the activities of the Metropolitan Police’s secret political unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, from 1983-92.

The UCPI is an independent, judge-led inquiry into undercover policing in England and Wales. Its main focus is the activity of two units who deployed long-term undercover officers into a variety of political groups; the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS, 1968-2008) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU, 1999-2011). Spycops from these units lived as activists for years at a time, spying on more than 1,000 groups.

CONTENTS

Introduction
Conclusions
Timetable of upcoming live evidence

Opening statements:

Day 1

• David Barr KC (Counsel to the Inquiry)
• Timetable of upcoming live evidence
• Peter Skelton KC (Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis)

Day 2

• Oliver Sanders KC, designated lawyer for HN65 ‘John Kerry’; HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’; HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’; HN56 ‘Alan “Nick” Nicholson’; HN20 ‘Tony Williams’; HN67 ‘Alan Bond’; HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’; HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’
• Charlotte Kilroy KC (The Category H Core Participants; ‘Jenny’)
• Charlotte Kilroy KC (‘Bea’)
• James Scobie KC (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament & Lindsey German)

Day 3

• Rajiv Menon KC (Friends of Freedom Press Ltd)
• Lily Lewis (Rebecca Johnson; Hilary Moore & Jane Hickman
• Owen Greenhall (David Morris)
• Owen Greenhall (Dame Joan Ruddock PC; Diane Abbott MP)
• Sam Jacobs (Sharon Grant OBE)
• Sam Jacobs (Stafford Scott)
• Kirsten Heaven (NPSCP Co-ordinating Group)

Introduction

The second tranche of hearings in the Undercover Policing Inquiry is finally underway.

The last hearings ended more than a year ago, with closing statements for Tranche 1 Phase 3 delivered in February 2023. At that time, non-State, non-police Core Participants (NSPCPs) delivered powerful submissions about the legal framework the Chair, Sir John Mitting, should be applying when considering whether these operations were justified or indeed justifiable.

That was followed in June 2023 by the Chair’s blistering Interim Report, which concluded the SDS should have been ‘brought to a rapid end’ in the 1970s, criticising officers unlawfully trespassing into people’s homes, forming deceitful close personal relationships, including sexual relationships, stealing deceased children’s identities, and taking positions of influence and power within the organisations they targeted.

This round of hearings kicked off on Monday 1st July, with Opening Statements delivered live online. For statement summaries and highlights, and a timetable of when you can catch the live evidence.

Conclusions

It was an interesting week and it was clear from the tone of many of the statements that the ground has shifted since the publication Inquiry’s interim report.

Perhaps the most significant development in that sense was the contrite statement from the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, which made a number of highly significant admissions and apologised for cultures of racism, misogyny, exceptionalism, impunity and for unnecessary political spying by MPS employees.

He even accepted corporate responsibility for some of the failings. The Inquiry remains focussed on whether there might have been justification for the operations, however they no longer appear to have such confidence that there could.

It is clear from the Opening Statements that a key issue for this Tranche will be the ideological motivations behind the activities of the undercover police. In the Foreword to his Interim Report the Chair stated that he had

“refrained from expressing any view about … the proposition that the SDS was one of the instruments set up by a conservative state to suppress the aspirations of those who wished to produce radical change by political means.”

Political policing is anti-democratic, and evidence in this Tranche of the establishment targeting groups for ideological (rather than policing) purposes, spying on elected politicians, spreading political misinformation to the press and using SDS reporting in Conservative Party electioneering really drives that point home.

For clarity, protest is part of a healthy democracy, secret policing is not. However reluctant he is to go there, Sir John Mitting is going to find this issue hard to avoid.

Another theme emerging from the statements of the non-State core participants is that the process is becoming increasingly unworkable. Statements cited delayed and incomplete disclosure and impossible deadlines.

There is a growing sense that the Inquiry is facing a crisis, caused by the imposition of arbitrary deadlines by the Home Office, since the publication of the Chair’s damning Interim Report.

In the words of James Scobie KC:

“The State core participants have had the benefit of time and considerable resources. They have had access to the material for years and have extensive teams of staff and lawyers. The Police witnesses are retired, on generous tax-payer funded pensions. Most of our core-participants are still working full-time. This imbalance has always existed in this Inquiry. However, the approach to Tranche 2 is strongly suggestive of a deliberate attempt to silence the non-state core participants”.

This is particularly worrying because the Home Office are very much under investigation in this Inquiry and the evidence leaves little room for doubt as to their complicity in the abuses of the SDS in this Tranche. It is therefore shocking that they should be able to sabotage the process in this way.

Citing this week’s general election, the Home Office declined to make an Opening Statement, however the incoming Home Secretary will need to address these problems as a matter of urgency to avoid the integrity of the Inquiry being called into question.

For his own part, Mitting responded to the procedural criticisms with a personal plea:

“Given that it is a human activity, the end result can never be perfect and the means by which it is arrived at can never be perfect. All I can ask is for patience. Please bear with me. I acknowledge the worth of the input of non-state core participants. I ask them for patience in allowing me to put it to good effect.”

That may be the closest thing to an admission of error and a recognition of the unfair treatment given to non-state victims of police spying that we are likely to get.

Timetable of Tranche 2 Phase 1 live evidence

(Click on the date to link to the UCPI’s hearing information page)

8 July:
HN20 ‘Tony Williams’ who, along with HN85 Roger Pearce (‘Roger Thorley’) infiltrated anarchist groups like the London Workers Group and the Freedom Collective.

Dave Morris and Steven Sorba will also give evidence about those deployments. Their evidence will raise significant questions about (among other things) SDS interference in the justice system, accessing and reporting privileged and confidential legal information, and the police intentionally spreading misinformation to the press about the causes of anti-police and race riots in the 1980s.

9 July:
HN85 Roger Pearce (‘Roger Thorley’) will give evidence. It is worth paying attention to him, because after his undercover deployment he worked for Metropolitan Police Special Branch (MPSB) rising to Commander in 1998. He is therefore one of a number of undercover officers who went on to hold senior management roles.

10 July:
HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’, HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ and HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ will give evidence. They all infiltrated Trotskyist groups.

Civilian witness Michael Chant will also give evidence that day about HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ spying on the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

11 July:
Francis Bennett. Evidence from the half-brother of the real Michael Hartley who died at sea as a teenager and whose identity was stolen by officer HN12 (now deceased).

HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ himself will give evidence.

15 July:
Kate Hudson will be giving oral evidence on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

Two important issues in the early to mid-1980s were the decision to allow the United States to site ground-launched cruise missiles in the UK and the debate over replacing Polaris submarines with Trident submarines. CND grew massively as a result and was infiltrated by SDS officers such as HN65 ‘John Kerry’ and HN88 ‘Tim Spence’.

16 July:
HN65 ‘John Kerry’ (see 15 July above).

17 July:
Hilary Moore and Jane Hickman will give evidence. Both were members of Lambeth Women for Peace.

Barr discussed the rise of the women’s peace movement, showing video footage of Greenham Common. This activism led the SDS to recruit its first female undercover officer in many years, HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ who gained access to the Greenham Common Women by joining Lambeth Women for Peace.

Barr notes that HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ has provided a witness statement but has declined to give oral evidence. Again, there is no suggestion that she might be compelled.

22 July:
Dr Lindsey German will be returning to give oral evidence for a second time as a member of the Socialist Workers Party Central Committee. Of the many officers that spied on the SWP and other Trotskyist groups, HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’ and HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’ have both died, HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ is too ill to give evidence, and HN95 Stefan Scutt (‘Stefan Wesolowski’), has not co-operated with the Inquiry. HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’ will give evidence the following day.

23 July:
HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’, who spied on the SWP (see 22 July above).

24 July:
HN56 ‘Alan Nicholson’, the only SDS officer to infiltrate the far-right in this Tranche. He infiltrated the British National Party in Loughton. It appears his operation differed significantly from infiltrations of the left in that it was short-lived and superficial. His statement claims he spent the entire time terrified of being outed by other police officers with far-right sympathies.

29 July:
‘Bea’ and ‘Jenny’, who were deceived into sexual relationships by HN78 Trevor Morris (‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’ or ‘Bobby McGee’) will give evidence. Their opening statements are examined in detail below.

1-2 August:
HN78 Trevor Morris (‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’ or ‘Bobby McGee’) will apparently give evidence over two days.

In addition to having had deceitful sexual relationships, Morris is interesting for a number of reasons. He is the only Black undercover officer in this tranche and his witness statement makes claims of racist discrimination within the police.

OPENING STATEMENTS

Day 1 – 1 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Day 1 saw the Opening Statements from David Barr KC, Counsel to the Inquiry, in the morning, followed by Counsel for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service in the afternoon.

Opening Statement of Counsel To the Inquiry

David Barr KC

Yet again, the Inquiry emphasised its focus on investigating the justification for these undercover operations, indicating that we can expect to see more of the offensive cross examinations we saw in Tranche 1, where the people spied upon were questioned about the “subversive” nature of their activities and their “intentions to undermine UK Parliamentary Democracy”.

Which is ironic, because evidence emerging this week of the SDS spying on elected representatives and providing intelligence for Tory Party electioneering in the 1983 General Election suggests that in fact they were the ones subverting our democracy. But more on that later.

Barr then began by summarising the findings from Tranche 1, and setting out the historical context for Tranche 2, highlighting the most significant events from this period (such as the release of the Sex Pistols hit single Anarchy in the UK).

He also mentioned the Cold War, noting that they would be “examining the impact of the end of the Cold War on the work of the SDS and its relationship with the Security Service.”

He described the broader political and social landscape of racial tension, and anti-government protest, showing news footage of the 1990 Poll Tax riots and the anti-BNP riots in Welling in 1993.

Specific examples of undercover operations in this context included spying on the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign; and HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’, who was sent to spy on “Hackney” (as in, the entire community of a London borough) in search of subversive influences. (He ended up monitoring the Hackney Campaign Against the Police Bill and the Hackney Police Monitoring Group).

His reports highlighted existing community tensions and the groups’ calls for non-cooperation with the police. HN88 has declined to give oral evidence. Barr asserted he “cannot be compelled”, although he did not explain why not.

Barr’s history lesson provided the backdrop to a detailed overview of what we can expect over the coming weeks. Tranche 2 Phase 1 will consider the deployments of 14 “open” undercover police officers from the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) who operated between 1978 and 1995. (Note that “open” refers to the deployments that are now subject to public scrutiny. Other officer deployments will also be considered in “closed”, away from the public gaze).

Seven former undercover officers and at least ten civilians affected by their deployments will give oral evidence this July. Additional written evidence from other officers and civilians will be published on the Inquiry’s website. You can see a summary of his overview in the timetable of live evidence.

Barr concluded his opening with an important message about political policing today:

“lest anyone consider this a purely historical exercise, it is important to learn lessons from the past.

The question of undercover surveillance of activists appears to be back on the agenda, in the light of Lord Walney’s recent report entitled Protecting Our Democracy from Coercion. Anyone considering this issue would be well advised to heed the lessons that emerged from your interim report and the evidence that we continue to publish.”

Oral evidence hearings will start on 8 July, see the detailed timetable above.

Following Counsel To the Inquiry’s statement, a substantial quantity of new evidence was published on the inquiry website, including the statement of “Witness Y” on behalf of the Security Service (MI5), Annual Reports of the Special Demonstration Squad from 1985-1997.

Opening Statement on behalf of the Met Commissioner

Peter Skelton KC

The Metropolitan Police’s tone has changed dramatically since the publication of the interim report. From the outset, Skelton’s statement condemned the deployments, tactics, racism, sexism and poor management of the Special Demonstration Squad, concluding that

“These serious failings have damaged public confidence in the use of undercover policing.”

He issued a number of apologies, first, to the women deceived into sexual relationships by no less than nine officers in the Tranche 2 period.

“The MPS apologises to the women affected, and to the public, for these failings and for the wider culture of sexism and misogyny which allowed them to happen.”

Although the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has apologised to women deceived into sexual relationships in the past, the recognition that those were rooted in a wider police culture of sexism and misogyny is new.

Skelton expanded to say this:

“During the T2 period, findings of sexism in the MPS were made by the independent People and Police in London study, particularly in its 1983 report, ‘The Police in Action’. More recent reviews have demonstrated that sexism and misogyny continue to be widespread and enduring features of the culture within the MPS.

The prevalence of sexual misconduct on the part of SDS officers in the T2 period, the general disregard for the personal autonomy and dignity of the women affected, together with the inaction or indifference of their managers in response, is a clear and acute manifestation of that culture – for which the MPS unreservedly apologises.”

Another new and extremely important admission by the police in their Opening Statement bears quoting at length, condemning not just the SDS but the wider Metropolitan Police Special Branch (MPSB):

“there was unnecessary reporting on political and social justice campaigns, family justice campaigns, community organisations as well as groups that were campaigning for police accountability…

It is particularly indefensible that many of the anti-racism campaigns mentioned in SDS reports were seeking justice for members of the Black and Asian communities in London and were attempting to hold the MPS itself accountable for the way in which it policed those communities. The MPS accepts the corrosive effect this type of discriminatory policing has on public trust and apologises unreservedly for this.

The fact that the SDS reported on these groups was the result of a critical failure on the part of its managers and senior managers within MPSB to ensure that SDS deployments were conducted in accordance with proper professional and ethical standards. It is also an example of unacceptable political policing by MPSB…

The MPS accepts corporate responsibility for these failings. Although there have been areas of progress since the T2 period, racism and discrimination remain an enduring challenge within the MPS.”

This is a stunning about-turn. For years, we campaigners have been denouncing the ideological and racist biases that underpinned these undercover deployments. However, until now, the police have vehemently sought to deny it.

The third and final surprise in the Metropolitan Police statement was their decision to throw not only the SDS officers, but also their managers and even senior Special Branch officers, under a bus.

“there was a general failure by the SDS’s managers and by senior managers in MPSB to lead the SDS properly and effectively. These failings extended beyond the issues of illicit sexual relationships and improper engagement with the criminal justice system [eg. see para 44]. Other unprofessional behaviour by UCOs includ[ed] inappropriate reporting and the claiming of illegitimate expenses.”

The statement concludes:

“Sexual relationships should not have occurred. Reporting on justice and anti-racism groups who posed no criminal or public order threat should not have occurred and would not occur today. Open-ended long-term deployments, which caused a level of personal intrusion that was out of proportion with their value, should have been reassessed and ended.

Further, the MPS should not have allowed a culture of exceptionalism and impunity to develop within the SDS.”

Again, this recognition that there was a culture of impunity is a new and interesting development.

Of course, that was not all the Commissioner had to say. In amongst the mea culpas (mea culpae?), Skelton levelled some quiet warnings at the Inquiry Chair about his findings. He explicitly cautioned against making certain determinations, particularly regarding the legality of undercover officers obtaining confidential information, actively seeking to shape the scope of the Inquiry’s conclusions, and hinting at potential future legal challenges.

He also contended that the Inquiry should not rule out undercover officers trespassing in private homes nor impose a blanket prohibition on undercover officers accepting senior positions within groups, as such restrictions would “harm the ability of the police to conduct effective undercover operations in the future”.

This echoes scenes from Kate Wilson’s landmark case in the Investigatory Power’s Tribunal, where police lawyers implored the Tribunal not to rule on the issues of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association, because of the implications for policing if officers were formally required to respect people’s political rights.

The undertones of these arguments are quite chilling and suggest we need to look a lot harder at how the police are approaching political meetings and protests today.

Day 2 – 2 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Opening Statement on behalf of ex-Spycops

Oliver Sanders KC, designated lawyer for HN65 ‘John Kerry’; HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’; HN90 ‘Mark Kerry’; HN56 ‘Alan “Nick” Nicholson’; HN20 ‘Tony Williams’; HN67 ‘Alan Bond’; HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’; HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’.

Listening to the comments on behalf of the largely unrepentant and quite repellant ex-undercover officers is generally the most unpleasant part of these statements.

Oliver Sanders KC, representing the ex-police core participants, began by recapping key principles from their previous submissions, emphasising the police’s duty to maintain public order and prevent crime, as well as the need for intelligence to assess potential threats.

He then provided an extensive list of major historical events that took place during the T2 period, including the Brixton riots of 1981, the death of PC Keith Blakelock in the Broadwater Farm riots in 1985, the Poll Tax riot in 1990, and various IRA bombings.

He didn’t really explain how the SDS spying had contributed to the outcomes of any of these events, however, he insisted, it is ‘crucial’ context for understanding the environment in which the SDS operated and the perceived need for their intelligence gathering.

The SDS provided valuable intelligence on public order threats, extremist groups, and matters of national security he said, citing statistics from SDS annual reports, noting that in 1992, for example, the unit produced 1,425 intelligence reports, with 611 of these relating to public order.

Setting aside the fact that, even by his own calculation that means that more than half of the reporting had no bearing whatsoever on public disorder, and the fact that Sanders himself takes issue with the idea that the Annual Reports might be evidence for the justification of the unit, Sanders claim that all this intelligence was crucial for effective policing was simply not borne out by the evidence in T1, and it seems unlikely it will be this time.

So, it is perhaps unsurprising that Sanders raised concerns about the Inquiry’s approach to the evidence. He stated that:

“the Inquiry has tended to concentrate on the recovery, collation and analysis of surviving SDS documents (primarily intelligence reports) and has largely ignored other sources, the fact that many records are missing and the fact that many matters were never committed to writing in the first place.”

This narrow focus, he argues, fails to capture the full scope and impact of the SDS’s activities. It’s an interesting claim. The available evidence looks very very bad for the SDS.

However, while we all know that a lot of it was destroyed or never written down, it stretches credibility to suggest that someone mistakenly shredded all the material that would have somehow thrown the officers into a better light.

However we can perhaps find some common ground in his criticism of the gaps in the inquiry’s evidence gathering. He argues that testimony should have been sought from the Metropolitan Police Special Branch’s (MPSB) Squad desk officers who compiled threat assessments, as they could speak directly to how SDS intelligence was used.

He states:

“Bearing in mind that the threat assessors were members of the MPSB Squads primarily responsible for setting SDS intelligence requirements, the inquiry should have attempted, and should now attempt, to find out how they did their jobs.”

We couldn’t agree more, although we find it extremely unlikely that that information would somehow exonerate the police.

Throughout the statement, Sanders maintained that the SDS made a valuable contribution to public order policing and assisting MI5, and urged the inquiry to broaden its focus to fully understand the context and impact of the SDS’s work.

In that, we caught a glimpse of the growing rift between the ex-undercover officers and the Metropolitan Police Service. Sanders stated that:

“the inquiry’s conclusion that the SDS would have been closed down during T1 if certain matters had been addressed is impossible to reconcile with the experience and understanding of most if not all of the DL officers given what was being said to them at the time by their MPSB colleagues and MI5.”

With that, we can also agree. There is no doubt that senior police and the MI5 were utterly complicit in what was going on.

As Sanders said:

“If SDS intelligence was not useful and valuable, why did so many of those working above and alongside it think and say that it was and keep requesting more?”

However, what the Inquiry actually concluded in 2023 was that had the public been made aware of what the SDS were doing, the unit would have been brought to a rapid end.

Charlotte Kilroy KC – Category H: ‘Relationships’

Charlotte Kilroy KC delivered two opening statements, the first on behalf of ‘Jenny’, deceived into a friendship and sexual encounter with HN78 Trevor Morris ( aka ‘Anthony “Bobby”) and also the wider Category H group.

The second she read on behalf of ‘Bea’ who the same officer (Trevor Morris) deceived into a long-term, intimate and sexual relationship from 1992-1993.

‘Jenny’ and the wider Cat H group

Jenny will be giving evidence on 29 July. This statement detailed Jenny’s experiences and addressed broader systemic issues within the Met that allowed such abuses to occur.

Jenny was friends with HN78 Trevor Morris (‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’ or ‘Bobby McGee’) between 1993 and 1995. Right at the end of his deployment he used their friendship and intimacy to lure her into a one-night-stand, having told her he was moving abroad.

Jenny stressed that the timing of the relationship, just as he was leaving, means it could have had no operational value and stressed the unpleasantness of knowing that he had simply used his position to deceive her into sex. This, and the knowledge of a friendship built on deceit, has caused her significant emotional distress and led to a deep mistrust of those around her.

The statement went on to identify wider systemic issues within the Metropolitan Police Service, including a casual approach to public privacy, a culture of misogyny, and a lack of respect for the law. Morris’ deployment was intrusive and completely unjustified, and police management failed to prevent the abuse.

Jenny emphasised the need for answers about the extent of the surveillance and its impact on the affected women’s lives, highlighting the ongoing emotional damage caused by the lack of information and answers.

Category H core participants have faced significant delays and challenges in engaging with Tranche 2 of the Inquiry due to extended delays in the disclosure process. Despite promises of necessary disclosure by spring 2023, much material was only disclosed in 2024, and some remains outstanding. This has made it difficult for the Category H CPs to complete their statements and fully participate in the Inquiry, causing additional distress.

The statement also expressed concerns about changes to the Inquiry’s methodology for Tranche 3, fearing that the pressure to conclude by 2026 may lead to the exclusion of crucial evidence about political spying. The Category H CPs urge a reconsideration of this approach, and seek recognition of the broader context of political persecution in which these abuses occurred.

The statement concluded with a call for ensuring that no member of the public faces such intrusions or abuses ever again.

Opening Statement of ‘Bea’

Bea will also be giving evidence on 29 July. Like Jenny, she was deceived by HN78 Trevor Morris (‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’ or ‘Bobby McGee’), and had a long-term intimate sexual relationship with him from 1992-1993, built on deceit and manipulation.

She stated that she “unknowingly provided cover for undercover officer Bobby Lewis” spying on the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and other social justice campaigns.

Bea made her own separate Opening Statement, read by Charlotte Kilroy. She began by highlighting an important and painful point about her relationship with Trevor Morris. There were children involved. Her own, very young children, whose lives he invaded, but also his children, whose father was off deceiving another family instead of caring for his own.

She then went on to address her experiences and the broader implications of undercover policing practices by the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). She criticised the damaging and unjustifiable tactics used by the SDS, highlighting specific events and broader systemic issues.

Her perspective is crucial for challenging Morris’s characterisations of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and their activities. She focused on the Welling demonstration on 16 October 1993, against the British National Party headquarters.

She criticises Morris for taking credit for false intelligence that allegedly claimed the SWP planned to burn down the BNP headquarters. Bea argues that this claim is unsubstantiated and preposterous, and criticises not only the deceptive and dangerous nature of SDS operations, but also the kind of public order policing tactics applied on the day, citing aggressive policing, and the use of a secret public order manual.

Bea underscores the involvement of senior police officers in both the Welling protest and the Stephen Lawrence case, pointing out their role in undermining justice and public trust. She criticises the misuse of public funds and resources to spy on lawful democratic activities and collect irrelevant personal information.

She emphasised not only the personal but also the collective harm caused by SDS operations. She describes the emotional and psychological impact on those deceived into relationships, the undermining of social justice campaigns, and the broader implications for democratic society.

She condemned the policies and politicians that allowed such surveillance to take place and stressed the need for accountability and a shift towards protecting democratic values, calling for significant changes to prevent such practices in the future.

James Scobie KC (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Lindsey German)

James Scobie KC delivered an opening statement on behalf of a number of CPs, including former leading members of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) such as Lindsey German (who will be giving evidence on 22 July); Michael Chant from the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (giving evidence on 10 July); and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Kate Hudson of CND will be giving evidence on 15 July.

His statement, like Charlotte Kilroy’s, addressed the procedural challenges his clients had faced due to late disclosure of critical documents, which had made it impossible to fully participate in this round of hearings, noting:

“The State core participants have had the benefit of time and considerable resources. They have had access to the material for years and have extensive teams of staff and lawyers. The Police witnesses are retired, on generous tax-payer funded pensions.

Most of our core-participants are still working full-time. This imbalance has always existed in this Inquiry. However, the approach to Tranche 2 is strongly suggestive of a deliberate attempt to silence the non-state core participants”

The Socialist Workers Party

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) was heavily infiltrated during Tranche 2. However, Lindsey German, a prominent figure in the SWP, has received only a fraction of the relevant documents, with significant material still outstanding, including that related to undercover officer HN95 Stefan Scutt ‘Stefan Wesolowski’, who had close ties with MI5 while working at the SWP headquarters.

The witness statement from the Security Service (MI5), served shortly before the hearing, is lengthy and references the SWP extensively. However, the majority of associated MI5 documents remain undisclosed, limiting insight into the agency’s involvement.

What evidence we do have of SDS spying on the SWP shows it was marked by undercover officers taking on significant roles within the organisation, and reporting extensively on party activities, including personal details of members, internal conflicts, and strategic decisions. HN67 ‘Alan Bond’ and other officers infiltrated SWP headquarters, gaining access to sensitive information that could be used to disrupt the organisation’s effectiveness.

Extremely detailed reporting was sent to MI5 and other state entities indicating that the SDS were used to monitor, control, and undermine the SWP’s political activities, reflecting a broader strategy of managing dissent, controlling political opponents and maintaining the status quo.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)

CND also faced significant surveillance, with MI5 and Special Branch showing a keen interest in their activities from 1981 onwards. The statement highlights contemporary evidence, such as that of MI5 whistleblower Cathy Massiter, and points out that the reality emerging through this Inquiry is in fact far worse than anyone imagined.

The British state’s surveillance of CND intensified as the organisation gained mass support and posed a challenge to government policies. The disclosure reveals that MI5’s interest in CND was partly driven by the organisation’s influence on public opinion and its potential impact on electoral politics.

The Inquiry heard how the SDS and MI5 provided ‘dirt’ on CND members to Michael Heseltine (the then Minister of Defence) and his DS19 unit, which was directly tasked with discrediting the peace movement. That material was then used by the Conservative Party to undermine opponents in marginal seats in the 1983 general election.

This evidence of the direct use of undercover reporting to manipulate elections is the clearest example of the subversion of Parliamentary democracy to have emerged in the Inquiry to date, and it did not come from any of the so-called ‘subversive’ organisations being spied on. Rather it was the Metropolitan Police, MI5 and the Ministry of Defence.

We also heard how undercover officers took positions of influence in CND. One particularly striking example was HN65 ‘John Kerry’, who became Chief Steward for a major CND demonstration.

He plays down his role, claiming all he did was plug in some speakers, however, this failure to fulfil his responsibilities is itself problematic. The Chief Steward would be responsible for representing CND and ensuring security. Dereliction of those duties could both damage the organisation and put people at risk, undermining the very public order he was purportedly there to protect.

Overall, Scobie’s statement revealed a deeply concerning pattern of state surveillance and infiltration aimed at managing and undermining political dissent and subverting legitimate political activities. The extensive infiltration of both CND and the SWP, the ethical breaches by undercover officers, and the political motivations behind these actions highlight significant abuses of power.

Day 3 – 3 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

On the final day of Opening Statements to the Undercover Policing Inquiry, we heard compelling statements from the legal representatives of many of the non-State core participants.

The running order for the day included:

• Rajiv Menon KC (Friends of Freedom Press Ltd)
• Lily Lewis (Rebecca Johnson, Hilary Moore, Jane Hickman)
• Owen Greenhall (David Morris, Dame Joan Ruddock, Diane Abbott)
• Sam Jacobs (Sharon Grant OBE, Stafford Scott)
• Kirsten Heaven (NPSCP Co-ordinating Group)

That is followed by a break for the weekend (and the general election) before live evidence hearings start on Monday 8 July.

Rajiv Menon KC: Friends of Freedom Press Ltd

Rajiv Menon KC began the day by presenting the opening statement for the Friends of Freedom Press Ltd (FFP). Steven Sorba will be giving live evidence on behalf of FFP on 8 July.

Established in 1886, Freedom is the UK’s longest-running anarchist publication, and since its inception, it has been a consistent target of state surveillance. Menon detailed the infiltration by undercover officers, particularly focusing on HN85 Roger Pearce, who operated under the alias ‘Roger Thorley’ from 1980.

Pearce, who would later rise to significant positions within the Metropolitan Police, including Commander of Special Branch and Director of Intelligence, spent his undercover tenure spying on the anarchist community, particularly focusing on the Freedom Collective, and even writing articles for the newspaper. For example, he authored ‘Prisoners of Politics’ which argued for political status for Irish Republican prisoners.

Pearce’s activities went beyond the now familiar gathering of deeply personal information about the people he spied on, to spreading division within the groups he targeted and influencing their activities.

Perhaps most importantly, he is accused of fabricating evidence and manipulating legal processes to secure convictions. He attended meetings where legal advice was given to defendants such as Dave McCabe and Patrizia Giambi and reported back on the legal strategies discussed.

The statement emphasised:

“He knew that Dave and Patrizia were innocent, but his political loyalty to the Branch outweighed any sense of justice”.

Evidence about the infiltration of Freedom sheds more light on politically motivated efforts, on the part of Special Branch, to suppress radical dissent.

The statement uses the example of the 1981 Brixton riots. The evidence makes clear that the police were well aware that the true causes of the Brixton Riots (economic deprivation, racial discrimination and racist policing).

However, the narrative fed to the media by the police falsely blamed anarchists to serve political ends. This kind of ideologically motivated political manipulation by the police is an emerging theme in this Tranche and there will no doubt be some interesting evidence in the weeks ahead.

Another emerging theme also touched on in Menon’s statement was a criticism of the UCPI for its limited disclosure and the restrictions placed on sharing critical information. The ability to provide a comprehensive account was hampered by restrictions on sharing personal disclosure among former and current Friends of Freedom Press directors. This proved to be a significant barrier to presenting a complete picture of the past activities of undercover offcers like Pearce.

Lily Lewis: Rebecca Johnson, Hilary Moore, Jane Hickman

Lily Lewis presented the opening statement for Rebecca Johnson, Hilary Moore, and Jane Hickman, key figures in the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp.

This camp, established in the early 1980s, was a non-hierarchical movement dedicated to peace, disarmament, and campaigning against nuclear weapons. It and its members were subjected to extensive and unjustified surveillance by undercover officers, including HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’, the only female officer in this Tranche, who it seems was specifically headhunted because

“The Prime Minister wanted to know what the Greenham Women were doing”

(from the statement of HN33)

Again, the opening statement provided compelling evidence of the political (rather than public order) motivations behind the surveillance, citing documents that revealed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s intent to publicly discredit the Greenham Women and their supporters by investigating their finances and backgrounds. Core participants ask the Inquiry to investigate the extent to which the SDS were deployed to gather material to this end.

Jane Hickman, Rebecca Johnson, and Hilary Moore will all give evidence on 17 July. Each of these women, born in the early 1950s, dedicated themselves to peace, disarmament, and campaigning against nuclear weapons in the UK. The legacy of Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp is significant.

Their stance on nuclear disarmament was eventually recognised and adopted by the US and UK through the signing of the Intermediate-range Nucleaer Forces Treaty in 1987, leading to the removal of the last missiles from Greenham in 1991.

“The Greenham Women were on the right side of history,” the statement asserts, emphasising their contribution to global peace efforts. It added “Greenham succeeded in making a fundamental shift in the way that many women saw themselves,” highlighting the empowerment and political agency that the movement fostered.

The peace camp was nonviolent. The women believed in democratic engagement and their protests were well-organised and publicised, often involving the support and cooperation of local authorities.

Despite this peaceful approach, they were subjected to intense surveillance by undercover officers. HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’ infiltrated Lambeth Women for Peace, took on significant roles in the group and reported on their activities from 1983 to 1986.

“Their activities were always peaceful,” her statement admits, yet her deployment continued for nearly four years.

Reporting included accounts of meetings, political discussions, legally privileged advice, home addresses, personal phone numbers, car registrations, and even bank details. The collected intelligence was not only retained but also shared with MI5 and, in some cases, the American government.

Jane Hickman, Rebecca Johnson, and Hilary Moore continue to be active in their respective fields, advocating for peace and justice. Their participation in the Inquiry is driven by a desire to uncover the truth and ensure that the unjust surveillance they experienced is acknowledged and addressed.

“The police made a terrible mistake in using what is supposed to be a last resort against citizens in this country,” Jane Hickman concludes.

This opening statement serves as a powerful reminder of the need for vigilance against the misuse of state surveillance powers for political purposes, ensuring that future generations can continue to advocate for change without fear of unwarranted intrusion.

Owen Greenhall: David Morris

Dave is a litigant in person, and a dedicated community campaigner since the mid-1970s. He is notable for appearing in undercover intelligence reports in all tranches of this inquiry, spanning forty years. He will be giving evidence in Tranche 2 Phase 1 on 8 July, and returning after the summer to give further evidence in Phase 2.

A highlight of the opening statements at previous hearings has been his delivery of his own statements, written personally to ensure authenticity and save on legal costs. His no-nonsense style, speaking truth to power, is always a breath of fresh air. However, this time the Inquiry refused to allow him to speak, insisting that his words be read by a barrister instead.

Owen Greenhall did his best to do the statement justice, but it was not the same. It felt like a particularly petty move on the part of this Inquiry, which constantly seems to be trying to mute or silence the voices of the victims of an ever-growing litany of abuses by undercover police.

Despite this handicap, Morris’s statement was characteristically powerful and detailed. He poignantly recounted his decades-long activism and the targeting he faced from undercover police units.

“I speak as a life-long community activist and organiser doing my best to stand up for the rights of people, in defence of the environment, and the future of our society and planet.”

A central theme of Morris’s statement was the unjustified nature of deployments against the small, grassroots organisations he was involved in. “Those involved were concerned members of the public doing their best to question and improve things,” he asserts.

He recounted how undercover officer HN304 ‘Graham Coates’, who targeted him and his groups in the 1970s, confessed:

“I do not believe any informaton I provided whilst I was deployed was particularly significant. I do not think it would have made any difference to public order if I had not worked for the SDS.”

In this Tranche, the London Workers Group, which aimed to promote worker solidarity and challenge exploitation was infiltrated by undercover officer HN20 ‘Tony Williams’.

Morris criticizes the invasion of privacy and trust, especially as ‘Williams’ admitted to not witnessing any public disorder.

Morris explained:

“Mr ‘Williams’ took on significant roles at various times, including publicity manager, group representative at an international conference, Treasurer and Secretary – a position he abused to be able to steal the private contact details of the group’s supporters”.

Morris also discussed the “Persons Unknown” defence campaign, formed to support individuals facing conspiracy charges. He highlights how ‘Williams’ infiltrated this group, reporting on privileged legal strategies and undermining the campaign’s efforts.

Similarly, London Greenpeace, which Morris was deeply involved in from the early 1980s, was infiltrated by undercover officers like HN10 Bob Lambert (‘Bob Robinson’) and HN5 John Dines (‘John Barker’).

Lambert and Dines not only gathered intelligence but also engaged in deceitful and abusive relationships.

“He [Bob Lambert] engineered fraudulent and therefore abusive sexual relationships with a number of women including fathering a child (who he later abandoned)”.

Morris condemns the “gross invasions of privacy” and the unethical behaviour of officers who manipulated personal relationships and stole private information.

Morris also touched on the broader implications of these tactics, which reflect a disregard for legal processes and human rights, with the police collaborating with corporations against campaigners.

He posed the question: why didn’t undercover police target the entities that truly threaten our society? Corporations engaging in systemic exploitation and environmental destruction, for example, or the government, supporting and engaging in illegal wars.

In concluding his statement, Morris emphasises the fundamental right of people to organise, protest, and seek positive change. He invokes a long tradition of resisting oppressive laws and explained:

“Protests and movements for change also enable people to empower themselves and each other, and should be encouraged everywhere. By spreading collective self-organisation, mutual aid and community solidarity, it can be demonstrated there are alternative and better ways of living and running our society – this is real democracy in action.”

Owen Greenhall: Dame Joan Ruddock PC & Diane Abbott MP

Owen Greenhall delivered a further opening statement on behalf of Diane Abbott MP and Dame Joan Ruddock PC. Both women are prominent political figures which makes their targeting by undercover police particularly troubling.

Diane Abbott was the first Black woman ever elected to Parliament in 1987. She has been a leading anti-racism campaigner for decades and played significant roles in movements such as the Black Sections within the Labour Party and the Anti-Racist Alliance.

Documents disclosed in the Inquiry reveal that undercover officers reported on numerous events where she spoke during the Tranche 2 period. Former undercover officer Peter Francis has admitted to collecting information on Diane Abbott while infiltrating anti-racist groups, reporting details of her activities to his Special Branch superiors.

Abbott condemned the spying as politically motivated and a breach of her privacy and the trust of those she worked with.

Speaking in the House of Commons in 2015 she confirmed:

“I assure the House that I was never engaged in anything illegal and I certainly was not engaged in seeking to undermine democracy”.

Indeed, her activities were aimed at reinforcing democracy by advocating for marginalised communities, notably the Stephen Lawrence campaign.

The statement raised concerns about racial discrimination in SDS activities, based not on any policing need, but rather on a deep and unwarranted fear of politically engaged ethnic minority communities.

Dame Joan Ruddock was Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), and Labour MP for Deptford from 1987 to 2015. She shared her experiences of extensive surveillance due to her anti-nuclear activism and called for accountability from the Home Office and senior government officials who authorised and oversaw these operations.

The spying on Abbott and Ruddock raises serious concerns about the strength of the Wilson Doctrine, which prohibits targeted surveillance of MPs by state agencies.

Ruddock stated:

“In 1981, I was elected as chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament… In 1987, I became a Member of this House and took the loyal oath. In 1997, I became a Minister, and I subsequently signed the Official Secrets Act. How is it that surveillance was carried out on me for all that time?”

The spying on elected MPs like Abbott and Ruddock highlights an erosion of democratic principles, and yet again, it is the SDS and not the groups they were targeting who are found to have been undermining parliamentary democracy.

Sam Jacobs: Sharon Grant OBE

Sharon Grant is a core participant in this public inquiry in representation of her late husband, Bernie Grant MP.

Sam Jacobs displayed a photograph of Bernie Grant as he delivered a poignant account of his political life. Arriving in the UK from British Guiana (now Guyana) as a teenager, Grant became deeply involved in the trade union movement.

He became the first Black leader of a council in Europe, and he was elected as Member of Parliament for Tottenham in 1987, where he served until his death in 2000. His contributions were widely recognised, with the Prime Minister describing him as inspirational. His portrait now hangs in the Houses of Parliament.

Sharon Grant’s statement eloquently expresses what a severe affront to democracy the spying on Bernie Grant and other Members of Parliament was. The explanations provided by undercover officers about their role in reporting on MPs appear to downplay their actions.

For instance, HN78 Trevor Morris (‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’, also ‘Bobby McGee’) stated that he was merely providing intelligence and was never told not to include information on MPs.

HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’, who filed numerous reports on Bernie Grant, justified recording MPs’ presence at public events in order to understand alliances and potential future attendance.

HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ claimed that reporting on speeches by MPs was relevant to understanding the community’s views on police-related legislation.

However, the reports on Bernie Grant go far beyond recording his presence at events; they analyse the content of his speeches and even question his sincerity. One report describes him as engaging in “a tour of conspiracy theories” and being “cynical,” while another calls him “inflammatory.”

No undercover officer has taken responsibility for these reports, and HN78 Trevor Morris (‘Anthony “Bobby” Lewis’, also ‘Bobby McGee’) denies authorship despite clear links. This discrepancy raises concerns about the credibility of the officers’ testimonies.

There are 28 reports directly mentioning Bernie Grant, nine of which were filed by officer HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’ who estimated that approximately three-quarters of his reporting is missing.

Sharon Grant stresses that her statement is based on limited disclosure and snippets from witness statements, and this leaves her uncomfortable, making her statement without full knowledge of the extent of the reporting.

Nevertheless, the picture that has emerged is concerning, indicating a police role in discrediting her husband and the wider Black community. She recalls the misreporting of Bernie Grant’s actions and statements related to the events at Broadwater Farm. The language of the reports and their distribution only heightens her concerns.

Many of the reports also reference Bernie Grant’s participation in events where his constituents experienced injustice at the hands of the Metropolitan Police, such as the killing of Joy Gardner and the wrongful conviction of Winston Silcott.

Given that the Joy Gardner campaign was run from Bernie Grant’s office, Sharon Grant questions whether undercover officers infiltrated the premises of an elected politician. She emphasises the need to understand whether police actions interfered with democratic processes and what impact they had on Bernie Grant’s reputation and his ability to address serious issues on behalf of his constituents. She highlighted the need for a fuller exploration of the police’s role in this kind of anti-democratic activity.

Sam Jacobs: Stafford Scott

Stafford Scott, representing the Broadwater Farm Defence Committee (BFDC), recounted his personal experiences of police misconduct and surveillance.

BFDC was an organisation established in the wake of police violence and wrongful prosecutions. It was set up “by the community with the support of the local authority and Member of Parliament and worked to protect the rights of the community”.

Despite the peaceful nature of their activities, the BFDC and Scott were subjected to extensive monitoring. Scott highlighted the racial bias in the surveillance, noting that Black-led campaigns were inherently viewed with suspicion by the SDS.

Scott’s detailed recounting of his experiences underscores the profound impact of surveillance and police misconduct on individuals and communities striving for justice. His statement contained personal stories including how, in 1985, he and his family were “arrested at gunpoint, held incommunicado for 36 hours, and subjected to racist taunts.”

This incident, among others, underscores the hostile and racially biased treatment he and his community faced from police. Despite these challenges, Scott continued his activism. His efforts have been instrumental in exposing systemic issues within the police force, including the racist and divisive operation of the ‘Gangs Matrix’ which was eventually withdrawn by the Met.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Richard Martin has acknowledged Scott’s work with the Met and other organisations “to better improve community relations”.

Scott notes the significant amount of intelligence reports, particularly from undercover officer HN25 ‘Kevin Douglas’, concerning the BFDC and himself.

There are over thirty reports, and we are told that “approximately three-quarters of his [HN25’s] reporting is missing”.

This makes it impossible to build a comprehensive understanding of the scope of the surveillance.

What we do know is that Scott and the BFDC had registry file numbers opened on them by Special Branch – meaning they were regarded as needing ongoing monitoring – signaling a significant level of interest from the Met.

The explanation given for this surveillance was ‘public order’. However, this lacks credibility. There were never any public order issues at BFDC events, and indications of “violent behaviour” in the SDS reporting include a description of a reggae song played on a demonstration.

Despite the significant gaps in the evidence the police’s broader agenda is clear. The intense interest in justice campaigns over the wrongful convictions of the Tottenham Three or the killings of Cherry Groce, Joy Gardner, and Stephen Lawrence, and undercover reporting about the Newham Monitoring Project and Hackney Community Defence Association (which kept files on police corruption that were accessed by HN78 Trevor Morris), all stems from a desire to limit the impact of community campaigns for police accountability.

This was reflected in the Metropolitan Police admission on 1 July, in which they apologised for their racist spying on justice campaigns and for the culture of ‘exceptionalism and impunity’ that existed in the SDS.

Stafford Scott continues to fight for justice and equality and he asks the Inquiry not to marginalise his experiences further, to recognise the significant contributions he and the BFDC have made, and address the systemic racism within undercover policing to ensure accountability for the injustices faced by the Black community.

Kirsten Heaven: NPSCP Co-ordinating Group

Kirsten Heaven delivered the final opening statement on behalf of the Co-ordinating Group of non-police, non-state core participants (NPSCPs), bringing together many of the points made in opening statements over the previous three days, and providing a broad overview of the systemic issues that the inquiry needs to address.

The statement began with the procedural issues that have hindered the Inquiry. Heaven emphasized the failure to provide timely disclosure, which has prevented meaningful participation for those affected and placed an enormous emotional and practical burden on NPSCPs.

Key witness statements and evidence have been provided too late for it to be possible to process the material.

She blamed arbitrary deadlines imposed by the Home Office, and emphasised the need for the Inquiry to adopt a more open and collaborative approach, highlighting the importance of meaningful participation from those affected by the surveillance, arguing:

“The best people to assist in helping the Inquiry to ascertain what is missing or incorrect within the evidence are the non-state core participants”.

Her statement provided a damning critique of practices and oversight from 1983 to 1992, and a critical examination of the systemic abuses and failures of undercover policing in the UK.

It explored the political motivations behind SDS operations, citing examples of surveillance targeted at politically active individuals and groups who posed no legitimate threat and the misuse of state surveillance powers for political ends. There was a lack of accountability and oversight, and that led to profound personal and political impacts on those targeted.

She called for the Inquiry to hold senior officials and government departments accountable for their roles in overseeing and authorising these operations and for transparency, accountability, and meaningful participation going forward, to ensure that the Inquiry fulfills its mandate and delivers justice for those affected.

Among the many issues raised was the surveillance of political figures, particularly MPs. The NPSCPs highlight the violation of the Wilson Doctrine, which prohibits the surveillance of MPs.

The statement explores the supposed justification for the SDS’s operations, revealing a pattern of political policing. It cites the 1983 SDS Annual Report, which openly discussed targeting groups and individuals who were critical of the police.

The report admitted that the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) posed no serious threat to public order. It continued to be targeted for being a “conspicuous irritant to the establishment.”

This, the NPSCPs argue, exemplifies how the SDS’s activities were driven by political motives, and even a desire to avoid “embarrassment”, rather than legitimate policing concerns.

The NPSCPs also highlight the extensive and invasive nature of the SDS operations. Undercover officers in the Tranche 2 period of 1983-1992 continued to assume significant roles of influence within groups they targeted, trespass into private homes, steal the identities of dead infants and engage in intimate relationships under false pretences, and there is growing evidence that senior officers were aware of, and sometimes complicit in, these unlawful and immoral activities.

For example, HN99 Detective Chief Inspector Nigel David Short warned officers about being tempted by “flesh pot females”. HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ reported how, during a presentation to members of MI5, DCI Wait made a “light-hearted introduction” mentioning that “one of our animal people had been involved in a pregnancy scare but the fact of the child being mixed race ruled out the officer entirely”.

This not only trivializes serious misconduct but also highlights the racist and sexist attitudes pervasive in the SDS, revealing a deep-rooted culture of impunity and prejudice.

The Home Office was aware of the controversial practices within the SDS. Documents indicate that senior civil servants were concerned about the use of the police to spy on groups critical of the government. However, despite this awareness, the abuses were allowed to continue unchecked.

NPSCPs insist that it is only through full disclosure and complete transparency that the true extent of the SDS’s activities can be understood and properly scrutinized. They call for the Inquiry to publish the full list of groups that were spied on and to release the real and cover names of all SDS officers and managers, and they emphasise the need for public scrutiny and accountability in the Inquiry.

Without these measures, the Inquiry risks failing to deliver justice for those who were wronged by these undercover operations.

This summary covers the final week of the four-week 2021 hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), examining the activities of the Metropolitan Police’s secret political unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, from 1973-82.

The UCPI is an independent, judge-led inquiry into undercover policing in England and Wales. Its main focus is the activity of two units who deployed long-term undercover officers into a variety of political groups; the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS, 1968-2008) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU, 1999-2011). Spycops from these units lived as activists for years at a time, spying on more than 1,000 groups.

THE DECEIVED AND THE DECEIVER

The UCPI hearings on 10 May and 11 May were notable for the consecutive appearances of an activist who had been deceived into a sexual relationship with an undercover officer, and the actual spycop who had deceived her.

‘Madeleine’ was the only activist we heard from this week. State core participants giving evidence were spycops ‘Vince Miller’ (HN354, 1976-1979), ‘Paul Gray’ (HN126, 1977-82), and ‘Michael James‘ (HN96, 1978-83). Summaries of evidence were given for three other spycops, and documents introduced for a fourth, who is now dead.

Owing to the refusal of the Inquiry to release names or photographs of officers, there are many people who may never know if they were spied on. The Inquiry has also refused to call as many spycops as possible to give evidence, so we are unlikely to ever have an accurate picture of their activities.

CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS

Once again, everything we heard this week supported the emerging picture that we do have. People who were spied on gave clear, consistent, and detailed accounts of their actions, including the moral and ethical standpoints that led them to join the groups that were infiltrated.

Spycops gave conflicting accounts of what they did; whether they had intimate relationships with activists, what went on in safe-houses, what their managers were or were not aware of, and even whether or not their work was useful. They contradict each other, and sometimes contradict themselves, whether in different reports or even within the same session of giving evidence.

This was very clearly shown this week when comparing the evidence of undercover ‘Vince Miller’ (HN354, 1976-1979) who infiltrated the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), and ‘Madeleine’, an SWP member who he deceived into a relationship. Madeleine gave evidence on 10 May, Miller on 11 May. Both took a whole day.

Miller was the first unmarried officer to be deployed by the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). He was in a relationship, however, and this was one of the first things his superiors asked him about.

He believes this was because being married was preferred, as having a wife meant some form of support whilst enduring the stress of an undercover deployment. All the other evidence from spycops this week (and beyond) echoes this statement: family ties would prevent them ‘going rogue’.

‘Paul Gray’ (HN126, 1977-1980), giving evidence on May 13, said he thought ‘you had to be married’ to join the squad, as:

‘It led to a secure background, a secure home… I suppose it was good to have somebody at home when you came back after a long weekend or a long day’

It appears that, despite this being a deliberate choice by the SDS, no thought was given to the impact it had on the officers’ wives. Contact phone numbers for their husbands were not given until 1978, when one wife asked for this.

Wives were expected to do everything to help their husbands, up to and including moving house at short notice if their cover was blown. Many of them were left acting as single parents for weeks at a time. They believed their husbands were doing work crucial to the security of the nation.

UNMENTIONED ONE-NIGHT STANDS

Madeleine is one of four women who Miller has admitted to having intimate sexual contact with. Two of the others were not activists, nor were they connected with his target group. He says he simply met them in the pub – whilst undercover and claiming expenses – and had what he describes as ‘one-night stands’ with them. This was very early on in his deployment, when he was still exploring the area he had to infiltrate.

Since they were nothing to do with his deployment, Miller chose not to mention them in his ‘impact statement’ to the Inquiry. Even when his solicitor was sent a letter by the Inquiry specifically asking for details of all sexual relationships, Miller remained silent. It was not until a year later – in his witness statement – that he admitted to them.

This alone is enough to bring his overall credibility into question. Everything he says must now be examined through a lens of ‘is this the whole story?’ What would it serve Miller to omit from his evidence?

David Barr QC, Counsel to the Inquiry, seemed to be aware of this as he questioned Miller. Barr kept the pressure on to an extent that made Miller literally sweat, as he contradicted himself repeatedly about matters of procedure and events in the SDS safe house. When questioned about his deception of Madeleine, Miller flushed red and was visibly deeply uncomfortable for the duration of that topic.

On the previous day, Madeleine herself was open and quietly compelling. Miller claims that he only had sex with her once, but she gave the Inquiry a detailed account of their months-long relationship. This is backed up by near-contemporaneous diaries detailing conversations about Miller’s refusal to stay the night after he’d had sex with her.

MANIPULATING PEOPLE BY LYING

Miller told Madeleine his refusal to stay over was psychological, that he didn’t feel safe unless he woke up in his own bed. He also told her he had grown up in a children’s home, and recently had a bad breakup from a toxic relationship. Giving evidence, Miller said it hadn’t occurred to him that his cover story of past pain and not wanting to be hurt again might evoke feelings of sympathy, intimacy and protectiveness.

This is astonishing, given that his entire job consisted of manipulating people by lying to them. Like all the spycops we’ve heard from so far, he says he received little training. However, the ability to gauge people’s reactions to what you tell them is surely a prerequisite for working undercover. For example, Miller was once asked what he was doing for Christmas. To end the topic, he replied that both his parents were dead.

His cynical tale of woe is another piece of spycop tradecraft, one that other women deceived by spycops will recognise all too readily.

‘REALLY, REALLY SINISTER’

Madeleine’s father had fought fascists all his life. He was at the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 when an alliance of antifascists stopped the British Union of Fascists marching through the Jewish area of London’s East End. He was decorated for his efforts against the Nazis in WWII. It is not inconceivable that there is also a Special Branch Registry File on him.

Madeleine was about 15 when she joined the International Socialists (IS), which later became the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). In 1970, when she was 16, a Special Branch Registry File on her was opened.

Parts of that file are redacted by the Inquiry, which she finds ‘really, really sinister’; what 50-year-old information about her does the Inquiry not want her to see?

AUTOMATIC TARGETS

Miller explained that it was not unusual for 15- and 16-year-olds to be spied on and have files, if they were ‘sufficiently active’. Additionally, it streamlined the paperwork to open a file on someone if they were ‘constantly being referred to in all sorts of practices’.

The inference is that if children were often mentioned in reports on their parents, it was easier for the SDS administration to open a file on them. This is backed up by the evidence of ‘Michael James‘ (HN96, 1978-83).

In a self-fulfilling manoeuvre, children and adults became automatic targets for the State simply because they had a file.

Madeleine had split up with her abusive husband in the autumn of 1978. By this time, she had known Miller as a member of the SWP for over a year. A flatmate’s diaries show he visited their flat in summer 1977. After the breakup, she increasingly regarded him as a friend.

This was the period during which Miller was infiltrating the Walthamstow branch of the SWP. He became treasurer, then district treasurer and social committee organiser for the Outer East London District Branch. Miller organised fund-raising gigs and other social events. As people dedicated to the same ideals, the SWP members’ lives were very enmeshed.

PUBLIC DISORDER PICNIC

The Queen’s Silver Jubilee in June 1977 saw one such social event. It had been declared a one-off bank holiday; in a gentle push-back against the imperial overtones of the occasion, Walthamstow SWP organised an anti-Jubilee family picnic in Epping Forest.

The Inquiry asked if the picnic was likely to involve any public disorder:

‘Absolutely not, no. It was just a picnic. With children, I might add.’

Given some of the things we are expected to believe from other State witness statements this week, the Inquiry not knowing what a picnic involves is the very least of it.

The direct actions of the Walthamstow SWP were not geared towards public disorder either. A report mentions them ‘occupying’ a Sainsbury’s supermarket, but this is untrue:

‘what they probably did was stand outside with banners, handing out leaflets and talking to shoppers… We felt supermarket prices were kept artificially high to extract profit for shareholders.’

It is hard to see why campaigning for lower prices at Sainsbury’s would be a threat to democracy. This explains why the spycops exaggerated in their report, something that happened throughout this period.

There is a paradox here. On the one hand, the undercovers talk about ‘hoovering up’ information indiscriminately for superiors to make use of, never filtering or questioning the value of the intelligence. On the other, the threat factor of small, peaceful groups is repeatedly made out to be far greater than it was.

On the third – because you need three hands to keep track of their contradictions – they describe the groups as harmless, then circle back round to the justification of information possibly being useful in the future. Or being ‘filed and never used again’, according to ‘Michael James‘ (HN96, 1978-83).

STEALING THE IDENTITY OF A DEAD CHILD…

James infiltrated the Socialist Workers Party and Troops Out Movement, occupying a senior role in the latter by the early 1980s. Like most of the spycops from this period, he was given precise instructions to steal the identity of a dead child and had no qualms about this:

‘I had no moral reservations about this at all… And I couldn’t see why it was a moral issue, because it didn’t involve anybody.’

Pressed on why he thought this:

‘No family were injured or caused any distress because of this practice.’

Later, when queried by the Inquiry Chair, Sir John Mitting, he added:

‘I dismiss what I see in the press about what they say about the stress given to families whose children have been used in the way. I don’t accept that. From my own knowledge that didn’t happen.’

‘Paul Gray’ (HN126, 1977-82) said in his written statement that it was the founder of the SDS, Conrad Dixon, who had instigated the use of dead children’s identities. Giving evidence on 13 May, he changed this to say that the practice was inspired by the film The Day of the Jackal.

When pressed by the Inquiry as to which it was, Gray decided on the latter as he had:

‘checked Wikipedia and the film had just come out when we started doing it.’

He was not alone among the spycops in having a cavalier attitude to the truth, but he was particularly blatant about how much being asked about it annoyed him. He often gave obtuse answers to straight-forward questions, and at times refused to answer them outright, despite having sworn to tell ‘the whole truth’ before giving evidence.

Interestingly enough, he took offence at what was said in what is presented as his own written witness statement:

‘I have not written that, not at all, this is not my kind of English. This was written for me.’

His words and attitude confirm something previously suspected – that the statements were worded for the spycops, not by them.

…TO SPY ON LIVING CHILDREN

Returning to Michael James, a May 1979 report he wrote [UCPI0000021293] gives personal details about a member of Clapton SWP and Hackney Women’s Voice. It describes her as divorced, with a six-year-old child. Why report on her marital state, the age of the child or even that she had a child?

‘All I can conclude is that I was trying to paint a picture of an individual that may have been used in the future.’

Would you have been concerned at all about reporting information on children?

‘Well, all I said was she had a daughter of six years. I mean, I’ve not gone into any more detail.’

In August 1979 he reported [UCPI0000013300] on an under-18-year-old SWP member, including the school they went to. He said he wasn’t concerned about having done this.

James gave evidence on 13 May, a long and somewhat torturous process that saw him evading giving answers and instead suggesting questions he thought should be asked. This left Inquiry counsel Steven Gray QC persistently cutting through James’ repeated shambling around answers, for which he is to be applauded.

The Inquiry discussed other examples of intrusive reporting. When pressed to justify various egregious sections in his files, James fell back on the defence that it didn’t really matter. It was just information that mostly went nowhere, kept on the off-chance it might actually be useful one day; but since that was in the future, who knew, so you reported everything.

INTRUSIVE REPORTING

Despite James’ claims that the information would, in his experience, ‘never see the light of day’, many of his reports were passed to the Security Service (MI5). All the files published by the Inquiry with a reference number beginning ‘UCPI000…’ are taken from the Security Service’s existing records.

As Steven Gray QC pointed out:

‘the fact that it wasn’t going to see the light of day again in your experience is not borne out by the fact that we’re looking at it now, is it?’

The theory that the reports would not be looked at until some time in the future could also explain the fictional tendencies of the spycops who wrote them. A practice familiar from SDS reports seen earlier in the hearings was to take the most extreme statement anyone made at a meeting and portray it as the whole group’s real basis. Realistically, most meetings, from business to Brownies, would suffer under that parameter.

A January 1979 report [UCPI0000013063] from Miller also mentions children. School Kids Against the Nazis (SKAN) had been formed when the National Front held a demo outside a school in multicultural East London. About 200 pupils had opposed it, with 15 arrests – all but one of them Black kids.

SCHOOL KIDS AGAINST NAZIS

‘Paul Gray’ (HN126, 1977-1980) also reported on SKAN, and seemed preoccupied with one Black boy in particular. Gray reported on his family life, that he spoke at a SKAN meeting, and leafletted schools in a campaign against education cuts, among other things.

Gray claimed this reporting was justifiable from a public order point of view, but then denied that the reports were his [UCPI0000011997], [UCPI0000011380].

Shown a report detailing minor criminal offending of a minor schoolboy, [UCPI0000011994], he was asked if this was the sort of information he would have reported on SKAN?

‘Although SKAN’s members were young, they were just as violent as any other anti-fascist group.’

The Inquiry then showed a short video of SKAN Hackney – an endearing bit of footage with schoolkids, black and white, explaining they were friends and colour did not play a role, and that they were against the NF stirring up tension.

Gray agreed that this was the impression that he had of SKAN at the time, but claimed:

‘the characters that I was aware of were a lot more violent.’

Asked specifically about the child prominently featured in his reports, Gray conceded he had never seen him committing violence at demonstrations, but ‘he was always the first out of the bus at Brick Lane’. It is also notable that he described the boy as having an ‘effeminate manner’. He says he never thought about whether this was appropriate or not.

SUGGESTIONS OF INSURRECTION

Gray said that in fact, the legitimacy of reporting on SKAN at all was never discussed with him by superiors. It was not talked about at the weekly meetings. Nor was the reporting on girls protesting because they were not allowed to wear trousers to school [UCPI0000021267].

Returning to the 1979 report from Miller, this said SKAN:

‘can, with short notice, get large numbers of school students on to the streets, should the need arise.’

The Inquiry asked Madeleine if SKAN were indeed able to suddenly create a mob ready for street violence. Yet again, she had to deflate suggestions of insurrection. SKAN was a self-organising group of kids responding to the upsurge of racism around them:

‘The idea that we would have somehow had to have planted these ideas in their heads is a bit ludicrous really. It was their own experience.’

Madeleine notes other reports are deliberately facetious, and often selectively quote a few individuals’ opinions rather than the general view, even just picking up on comments made by members of the public. She elegantly described it:

‘There’s a little bit of embroidery going on in many of the reports. There would have been people there who would have expressed opinions that we wouldn’t necessarily agree with, but we would discuss and debate and argue with them.’

MADELEINE BELIEVED HERSELF SAFE

In the summer of 1979, Madeleine was 25 and slowly coming out of her shell after years of her husband’s possessive behaviour and abuse. At a house party in Ilford, mainly attended by SWP members, she was happy when her SWP comrade of three years, Vince Miller, pulled her into his lap, and when he later put his arms around her. She was not looking for a relationship, but believed herself safe with him:

‘I thought he was lovely. A really nice guy. I thought he was a genuine, lovely, easy going person, I thought he was sensitive, he had this story of heartbreak and all the rest of it. I felt he was looking for genuine relationships with people.’

After the party, he took her back to her flat and they began a sexual relationship. It was the only time that he stayed the entire night with her, leaving in the morning.

ABSOLUTE BETRAYAL

Asked how she would have felt to discover Miller’s true identity at the time, she said it would have been devastating. She was young and naïve, and would have been profoundly shocked and distraught:

‘I’d made myself very vulnerable to him and I trusted him, and to me it would have been an absolute betrayal… I would have regarded it, as I do regard it now, as rape.’

Miller claims Madeleine invited him up to her room. Questioning Miller, David Barr QC bluntly asked if he went because he wanted sex – despite the fact that he was a serving police officer on duty?

‘I think I’d have to say yes.’

Asked if he thought Madeleine would have had sex with him if she knew who he really was, Miller admitted:

‘if she knew that I was a police officer then almost certainly not… But I’m both a police officer and a person, so she might have seen the person, not the police officer.’

Had she seen the person, she would have also seen that he was in a committed relationship. What she saw instead was a single comrade she’d known for years, who had become a trusted friend, and then lover.

The Inquiry attempted to downplay the impact the relationship would have had if Madeleine hadn’t latterly found out the truth about spycops. This gives no consideration to the reality of the situation as she experienced it at the time.

THE FOCUS OF HER AFFECTIONS

Madeleine hoped that they would become a couple. She didn’t see anyone else, and her feelings for him grew. They met about once a week; always at her house, never his. She was very keen for the relationship to continue, as she was ‘never looking for a one-night stand or casual sex with anyone’, and ‘he seemed very keen on me’.

Their regular dates continued for a couple of months. He was, she says, the focus of her affections. However, towards the end, things changed:

‘He became increasingly distant, and I began to become disappointed that it didn’t seem to be going the way I wanted it to go. And, yeah, I kind of became a bit upset about it.’

Madeleine found herself wondering if it was her fault that Miller was withdrawing his affection. The last time she saw him was at a friend’s house. She hadn’t seen him for about a week. He was sitting on the other side of the room with a woman, and she sensed from their body language that there was something between the two of them. Madeleine now thinks this is the other SWP member that he has admitted deceiving into a relationship.

FEIGNING EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Miller ignored Madeleine. When he left, she followed him to ask why he was being so distant. He said that he’d already told her that he couldn’t get too involved and that he didn’t want to get hurt again.

She remembers his departure damaging her self-esteem, leaving her feeling upset, disappointed and rejected. She saw it as part of a pattern with her marriage and thought:

‘God, have I made another mistake?’

He said he was going to go to California to ‘find himself’. This is yet another early example of what became standard practice – spycops would cover the end of their deployment by feigning emotional distress and say they were going abroad to sort themselves out.

The emotional turmoil created by some of the later officers had huge impacts on those who loved them. More than one desperate woman deceived into a relationship went searching in the country where her partner was supposedly living, not knowing he was actually back at a desk job in Scotland Yard.

FURTHER TALES OF VINCE

This was not a relationship that had ‘very little impact’, and it was caused by the spycops whether Madeleine knew of them or not. The revelation that the man she knew never really existed has caused more recent impact, undoing the peace that Madeleine eventually made with the end of the relationship.

‘To discover that I didn’t know him at all and that he was a fiction, that’s been quite difficult to get my head around. He doesn’t actually exist, it was all an act, wearing a mask… it’s really chilling and sinister… I just don’t know how people can behave like that.’

It is indeed abhorrent that Miller chose to have sex with a young woman who had no idea of his true identity, and who he knew was emotionally vulnerable. Perhaps even more so that he claims it didn’t cross his mind that she might feel pressured, after being in a relationship with a controlling man.

When asked by the Inquiry about pregnancy concerns, Miller put all the responsibility on Madeleine:

Q. Did you use contraception?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did you give any thought to the consequences of fathering a child when you were in fact an undercover police officer?
A. No, I didn’t. I think my perception was that as a full feminist socialist supporter, then if there was any need for protection, then she would have mentioned it. I didn’t see her as some kind of shrinking violet, or something like that. This was a member of the women’s movement, and women had the same right to ask for things and to insist on things as a man. And I would have supported that then. I incidentally still do. So she would have had the right – absolute right to insist, if it was necessary.
Q. But in the absence of any insistence?
A. Then I assumed everything was safe. In contraceptive terms.

Miller’s account of their relationship differs so wildly from Madeleine’s that even the Inquiry Chair, Sir John Mitting, butted in to question him on it.

AN ESSENTIALLY TRUTHFUL PERSON

Miller repeatedly stated that he had little or no memory of many events during this time. Madeleine has clear recollections of the last time she saw him. Miller said he has no memory of saying goodbye to her before he ended his deployment. However, he maintains that he only had sex with her once, which he now describes as:

‘inappropriate and unprofessional.’

Mitting stressed that Madeleine had impressed him when giving evidence:

‘As a sincere and essentially truthful person, trying to tell me, as best as she could remember, what happened between you and her.’

Their relationship was not the only topic where Miller delivered a different version of the truth.

August 1977 saw a key moment in the fight against fascism in Britain. The National Front (NF) were organising a march in Lewisham, and there was a huge counter-demonstration. The collision of the two became known as the ‘Battle of Lewisham‘.

Miller says Walthamstow SWP members checked out the route the night before, and deposited piles of bricks that could be used as weapons the next day. He also claimed they were armed during the march.

Madeleine utterly denies all of this. There is no evidence that anybody ever planted any bricks at all.

BATTLE OF LEWISHAM

This confrontation is now commemorated with a plaque in Lewisham. It was the turning point in the rise of the right wing, and the beginning of the end of the NF.

Miller remembers that everyone who opposed the NF agreed that the far-right had to be stopped from marching through New Cross, a very multicultural area, and that they all organised and planned to stop it.

Miller was an SWP steward for the march. He described the NF as ‘deliberately confrontational’, adding:

‘I don’t think these situations would be allowed to take place now.’

Despite the Met deploying 4,000 uniformed officers, Miller explained that ‘following the march’ was impossible; ‘it was chaos’. The police had no protective gear in those days. In his words:

‘the mounted branch took a complete hammering.’

There were running confrontations all over the area for the rest of the day. Miller described how, after the march was over, members of the far-right were poised to attack the protestors.

Miller said he was ‘too close for my own comfort’ to the confrontations, but that he avoided getting involved in any ‘direct physical violence’ himself.

He remembers phoning up other spycops after the event, to check they had got home safely. A number of them were present that day, because they were infiltrating many of the other groups who attended, not just the SWP. They definitely discussed the event in the safe-house, he confirmed.

We learned from a report dated 23 August 1977 [MPS-0733369] that Special Branch held a debriefing for eighteen of its officers who were present. Miller says he was not one of them, and explained that other Special Branch plain clothes officers would have gone to the march, and that it’s likely that the SDS’s views would have been represented at the meeting by one or two officers, ‘at a high level’.

He notes the SDS undercovers were disappointed that their pre-intelligence had been ignored, resulting in severe violence. Despite that, in the SDS Annual Report for 1977, the Lewisham event is described as a triumph for the unit.

THE DEATH OF BLAIR PEACH

By way of contrast, we have been told that only one spycop was present at the April 1979 anti-fascist demonstration in Southall where police killed Blair Peach, and he left early because it had turned violent.

The anti-fascist protest was a reaction to a General Election rally held by the National Front in a very multi-cultural area of London. This deliberate baiting by fascists was exactly the kind of event that the SDS should have been reporting on.

Gray said his branch made arrangements for the demo, [UCPI0000021193], but he did not attend, saying he probably had an SDS office meeting if it was on a Monday (which it was not) or had to go to work in his cover deployment (despite stating earlier that he never did any work there).

OBVIOUS LIES

Gray claimed that he did not hear about what had happened to Blair Peach, apart from what was on the news. Like many of his colleagues, he claims there was never any discussion about it at meetings of the SDS.

This is an obvious lie, not just because it was a fairly significant public order event, but because it was, naturally, discussed at his SWP branch [UCPI0000021218].

Gray also denied knowing Blair Peach’s partner Celia Stubbs (who gave evidence on 6 May 2021), despite having reported on her activities and referring to her as ‘Celia’ during the hearing.

He states he could not remember going to pickets outside Harlesden Court where the inquest into Peach’s death was held, although he reported on it:

‘If there is a report, then I must have gone.’

There were two reports, [UCPI0000013435] and [UCPI0000013498] that show Gray was organising the selling of Socialist Working papers at the event.

Despite a general call-out from the SWP to attend to Blair Peach’s funeral, Gray says he didn’t go. However, photos were taken at the funeral by a separate Special Branch unit. These were collected in an album brought to the office meetings of the SDS for the spycops to identify the people present. It was then used by Gray in standard reporting [UCPI0000013539]. He still says the killing was not discussed.

THE KILLING WAS NOT DISCUSSED

Vince Miller said that demonstrations were discussed during meetings at the safe houses, and there was:

‘informal exchange of information, but also a release so that you could actually talk about things somewhere.’

He too claims that Peach’s death was never talked about.

There are multiple reports from spycops about the 1977 Lewisham and Wood Green demonstrations, both of which featured clashes between fascists, anti-fascists, and the police. There are hardly any about Southall. Every spycop asked about this demonstration has clammed up, even ones who have been quite forthcoming about their other activities.

It is insulting to be expected to believe that neither reports, which were written on the minutiae of people’s lives, nor memories of an event where a member of the public was killed by police, remain within the SDS.

OFFICERS HOLDING OFFICE

There is some contention as to whether spycops were supposed to hold office of any kind, or take influential roles, within the organisations they infiltrated. What is certain is that most of them did.

One of the officers in this era was Richard Clark (‘Rick Gibson’ HN297, 1974-76). He set up a branch of the Troops Out Movement as part of a long-term climb through the ranks to the very top of the organisation, where he then sabotaged it – as we reported earlier.

In the period under examination, from Clark onwards, every single undercover officer took a role in the organisations they infiltrated, except for ‘Graham Coates’ (HN304, 1976-79) 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.

This week alone we’ve heard from:

‘Vince Miller’ (HN354, 1976-79)
Treasurer, SWP Walthamstow branch
Treasurer, SWP Outer East London District
Social Committee, SWP Outer East London District

‘Colin Clark’ (HN80, 1977-82)
Treasurer, SWP Seven Sisters & Haringey branch
Treasurer, SWP Lea Valley District
National Treasurer, Right to Work Campaign
Offered a place on SWP Central Committee; turned it down, but did do admin at HQ.

‘Bill Biggs‘ (HN356/124, 1977-82)
Treasurer, SWP Plumstead branch
Newspaper Organiser, SWP Plumstead branch
Treasurer, Briston SWP branch

‘Paul Gray‘ (HN126, 1977-82)
Newspaper organiser, SWP Cricklewood branch
Newspaper organiser, SWP North West London District
Acting Chairman, Coordinating Committee, Anti-Nazi League West Hampstead branch (later Camden Against Racism/Anti-Nazi League -West Hampstead & Hampstead Group)

‘Michael James‘ (HN96, 1978-83)
Newspaper organiser, SWP Clapton branch
SWP Hackney District Committee
Membership & Affiliation Secretary, Troops Out Movement
Chair of Steering Committee, Troops Out Movement

‘Phil Cooper’ (HN155, 1979-83)
Treasurer, Waltham Forest Anti-Nuclear Campaign
National Treasurer, Right to Work Campaign

In 1982 and 1983, Cooper was trusted enough to gather the entrance money for the SWP’s annual national delegate conference in Skegness. This provided him with a list of 1,983 attendees, which he included in his report that was passed to MI5 [UCPI0000018180].

It was noted by MI5 that ‘the SDS office [was] still groaning under the weight of Cooper’s report’, which was subsequently considered to be of significant value to the Special Branch and MI5 alike [UCPI0000028728, MPS-0730009, MPS-0735901].

UNRELIABLE WITNESS

Cooper is not being called to give oral evidence due to his current state of health. However, he has previously provided an updated and amended written statement.

A big question is whether Cooper told the Undercover Policing Inquiry’s risk assessors that he engaged in sexual activity whilst he was deployed.

The assessors were employed by the Metropolitan Police to determine the risk to former undercover officers if any aspect of their identity was revealed. Their report from late 2017 recorded Cooper accepting that he had had two or three encounters with women, and the circumstances in which they took place [MPS-0746710].

Both the author, David Reid, and the second risk assessor, Brian Lockie, were left with the impression that Cooper was describing his own experiences whilst deployed [UCPI0000034397].

In contrast, Cooper suggests both misinterpreted his comments, saying that he:

‘was not as clear as I should have been about the dividing line between the specific, factual details of my particular deployment and more hypothetical comments about such deployments more generally.’

Cooper now denies engaging in any sexual relationships while undercover.

The psychological assessors who spoke to Cooper ahead of the Inquiry say that he is not a reliable witness due to being both highly suggestible, and wanting to avoid subjects that would mean revisiting traumatic experiences [UCPI0000034361], [UCPI0000034360].

CHANGING PARAMETERS

The last witnesses to appear at the Tranche 1 Phase 2 hearings of the Inquiry were the two risk assessors in question, David Reid [MPS-0746378] and Brian Lockie [MPS-0747533]. They were called by lawyers representing a number of undercover officers, including Cooper.

Both were asked to explain some alleged factual errors in their risk assessments for other officers. This line of questioning seemed to aim at undermining the accuracy of their recollections of Cooper’s testimony about his sexual encounters.

Both Reid and Lockie reaffirmed that what they recorded Cooper saying was correct, although they conceded that they were ‘not infallible’.

We also learned that the risk assessment process had been an evolving one. The assessors have been learning as they went, and changing their protocols and procedures accordingly.

It is unclear what this means for the earlier risk assessments, which were used to justify secrecy around the names of SDS undercovers.

WHAT NEXT?

May 13 concluded this round of hearings. The next hearings – ‘Tranche 1 Phase 3’, examining SDS managers 1968-82 – are scheduled for some time in the first half of 2022, but there will be no certainty of the dates for some time.

Though the Inquiry admitted in 2017 that more than 1000 groups were targeted by spycops , it refused to publish the list and for a long time only named fewer than 100. Activist researchers have produced a more complete list of those targeted.

During the first set of hearings in November 2020, the Inquiry disclosed another 126 names of groups that were spied on in 1969-1975. An updated list, with groups named during the current set of hearings, is being put together by the Undercover Research Group (URG) at the moment.

We also hope to receive the verdict in the case of Kate Wilson before the end of this year. Kate was deceived into a relationship by undercover officer Mark Kennedy. Her ten-year legal battle for answers recently culminated in a hearing at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, at which police admitted their spying breached a number of her human rights, including her fundamental right to freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Regardless of the verdict, however, this landmark case and the disclosure resulting from it is bound to have consequences for the Undercover Policing Inquiry, as it reveals details that the police have been trying hard to keep concealed. Watch this space.

<<Previous UCPI Weekly Report (4-7 May 2021)<<

This summary covers the third week of the four-week 2021 hearings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), examining the Metropolitan Police’s secret undercover political policing unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, from 1973-82.

Witnesses from the police and the ‘non-State core participants’ gave evidence, and some witness statements from police who were unable, unwilling, or not called upon to appear personally were summarised. This follows the format of last week’s hearings, and many of the same topics were covered.

Rather than unfolding like a fictional courtroom drama, with revelations that suddenly turn the course of the narrative, the hearings of the UCPI are turning the wheel on a microscope to reveal more details about the events it is examining. We already have the big picture: the abusive activities of spycops in England and Wales 1973-–82. This week gave us many more details of those activities.

POLICE ARE ABOVE THE LAW

‘Mike Scott’ (HN298, deployed 1971-1976) gave one of the clearest statements yet that Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) undercovers considered themselves exempt from the laws they were supposed to uphold. In 1972, Scott was accused of being a police officer by Géry Lawless, an activist in several organisations focused on Northern Ireland issues which Scott had infiltrated.

Scott laughingly related how later that day, while driving around randomly, he somehow chanced upon Lawless when the latter was alone in a phone box. He cornered him there and after an exchange of words punched him so hard in the face that Scott chipped a bone in his hand.

When asked to justify his violent crime against a member of the public, Scott replied:

‘It was acceptable to me and I was the one that made the decision. I was the one that was there, and the person that was the so-called victim was Géry Lawless’.

The implication of ‘you deserve what you get because I say so’ is more text than subtext here.

POLITICIANS ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW

Scott attended the Young Liberals’ 1972 annual conference in his capacity of Membership Secretary for their Putney branch. He reported on the presence of MP David Steel, directly contravening the ‘Wilson Doctrine’, which said that MPs should be told if they are subject to state surveillance.

According to Scott, ‘MPs are not above the law’. Spycops are apparently another matter, especially when punching people in the face.

Although Scott didn’t pick up a criminal record for his assault on Géry Lawless, he did for his actions during the Stop The Seventy Tour anti-apartheid campaign. He was convicted of obstructing a public highway under his fake identity, which was stolen from a living person.

SPYCOPS AUTHORISED TO LIE UNDER OATH

Scott’s lying under oath was authorised by his superiors, and he never gave a thought to whether the real Michael Scott now has a criminal record. In fact, he doesn’t even consider it in those terms:

‘What happened to me was not exactly a criminal record, it was really of no consequence, actually.’

In fact, he said, the identity theft, used to set up a bank account, might have been beneficial to the real Michael Scott because ‘my credit record was good.’

The unshakable conviction that whatever he chose to do was the best course of action simply because he chose to do it wass astonishingly clear. The Inquiry is now investigating whether the real Michael Peter Scott has a criminal record for this conviction.

Scott was not alone in being arrested, charged and convicted under a false identity. ‘Barry / Desmond Loader‘ (HN13, 1975-78) infiltrated the Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist) and was arrested twice while undercover. The first occasion, in late 1977, was for ‘insulting or threatening behaviour’ following a clash with the fascist National Front (NF) outside Barking police station.

Just three days after his court appearance for that, Loader was arrested a second time, again for clashing with the NF. Police records [MPS-0526784] reveal that Superintendent Ken Pryde established contact with a court official during the proceedings, giving them Loader’s cover name and his status as:

‘a valuable informant in the public order field whom we would wish to safeguard from a prison sentence should the occasion arise.’

Loader was found guilty, fined, and given a one-year bind-over of £100. It is noted in an SDS ‘Minute Sheet’ that this sentence was considered ‘very useful’ as it would allow Loader to keep a low profile for the remainder of his deployment [MPS-0526784].

LAWYER-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DIDN’T APPLY TO SPYCOPS

Naturally, the arrests and trials of spycops meant that the undercovers took part in meetings between the genuine activists and their lawyers. ‘Mike Scott’ was one of 14 people arrested in May 1972 for blockading a coach carrying the British Lions rugby team as they were leaving to play in apartheid South Africa.

Scott’s reports include comments from the activists’ lawyers. These have been redacted by the Inquiry as even now, 50 years later, they are subject to legal privilege. And yet, they were put in a report to the prosecution side from a spy among the defendants!

‘Geoff Wallace’ (HN296, 1975-78) infiltrated the International Socialists (IS). In April 1976, during their Right to Work Campaign, the IS newspaper Socialist Worker hired solicitors to represent those arrested while campaigning. Wallace reported [UCPI0000012323] on their meetings, likewise ignoring lawyer-client privilege.

This right, long protected in common law, is recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights, and can only be waived by the client. It is also recognised as absolute, in the sense that once privilege is established, it may not be weighed against any other countervailing public interest.

THE SDS MUST BE KEPT SECRET

Apparently, it’s a right that can be easily overridden by secret and secretive police units eager to avoid exposure and embarrassment. Discussion in the above mentioned Special Branch Minute Sheets reveals that Loader’s senior officers prioritised keeping his identity secret over any other consideration. Scott’s superiors did the same thing.

In 1979, spycop ‘Graham Coates’ (HN304, 1975-79) made ‘an error of judgement’ when, during a traffic stop, he gave a uniformed officer his real name but showed the driving license in his cover identity.

SDS boss Mike Ferguson (a former undercover himself) was ‘incandescent’, not just at Coates’ own indiscretion but at the potential revelation of the unit and its methods. Coates was withdrawn from the field on the spot.

In previous years, senior officers attempted to pass off incidents of criminal activity by spycops as ‘a few bad apples’ or used the ever-popular ‘rogue officer’ defence. Now, however, evidence continues to mount up of complete awareness by very senior officers. There was clearly a two-way flow of information between the SDS and MI5 – not only of requests to spy on people and the resulting reports, but also the criminal activity of the officers themselves.

THE MET COMMISSIONER KNEW

Graham Coates, ‘Bob Stubbs’ (HN301, 1971-76), ‘Roger Harris’ (HN200, 1974-77), and other spycops described visits to the SDS ‘safe house’ from various Metropolitan Police Commissioners (the highest officer), Assistant Commissioners, Deputy Assistant Commissioners, and the Commander of Special Branch.

Coates recalls managers demanding ‘maximum attendance’ from all deployed spycops for a visit from then-Commissioner Sir Robert Mark – ironically renowned for his drives against police corruption.

This tallies with similar reports by spycops from the 1960s and 1990s. These visits seem an established part of the Met Commissioner’s role; at the very least, they show full awareness of the unit.

Coates also remembered a remark suggesting spycops’ expenses accounts were thoroughly examined by the Commissioner (even if reports might not have been). This shows an astonishing level of attention to detail for individual officers’ activities. Generally though, the purpose of these visits was to praise the undercovers and occasionally present them with bottles of whisky.

NOTHING WAS EVER DISCUSSED

When not entertaining senior police officials, the safe houses were used for meetings between spycops and their managers once or twice weekly. Two very different pictures of activities there emerged this week.

One is of a ‘social’ environment that somehow fails to include any discussion of what the people there spent most of their time doing. According to Scott, the twelve or so spycops never talked about their undercover work, the groups they infiltrated (even between spycops in the same group!), the activists they spied on, or the tactics used to get close to them.

This is the period during which the practice of stealing dead children’s identities as the basis for undercover personae begins and solidifies as required practice. There was some reluctance from a handful of spycops, but the idea, seemingly initially used by Scott, became management policy and was effectively enforced.

Other tradecraft also took shape in this era. Enough spycops have reported a lack of formal training, hands-off management, and the absence of a manual or even guidelines, making it unclear how tradecraft was developed and passed on if the undercovers themselves did not talk about it either.

In this picture presented by amnesiac officers, there were no spycops with (memorable) reputations as womanisers. Likewise, there was supposedly no way that management could have been aware of spycops having intimate relationships with female activists because this was never mentioned. In the hundreds of meetings that Scott attended, he has no memory of these things ever being spoken of. (He does remember chatting about toy soldiers though.)

SAFE HOUSE ‘BANTER’

The alternative picture is of a group of men letting off steam, comparing notes and exchanging ‘banter’. Coates and Harris both described officers who spoke so frequently and crudely about the women they had calculatedly deceived that managers would have been in no doubt about the nature of those relationships. Rather than being unaware of what was being discussed, managers participated in the ‘low-level communal humour’ that characterised the conversations.

Coates states that Richard Clark (‘Rick Gibson’ HN297, 1974-76) had a reputation for having sexual relationships. He also recalls that ‘Jim Pickford‘ (HN300, 1974-76) was widely known as a philanderer. This matches what’s known of these officers’ activities. A third officer, whose details he did not recall, also behaved in this way.

Asked about the kind of things being said, Coates reluctantly shared one example:

‘he’ll have made her bite the blankets again last night.’

The Inquiry also asked him an anecdote about a female activist who could lactate on demand. Although Coates has no recollection of this, the fact the Inquiry raised it also shows the type of conversation known to have taken place.

WHY THE LEFT BUT NOT THE RIGHT?

The spycops did not choose targets randomly. In the period under examination in the current Inquiry hearings, 1973-82, all groups spied on were left-wing. Officers were allowed to switch groups if they wanted to (Coates left the International Socialists because he was getting bored and thought the anarchist movement might bring more spark to his life). So why didn’t they do so when it became obvious the groups were mostly harmless?

This week’s evidence only consolidates the emerging picture of spycops infiltrating small groups with either completely peaceful and democratic methods and aims, or no capacity to carry out any really disruptive or violent action – even if it was suggested.

Again and again, the spycops demonstrate the ability to believe they reported nothing of real use from spying on groups that were harmless, whilst simultaneously also believing they contributed significantly to preserving the safety of the realm, that the money enabling them to do so well-spent and their actions were completely justified. It’s a positive symphony of cognitive dissonance.

As mentioned in our previous weekly report, during this period the right wing were on the rise. Openly fascist and racist groups were using tactics such as firebombing, burning down businesses owned by Black and Asian people, and holding meetings in diverse areas to deliberately bait the residents. Yet these groups were never – with one exception – infiltrated.

That exception came about by accident. The Workers Revolutionary Party was so concerned about the National Front that they asked one of their members to infiltrate it. Ironically, that member was SDS undercover ‘Peter Collins’ (HN303, 1973-77).

Had the NF realised that they had been deceived, it is likely that they would have responded with violence; the question of whether being exposed as a spycop or being exposed as an activist would be more dangerous is an interesting one.

UNDERMINING GROUPS WORKING FOR EQUALITY

Although the left-wing were very aware of the problems caused by the right-wing, which was a genuine threat to public order with subversive intentions, the police were apparently oblivious.

Scott claims that:

‘There weren’t any right-wing groups who were demonstrating, or causing any problems as far as I can recall, at the time.’

He and almost all of his colleagues infiltrated anti-fascist groups – why were these so prolific if right-wing groups were not a problem?

They clearly were, and the spycops unquestionably had the freedom and the remit – preserving public order – to infiltrate them, if they chose to. The fact that they didn’t indicates that the SDS was a unit dedicated to undermining and spying on groups working for a more, rather than less, equal society.

We know there was systemic sexism permeating the SDS, which, according to Coates, viewed the women’s liberation movement as:

‘a bunch of angry women that could be ignored.’

It is not much of a stretch to speculate that systemic racism went along with it. It is very disturbing that these attitudes are still present today.

Worryingly, an isolated incident of International Socialists reported as attacking people at the NF offices with stones and bricks was seized upon by the Inquiry:

‘We note that, if the report is accurate, this was an occasion on which the violence was started by left-wing activists from the infiltrated group.’

This is not the first time that the Inquiry has used reports of ‘violent’ anti-fascist protests as a justification for many of the deployments.

In contrast, an SDS report dated 7 March 1977 [UCPI0000017776] describes a single coach of members of the Socialist Workers Party (as the International Socialists had become) being attacked by five coaches of National Front supporters at Watford Gap Service station.

For some reason, the Inquiry glosses this incident in neutral terms:

‘The SWP contingent from NW London and West Middlesex districts appears to have been involved in an encounter with the National Front in a service station en route to Birmingham’

This gives a misleading impression of this serious and unprovoked attack by the NF on SWP members.

UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT CULPABILITY

A deeply upsetting example of State unwillingness to accept culpability for its role on the wrong side of history came directly from the Inquiry’s Chair, Sir John Mitting.

During the Undercover Policing Inquiry’s hearing on 23 April 2021, which was the 42nd anniversary of Blair Peach’s death at the hands of police as established by the Met’s own report, a minute’s silence was held for the murdered teacher. In his introductory remarks for the Mitting referred merely to Peach being killed by ‘a blow to the head’. He did not mention the police at all.

Celia Stubbs, who was Blair Peach’s partner at the time of his death, spelled out how the rise of the right wing was a growing problem during the years covered by this phase of the Inquiry. She and Peach were members of the Anti-Nazi League from its formation in 1977. Two years later, when a call went out from the multicultural community of Southall for support against the NF, they responded.

The NF were ‘campaigning’ in Southall in April 1979 in the run-up to the general election, despite their candidate not living there. Holding rallies in areas with large Black and Asian populations was a common NF tactic. They were met with counter-demonstrations by exactly the kind of groups – including undercovers – that the SDS had been focused on infiltrating for the last decade.

For example, at one such event in 1977, which became known as the Battle of Lewisham, at least 18 spycops were present and over 50 pages of reports were produced. Nobody died at the Battle of Lewisham. In contrast, the 1979 counter-demonstration that Blair Peach was killed at in Southall was supposedly only attended by one spycop.

A BLENDED, ‘GISTED’ DOCUMENT

Celia Stubbs knows that one of the spycops attended the demo in Southall that day. The Inquiry has taken evidence in secret from officers who it does not want to identify. It has then blended their testimony into a single ‘gisted’ document. In it, an officer says they were at the demonstration in Southall, saw violence and being horrified left before Peach was killed.

Stubbs is offended by all of this. Firstly, the total secrecy around the officer – we aren’t given their name, cover name, or any other details at all. Secondly, the idea that there was only one spycop at the demo is ridiculous.

There was a large presence from the Socialist Workers Party, the most infiltrated group in the history of the SDS. Following the call-out from Southall residents, it is unthinkable that spycops eager to maintain their cover would not have been there in large numbers.

Not only that, but the demonstration was a left-wing response to obvious baiting by the right-wing NF. It was blatantly going to turn into a public order issue. This was finally something that legitimately fell within the remit of the SDS. Yet they maintain that only one officer was present, and he left early – precisely because there was public disorder!

The killing of Blair Peach is heart-breaking, and also terrifying in that it could happen to anyone, on any demonstration, not just against fascism. His final hours, the cover-up of the cause of death, and the subsequent fight for justice, are covered in more detail elsewhere.

Celia Stubbs talked calmly, but with obvious strong emotion, about Blair’s death and the events that followed, including the banding-together of groups campaigning for justice for those killed by police.

Simultaneously, it was the beginning of spying on those groups. The solidarity of grieving families was considered a subversive act.

Stubbs said:

‘It’s obvious that when someone is killed, the police don’t want to be associated with it. This looks like yet another cover-up. It makes us feel like we’re not being heard…

‘I mean, Blair was killed by police officers and our feelings and campaigns were criminalised. The police, I think, wanted to keep ahead of our campaign so that Blair’s killers… we were never able to hold them to account.’

Stubbs said that, despite having seen so many secret police reports, she is left with as many questions as she had before. One of these reports [MPS-0001219] was from decades later. It was written in the summer of 1998, regarding plans to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Blair Peach’s killing.

Stubbs told the Inquiry that an officer referred to in the report was Mark Jenner (‘Mark Cassidy’ HN15, 1995-2000) who infiltrated the Hackney Community Defence Association and the Colin Roach Centre (also in Hackney). Whilst undercover he deceived an activist, ‘Alison‘, into a long-term relationship.

Cassidy reported that:

‘local trade unions are organising a large rally and demonstration, which will be presented with a strong anti-racist/anti-police flavour… the event will inevitably attract a large left wing presence with particular accent on anti-police type groups and the potential for disorder will be significant.’

Stubbs was indignant at this:

‘we’d had remembrance demonstrations after five years, after ten years, and this was twenty years. There’d never been any disorder. I don’t know why he put that. I think it’s pretty unpleasant.’

This continues a long-running tradition of spycops exaggerating the potential for disorder when making reports on groups and why they had to be reported on.

NO THREAT TOO SMALL, NO GROUP TOO HARMLESS

The spycops were trusted to use their intelligence to discern threat levels, yet were apparently unable to tell the difference between fanciful ideas (e.g. the Workers Revolutionary Party finding enough people to infiltrate and subvert every single branch of the Labour Party Young Socialists) and genuinely executable plans (like having a skip delivered to a hotel).

An SDS report dated 26 May 1977 [UCPI0000017437] describes a member of the SWP announcing that he was mobilising local trades union branches to support an anti-Jubilee demonstration during the visit of Princess Anne to Kensington Town Hall on 31 May, and of 1,500 expected demonstrators, 1,000 of whom were likely to be trade unionists ‘violently opposed’ to Jubilee celebrations. This seems wildly and obviously far-fetched.

Additionally, the small groups most often spied on usually didn’t manage to carry off their most outrageous genuine plans, such as painting lines on small roads to show the path of a new motorway.

Some groups, such as the Workers Revolutionary Party and the Socialist Workers Party, regarded by the SDS as ‘subversive’ – that is, wanting to overthrow parliamentary democracy – entered candidates in elections. If they were seeking to overturn Parliament, then legitimately being elected to it is surely the least subversive way of doing so.

Many of the groups had democratic internal processes, something that the spycops were blatantly aware of given how many of them were democratically elected to positions of influence within those groups.

ACCESS TO PERSONAL DETAILS

The spycops’ stories vary as to whether or not they were given guidance on whether or not to take formal posts in organisations they infiltrated. Enough of them did so, with full knowledge of their managers, that it was obviously accepted.

Positions such as treasurer and recruitment officer gave them access to personal details of all group members. Often, they were part of the vetting process and point of first contact for people interested in joining. This gave them influence over the actual makeup and structure of the groups, and to some degree taking on these tasks would have also compensated for their lack of genuine activism.

As is notable from the accusation that caused Mike Scott to assault Géry Lawless, some groups were suspicious that newcomers might be undercover cops.

After Rick Gibson’s exposure by Big Flame, some members talked about how he had badly messed up his turn to give a talk on activism. Lack of background, political awareness, and genuine interest in activism were sufficient red flags that some spycops compensated for by deceiving activists into sexual relationships. To form a relationship with an established, trusted member of a group encourages members to extend their trust to the spycop.

This would almost certainly have been seen as easier than researching the philosophies of the groups and differences from other groups on the left. Coates had to give a 20-minute talk on the history of the Labour Party to the IS group he was infiltrating, so this was not unique to Big Flame. The spycops were trained to ‘mirror’ their targets, but it’s impossible to do so if you’re the only one talking.

NOT JUST INFLUENCING, BUT CREATING GROUPS

Richard Clark (‘Rick Gibson’ HN297, 1974-76) was the spycop responsible for the formation of the South East London branch of the Troops Out Movement. His rise through the ranks to the top of the organisation, and eventual bid to join Big Flame, was achieved by deceiving four women activists into sexual relationships, and manipulating and betraying the members of both groups.

More details can be found in last week’s reports, and in the opening statement on behalf of ‘Mary’, one of the women, and Richard Chessum – who provided his own written witness statement as well.

Chessum knew about Gibson’s sexual relationships, and says it was general knowledge at the time. Did Gibson accidentally tell different women different things, and they then compared notes and spotted the discrepancies in his cover story? ‘Mary’ said he didn’t share any contact details with her, was often very hard to reach, and she knew very little about his background.

Having thoroughly investigated Gibson, Big Flame took action. They invited him to meet them in a pub and then spread out all the evidence they had gathered. ‘He looked as though he was going to cry’, said Chessum, who was told about it at the time.

Gibson came up with one last story and gave them a phone number of the office where his brother was supposed to work. It was another lie. When they went to check his flat, they found it empty, Gibson having had done a midnight flit.

After this, Chessum met with Mary and her flatmate, and told them what he had seen. He says they were shocked but not surprised. They had already discussed the possibility of Gibson being some kind of police officer. They had noticed his habit of never staying overnight, and wondered if this was because he had a wife to go back to.

BREAKING APART FAMILIES

Because, of course, the spycops did have wives to go back to. ‘Graham Coates’ (HN304, 1975-79), who spoke for all of the 7 May hearing of the Inquiry, said that on joining the SDS he was specifically asked if he was married or in a stable relationship:

‘It was explained… in very general terms that they felt that an officer in a stable relationship or a stable married relationship would be a more stable character, given the likely exposure to stresses and strains of the likely work involved.’

There appears to have been no thought whatsoever given to the stresses and strains on the families themselves. Once again, women were exploited for the benefit of the SDS.

‘Jimmy Pickford‘ (HN300, 1974-77) infiltrated a number of groups, including anarchist ones, like the South London branches of the Anarchist Workers Association and the Federation of London Anarchist Groups.

His widow provided a statement describing how she was given no support during his absences, and had to take great pains to protect his cover whilst trying to raise their two small children, effectively as a single parent. There was no going to joint social gatherings or having friends round to their home. This left her extremely isolated, as she had no family in the UK and so was reliant for support on close friends.

In fact, the majority of the marriages relied upon by management to keep the spycops stable disintegrated soon after their deployment ended. Despite there having been ample opportunity since the unit was set up, there was no kind of post-undercover care in place for the families and the spycops themselves.

The spycops seem to have been as oblivious to the damage they were doing to the people and causes they spied on as they were to the damage they were doing to their own families.

This is the second of our weekly reports on the current round of Undercover Policing Inquiry hearings examining the actions of the Metropolitan Police’s undercover political unit, the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), from 1973-82.

These hearings are scheduled to run for four weeks before taking a break for about a year. Subsequent hearings will look at the unit’s later years.

This report summarises the main points of the second week of this set of hearings. For more details, see our daily reports linked from our Inquiry page. For background information on the Inquiry, see our UCPI FAQ.

WHAT’S NEW THIS WEEK

Following last week’s opening statements, the focus this week was on witnesses from both the undercover unit the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) and the ‘non-state core participants’ (ie the people spied on) in the era in question.

Many of the same themes emerged as during the first round of hearings in November 2020, which looked at the SDS from its foundation in 1968 until 1972. Further evidence has done nothing to contradict the impression of the SDS as a secret and secretive unit with a remit to report every detail of the lives of the people they spied on.

‘BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY’

Spycops picked their own targets, or were assigned them by the Security Service (aka MI5). Miscarriages of justice would be authorised in order to prevent the unit being exposed. The foundations laid in the early days of the SDS were rapidly built upon during 1973–82, eventually resulting in the credo revealed by whistle-blower officer Peter Francis – ‘by any means necessary’.

And yet, the information obtained by those means was characterised by some spycops this week as being of little use; the groups they went to such lengths to infiltrate as basically harmless. Other undercovers fell back on the refrain that they reported everything and left it to their superiors to filter out what was useful. Both spycops were simply pulled out without strategy.

This doesn’t explain why some reports contained passing remarks made by individual activists that had been deliberately exaggerated, or even invented, so that the groups would seem dangerous or in favour of violence.

In this report we highlight some of the week’s events as examples of recurring themes, and look at the infiltration of various anti-apartheid campaigns. Full coverage can be found in our daily reports.

LITTLE TO NO TRAINING

‘Dave Robertson‘ (HN45, 1970-73) and ‘Alex Sloan‘ (HN347, 1971) – who both gave evidence on 27 April – spoke of having little to no training for their roles, and being expected to pick it up – or just make it up – as they went along.

It seems that the higher-ups were doing the same thing. A statement from spycop ‘David Hughes’ (HN299/342, 1971-76) details how SDS management did not really know what to do when another officer was suspected of, or in the case of Robertson, identified as being undercover by the people they were spying on.

Alex Sloan explained that he was not given any guidance about what to do if his cover was blown. He was never instructed on what to do if offered a responsible position like treasurer or secretary in a target group (but thought he should accept it). He was not told about ‘legal professional privilege’, a long-established legal convention prohibiting his presence at discussions between lawyers and their clients. This last point came up more than once this week.

In most cases, the spycops themselves chose which people to spy on and which groups to infiltrate. David Hughes attended public meetings advertised in then-radical magazine Time Out. As we saw last week, none of these groups (bar one) was right-wing.

Special Branch’s remit, and by extension the remit of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), was to deal with ‘subversion’ (opposition to the UK’s parliamentary democracy), and threats to public order. From the evidence this week, the spycops were not given clear criteria on how to assess what was subversive.

Robertson could not recall guidance about what might constitute ‘extremism’ or ‘subversion’. He said vaguely ‘it was just part and parcel of the whole’. Alex Sloan, when asked if he knew what was subversive, replied that it wasn’t for him to judge – another recurring standpoint of the spycops.

Rajiv Menon QC, representing Piers Corbyn, defined it as activity that:

‘threatened the safety or well-being of the State and was intended to undermine or overthrow parliament by political or industrial means’.

Two justifications for spying on non-subversive, non-violent, law-abiding groups emerged: a) they might lead to violent groups b) it was useful to confirm that they were indeed what they seemed to be. Neither of these justifications seem to have been borne out by the results of decades of spying.

It is now clear that both Special Branch and the SDS spycops have always had a broader remit, which extended to threats to police credibility, corporate profit, and the convenience of the government of the day.

The campaigns infiltrated were all what we would now describe as social justice groups. The one exception – as mentioned before – was when a spycop was asked to infiltrate a right-wing group by the left-wing group he was spying on.

LITTLE TO NO USE

Once the spycops were embedded in these groups, their initiative appears to have deserted them.

Another repeating theme is the spycops themselves reporting that the groups were no real threat, and / or giving evidence now that the intelligence they gathered was basically useless. Descriptions given in evidence included:

• ‘Mickey Mouse’, ‘never scary at all’, not causing ‘aggravation to anyone’, (Alex Sloan on the Irish National Liberation Solidarity Front);
• ‘The majority of people I encountered during my deployment were not that extreme’ (David Hughes)
• ‘I do not think my work really yielded any good intelligence’ (Sandra Davies)

And yet, rather than withdrawing and trying to find a group that was bent on public disorder (such as Column 88, Nazis who were using firebombs), they continued to report on the peaceful groups working for positive social change.

UNFILTERED ‘INTELLIGENCE’

Nor were they directed to filter what ‘intelligence’ they gathered – every detail went into the reports, from activists’ body types to cigarette brands. Robertson said that ‘everything was fair game for reporting’, including details of flowers given to speakers. It was someone else’s job to decide what to do with the intelligence he collected.

The spycops reported highly personal information, such as the condition of Ernest Rodker’s health and the birth of his child. Some would give their own slant to their reports. Hughes stated:

‘Sometimes my personal views crept into my reporting. The SDS office never told me this was inappropriate or not permitted.’

They reported ideas from activists that were what executives now would define as ‘blue-skying’, involving fireworks, ticker-tape, and weather balloons, as though they were serious plans – despite the groups having no history of such actions.

They reported on Christmas parties. One held as a fundraiser for the Anti-Apartheid Movement in the home of Christabel Gurney was 75p a ticket, 12p for drinks, and attended by a spycop. Sandra Davies seems to think that festive cakes and sweets made by the Women’s Liberation Front at the request of the Black Unity and Freedom Party were a ruse to ‘get their philosophy across’ to children.

Many of the reports went to MI5. Some fifty years later, MI5 still has them. Dave Robertson talked about not typing up his own reports after writing them, but knowing they were routinely copied to MI5. He said it was ‘obviously pretty routine’ that MI5 would request details about someone and the SDS would supply them.

This week Piers Corbyn, Diane Langford, and Ernest Rodker all specifically asked that their files be withdrawn and handed over to them. They are by no means the only activists who want this. It has always been one of the core demands of COPS.

A CULTURE OF DUBIOUS PRACTICES

We heard from various spycops this week, some in person and some via written statement. Despite – or because of – some convenient bouts of amnesia, their reports are consistently similar, and not just for this period (1973 – 82). They clearly indicate a culture of dubious practices that began with the very start of the undercover units and intensified, fostered by a climate of complicity, as the years passed.

All of their statements uphold the fact that knowledge of SDS activity went all the way to the top of the command chain. Hughes recalled the then-Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Robert Mark, visiting the unit:

‘It was obvious to me that he had concerns about the SDS. I remember words to the effect that “you realise that you could cause me tremendous problems under certain circumstances”.’

The motivation for the miscarriages of justice resulting from spycops violating lawyer-client privilege and standing trial under cover names, as demonstrated this week by ‘Michael Scott’ (HN298, 1971-76), was clear from the very beginning.

Scott was arrested as part of an anti-apartheid action. To avoid revealing the existence of the SDS, he was instructed to stand trial under his cover identity, including deliberately lying from the moment he took the witness stand. He was to attend meetings with genuine activists and their lawyer – violating lawyer-client privilege; and to withhold evidence that would have exonerated the activists (the protest took place on private land – a pub car park – and did not, as claimed, block a public highway).

Scott received a conviction – or rather, as he had chosen to steal the identity of a living person, the real Michael Scott did. The police reports show no concern at all about deceiving the court and orchestrating a miscarriage of justice, purely to avoid any ‘potential embarrassment to police’ if it became known that a spycop was involved.

Rodker sees this as part of a repeating pattern:

‘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.’

Judge Mitting has said he will turn this matter over to the Inquiry’s panel that is due to review likely miscarriages of justice. The Inquiry has known about these miscarriages for years now, and in light of the age and health of the activists whose convictions may now need overturned, it is shocking that this Panel has still not been set up by Mitting.

IN CONTEXT

During the first week of the hearings, the police lawyers stressed the importance of looking at the activities of spycops in context, rather than through a modern lens. It was a different time with different values. A time when it was apparently fine to include in reports that: an activist couple had ‘a Mongol child’; ‘large Jewish nose[s]’, or the fact that a woman activist didn’t wear a bra, as merely objective descriptions.

It is true that the activism under discussion should be fully understood in the context of what it was trying to achieve. To properly assess the impact on the groups they infiltrated, one must know what causes the spycops were undermining.

WOMEN’S RIGHTS

Diane Langford co-founded the Women’s Liberation Front in 1970. At this time women could not get a mortgage, credit card or loan without a male co-guarantor. They did not have the right to equal pay or maternity leave, and could be fired for becoming pregnant. They had no legal recourse against discrimination in employment, education, and training. Contraception was not available on the NHS; there were no rape crisis centres. It is indefensible to say that this is a status quo that should have been maintained.

However, as spycop ‘Sandra Davies’ (HN348) told the Inquiry in November:

‘Women’s liberation was viewed as a worrying trend at the time.’.

The aims of the WLF – equal rights for women and a society free from all forms of discrimination – were clearly and publicly stated in the application for membership, which Sandra Davis would have signed when she infiltrated the group in 1971. Their methods were also clear and public: demonstrations, open meetings, street theatre, film screenings, boycotts, and other collaborative actions. Diane Langford stressed the importance placed on collective action over individuals ‘indulg[ing] in macho posturing’.

‘Dave Robertson‘ (HN45, 1970-73) reported on the WLF, and several other groups that Langford belonged to, including the Revolutionary Marxist-Leninist League (RMLL) which she formed with her late husband and fellow activist Abhimanyu Manchanda. A small group focused on studying deep political theory, the RMLL aimed to guide and advise the WLF and other groups campaigning against oppression.

When the RMLL eventually suspended Manchanda, splitting that group and destabilising two others, Robertson would play a part or even had a vote in that decision. When the WLF ousted Langford, leading it to change its name and then fall apart, Sandra Davis voted against her (and was elected treasurer shortly after).

As with Richard Clark (‘Rick Gibson’ HN297, 1974-76) last week, we see spycops deliberately taking positions of influence within the groups they infiltrated and then using this to weaken them – and bring about their demise.

There is a deeply unfunny irony in that Sandra Davis was working to delay equal rights for women on 10% less pay than her male colleagues. It is also worth noting that despite police lawyer David Perry QC (in Kate Wilson’s case) attempting to deny a culture of sexism in the SDS, this is the era in which the unit developed and consolidated the methods and practices that it would use for the next thirty years.

ANTI-APARTHEID CAMPAIGNS

Not content with preserving sexism, the SDS was also deeply suspicious of any group that sought to end racism. Again, to look at their operations in the context of the times is to see violent right-wing and fascist groups on the rise in the UK, and a government cheerfully doing business with South Africa’s apartheid regime.

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 people could sit on or which beach they could visit. Most of the population was denied the right to vote. Sexual relationships and marriages between people of different racial groups were illegal.

Groups fighting against apartheid in the UK were infiltrated by Mike Ferguson (HN135), ‘Michael Scott’ (HN298, 1971-76), HN332, Jill Mosdell (HN346, 1970-73), and Douglas Edwards (HN326, 1968-70).

THE ANTI-APARTHEID MOVEMENT

The Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) was set up to unite as many people as possible with the same goal: bringing equality and democracy to South Africa. As a UK group, they focused on the UK institutions and companies that were trading with and supporting the South African government, and attempted to stop these practices.

Central to the AAM’s approach was to try and avoid doing anything that would distract the press from the real issue – the violence of the South African apartheid regime. As such it eschewed violence or heated confrontation. Rather, it concerned itself which included common campaign tactics such as organising petitions, public meetings, pickets, vigils, cultural events, and mass rallies.

In 1970, the AAM President was the Rt Rev Ambrose Reeves, an Anglican bishop. Vice presidents were Sir Dingle Foot QC MP; Rt Rev Trevor Huddleston, another Anglican bishop and Rt Hon Jeremy Thorpe MP. Also on the board was the then-leader of the Liberal Party Basil Davidson, an historian who had worked for MI6 behind enemy lines in the Second World War and been awarded the Military Cross.

This is hardly a group of radical subversives; far from overthrowing parliamentary democracy, the AAM’s sole aim was to extend it to southern African nations that were subjected to racist rule of colonial white minorities.

Despite this, the AAM was infiltrated by the SDS.

STOP THE SEVENTY TOUR

While the AAM resorted to mainstream methods, younger people wanted to do more. This is how the Stop The Seventy Tour (STST) was born, its immediate and principal aim was to stop the white-only South African cricket team from touring in the UK in the summer of 1970. More broadly, its aim was to make a very strong political point that people representing apartheid were not welcome in the UK.

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

They would run on to cricket pitches and sit down. Painting 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.

According to Prof Jonathan Rosenhead (non-state core participant):

‘Stop The Seventy Tour was a nice floppy liberal alternative organisation, which many people could join. There was no party line and no ‘militancy’ as such, and the only thing everyone agreed on was the need to end apartheid.’

Yet the STST was infiltrated by the SDS.

SPECIAL ACTION GROUP

A small group of anti-apartheid activists believed in direct action and organised in private to add an extra layer to the campaign – calling themselves the Special Action Group (SAG). Rosenhead, who took part in the SAG, refuted the suggestion of the Inquiry calling them ‘the covert arm’ of the Stop the Seventy Tour, saying they just wanted the element of surprise.

For instance, one of them would check into the hotel where the rugby team stayed, overhearing their room numbers to either glue their locks, or write a message on their bathroom mirror with shaving cream At a certain point the team just wanted to go home.

The SAG was infiltrated as well.

DAMBUSTERS MOBILISING COMMITTEE

The Dambusters Mobilising Committee (DMC) was a coalition of groups including the AAM, that opposed the construction of the vast Cabora Bassa dam project in Mozambique.

The dam was a collaboration between South Africa, Rhodesia and Mozambique’s colonial ruler Portugal. It displaced local people without compensation in order to supply electricity to apartheid South Africa, and undermined United Nations sanctions.

The DMC campaigned to dissuade British (and other European) companies from financing or otherwise becoming involved in the Cabora Bassa project.

DMC meetings were small, attended only by representatives of the organisations in the coalition. They spent a lot of time researching companies involved in the dam. Some campaigners bought shares so they could attend Annual General Meetings of various companies, such as that of Barclay’s Bank who were guarantors of some of the dam’s financing, and pose pertinent questions to the meeting.

Even this Coalition was reported on.

MCCARTHYIST QUESTIONING

There was something both incongruous as well as slightly offensive in the line of questioning pursued by the inquiry throughout the week, repeatedly pushing to imply STST activists were violent and attempting to demonise their actions.

This is especially galling given the murderous racist violence of the South African apartheid regime they were protesting against. Adding to this, that within the UK it was STST protesters who were routinely assaulted by the police, stewards and some rugby supporters.

On the final day of the week, the Undercover Policing Inquiry was devoted to hearing evidence from just one person, Lord Peter Hain. He had a rich career as an activist, and hence a thick secret police file that include decades of reports from undercover officers of the SDS

Hain founded and chaired the STST campaign, from its launch in September 1969 until it was disbanded in late May 1970.

Hain refused to be put in a position where, as an activist, he had to defend his campaigning, telling the Inquiry this attitude put both them and the police at the wrong side of history.

Like earlier in the week, the Inquiry opted for a line of questioning reminiscent of the McCarthy Un-American Hearings of the 1950s, in which guilt by association with radical groups or ideas is seemingly used to justify the State’s spying.

Their first question was whether Peter Hain’s parents, who had fled South Africa, were ‘communists’, when it is well known they were active members of the Liberal Party.

WASTE OF POLICE MONEY

Asked if it was understandable that police ‘faced with these novel, rather effective tactics’ should seek to gather all the information they could on campaigners’ secret plans, Hain cut in:

‘I know what you’re trying to insinuate, but… we were transparently public, some might say unwisely honest, about what our intentions were, which was to stop the tour by non-violent direct action.’

Hain made the point that the Anti-Apartheid Movement suffered extreme violence from agents of the South African State in London. This included the bombing and arson attacks on their offices, letter bombs being sent to their homes. Hain himself was sent one – it was opened by his teenage sister, and the matter was never fully investigated by the police. Hain demanded to know why this was.

Hain put it to the Inquiry that the SDS was a completely disproportionate waste of police resources: ‘

Why were they not targeting the agents of apartheid bombing and killing and acting illegally and violently in London at the time?’

In response to the Inquiry’s repeated suggestions that the STST took risks with their actions, that could have led to violence, Hain insisted that the main violence came from the other side. He described the brutal response to a pitch invasion at the Springboks’ match in Swansea in November 1969:

‘They ran on, they sat down, they interrupted play for, as I recall, over ten minutes, as it was intended. They were then carried off by the police and thrown to rugby stewards, rugby vigilantes, if you like, recruited for these purposes, and thoroughly beaten up. A friend of mine had his jaw broken, a young woman demonstrator nearly lost an eye…

‘They could have been carried out of St Helens, but there was clearly a pre-planned attempt to beat the hell out of the protesters, and that’s what happened.’

‘SOUTH AFRICAN TERRORIST’

The mindset and political framework of the undercover policing units seems not to have changed over the years.

A police report from 1993 – as the apartheid regime was collapsing and Nelson Mandela, three years out of prison, was poised to become president – refers to the Anti -Apartheid Movement as ‘Stalinist-controlled’. If that is the type of thinking of these units, Hain said:

‘we have a particular ideology of undercover policing which frankly cannot be defended.’

He has also learned recently, from a document revealed last month in Kate Wilson’s case in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, that in November 2003 he was described as a ‘South African terrorist’ by undercover police officer Mark Kennedy.

Kennedy was in the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, a parallel unit to the SDS, and deceived Kate (and other environmental campaigners) into a relationship.

At the time this spycop was calling him a terrorist, Hain was was a member of the British Cabinet, Secretary of State for Wales, the leader of the House of Commons and the Lord Privy Seal.

Hain retorted with a with a question that summarises the hearings of this week effectively:

‘What is it in the DNA of undercover policing that allows its officers to get such a biased and reactionary view of the world, that they make these kind of biased and completely unrepresentative and libellous and defamatory statements?’

<<Previous UCPI Weekly Report (21-23 Apr 2021)<<

>>Next UCPI Weekly Report (4-7 May 2021)>>

 

On 21 April 2021, Tranche 1, Phase 2 of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI) began. It will last for just over three weeks, examining the actions of the Metropolitan Police’s undercover political unit, the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), from 1973-82. Subsequent hearings will look at the unit’s later years.

This report summarises the main points of the first three days. For more details, see our daily reports: Day 1: 21 April, Day 2: 22 April, and Day 3: 23 April. For background information on the Inquiry, see our UCPI FAQ.

ABUSE WAS THE PURPOSE

In stark contrast to previous claims of it all being the fault of ‘rogue officers’, then ‘rogue units’, the vintage evidence newly released by the Inquiry for these hearings confirms clear knowledge of SDS operations and tactics within the Metropolitan Police, MI5, and to the highest level of the Home Office.

These operations included:

• deliberately deceiving activists and other women into forming intimate sexual relationships with them
• stealing the identities of dead children to create their undercover identities
• rising to the highest levels of the groups they infiltrated, directly influencing and undermining those groups

SDS Annual Reports always included a list of groups targeted during the year. Apart from one officer spying on the far right (and only because the left-wing group he was infiltrating asked him to do so), all the groups are on what can broadly be seen as the left: communist, socialist, anti-nuclear, Irish liberation, women’s rights.

As with the opening day of the November hearings, some previously unmentioned groups were named as having been spied upon. And as before, this information comes too late to be of use to people who were legitimate members of those groups.

The Counsel to the Inquiry questions witnesses (unlike a trial with different lawyers pressurising witnesses from different directions). It is immediately apparent that, of the many witnesses who should be called, only a fraction has actually been invited.

This is directly owing to the police, who have delayed the Inquiry for so long that many of those who should be giving evidence are now either too frail, or actually deceased. The latter includes two Home Secretaries and three Met Commissioners who have died since the Inquiry was announced in 2014, as well as numerous senior officers who rose through the ranks from the SDS, plus four of the 22 officers whose cover names have been made public.

JUSTICE DELAYED

Delays and loss of witnesses have also been caused by the Inquiry itself, who have failed to contact or even try to find those who were spied upon, despite having their names, and have refused to provide cover names or photos of those who did the spying, which means their victims don’t get the chance to identify them and come forward. They even refused offers from spied-upon Core Participants to provide photos of undercover officers, and never thought to ask the officers themselves.

The delays continue to mount up. ‘Tranche 1 Phase 3’ hearings – dealing with the unit’s early managers from the SDS’s foundation in 1968 until 1982 – were scheduled to take place in October 2021, but have now been put back to the first half of 2022.

The Inquiry no longer expects to look at ‘Tranche 2’ (covering the years 1983-1992) next year – now to be dealt with in 2023 at the earliest the soonest.

This means a potential wait until 2024 for Tranche 3 (covering the SDS in 1993-2007), and even longer for Tranche 4, covering the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (1999-2011), which deployed the likes of Mark Kennedy.

The main cause of delay in this Inquiry has been the excessive demands for redactions made by the police and State bodies. Kirsten Heaven, representing some of the Non-Police, Non-State Core Participants (ie, those who were victims of SDS tactics)spoke of their anger and frustration at these new delays. She reminded the Chair, Sir John Mitting, that his predecessor Lord Pitchford, original Chair of the Inquiry, had intended to conclude in 2018.

Mitting responded that delays are inevitable and the most recent ones have been caused by providing documents to a new core participant, a member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), who is to give a witness statement. Mitting says there is so much vintage police material on the SWP that this cannot be done by October.

Ironically, existing Core Participants were meant to get police documents for the current hearings in mid-March 2021, but another 2000+ pages were added in April, only a couple of weeks before these hearings began, and people were expected to be able to read and respond to it.

The Inquiry needs the help of those who were spied on and, on a more personal level, those people have already waited too long for answers. They must be given full disclosure of documents relevant to them with plenty of time to analyse and reply so they can expose the lies. People should be given the files that mention them immediately The Met have said they’re happy to do this, if the Inquiry decrees it. Mitting has stated that that ‘perhaps the request cannot be fulfilled’. He gave no reason at all as to why this might be.

As for the new SWP Core Participant, the Inquiry made no attempt to contact her until recently, and this is not the only time this has happened.

A pattern is emerging of the Inquiry failing to contact Non-Police, Non-State Core Participants about evidence that involves them, and failing to ask state and police core participants for evidence in a timely manner.

Last week we learned that spycop ‘Alan Bond‘ (HN67, 1981-86) may well have fathered a child while undercover, but is now said to be too ill to give evidence. The Inquiry has known of his condition for three years yet has not taken a statement from him.

Heaven recommended that the Inquiry prioritise collecting statements from all former officers and managers, and provide a full list of all Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) managers from 1968-82 who are due to give evidence in Phase 3, along with regular updates on their state of health.

EXCLUDING THE VICTIMS

Two of the many women who were targeted and spied on gave evidence this week. Diane Langford was a founding member of the Women’s Liberation Front during the time this phase of the hearings covers, and has been an activist for over 50 years. ‘Madeleine’ was an active member of the Socialist Workers Party from her teens onwards, and was spied upon and deceived into a sexual relationship with a spycop.

Diane Langford has only recently become a Core Participant at the Inquiry, thanks to the work of the Undercover Research Group. Her name appeared unredacted in many SDS reports disclosed at the previous round of hearings in November 2020, but the Inquiry only reached out to her just beforehand.

By the time she knew that ‘Sandra Davies’ – who had spied on her and voted to oust her as the leader of the group she had founded – was giving evidence to the Inquiry it was too late to book a place at the limited screening venue.

The Inquiry failed to ask Langford to give evidence, or tell her that she could seek legal representation. It’s not just about her own inclusion but, as she said:

‘how many others who were spied on are completely unaware that their names appear in these files?’

The Inquiry only contacted ‘Madeleine’ in February 2020, yet she was known about in 2017, when the Inquiry first dealt with the spycop who abused her, ‘Vince Miller‘ (HN354, 1976-79). They reneged on promises to send a female officer to bring her the news and put her touch with Police Spies Out of Lives, a group which represents and supports women deceived into relationships by spycops.

Rajiv Menon QC, representing Piers Corbyn, made some excellent points about the Inquiry’s insistence on secrecy:

• Out of an estimated 18 surviving SDS officers deployed during 1973-82 whose cover names have been disclosed, only eight are being called to give evidence. This was a critical period in the history of the SDS. We should be hearing from as many spycops as possible.
• Evidence from seven SDS officers whose real and cover names have been restricted is not being disclosed. Instead, it is redacted, edited and amalgamated into an eight page ‘gist’. We need to know what they did individually, if their information is to be of any use at all.
• Most frustrating is the redaction of the names of 130 groups spied on and infiltrated by the SDS between 1969 and 1984. Why, 35-50 years later, must these remain secret, at the insistence of those who did the spying? It’s a betrayal of the purpose of the Inquiry.

After the public hearings are finished in mid-May, the following three weeks will be taken up with spycops giving evidence in secret. At least one of them 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.

WHO WAS SPIED UPON, AND WHY?

The newly disclosed documents show that the decision of who was targeted by the spycops came either straight from the top (MI5 and the Home Office) or straight from the bottom (the spycops deciding for themselves). In both cases, it was left-wing, equality, and social justice campaigns which were infiltrated and undermined. There is only one exception to this.

‘Peter Collins‘ (HN303, 1973-77), infiltrated the Workers Revolutionary Party. Not knowing he was a spy, they asked him, in turn, to infiltrate a breakaway group of the far-right National Front. This is bragged about in the 1974 SDS report, showing a total lack of awareness that their only foray into the far-right was instigated by a left-wing group and done to maintain cover.

SEEING THINGS IN CONTEXT

Police lawyers insisted that the actions of the SDS be seen in the historical context of the period and judged by those standards.

Very well then: the 1970s saw the rise of many campaigns, which attempted to improve the lives of all those in society and are now seen as mainstream, such as women’s rights and anti-racism groups.

Simultaneously, the far-right and fascist groups such as the National Front and Column 88 were on the rise.
According to the police’s lawyers, the spycops were politically neutral and did not target one kind of group over another. This is a ridiculous claim given that hundreds of groups and individuals perceived to be on ‘the left’ were targeted, while the far-right, who created fear through their use of violence, were not policed in the same way.

In fact, the SDS Annual Reports consistently downplayed the threat posed by the far-right. The police’s lawyers suggested there was no need to infiltrate groups like the National Front, because they ‘tended to cooperate’ with Special Branch.

At this time, 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 SDS were reporting on school children and providing MI5 with copies of Socialist Workers Party babysitting rotas.

As Diane Langford said:

‘To read these reports is to see some of the greatest ideas of our time crushed into the narrow confines of a mentality absolutely lacking in the capacity to comprehend them’

WOMEN AND CHILDREN

Many of the reports on the SWP have photographs of children attached. These 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. Reporting on children was a new development for the SDS, but then happened frequently.
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’, a derogatory term for someone with Down’s Syndrome.

Another, 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.

The Women’s Liberation Front was targeted, with reports detailing such subversive events as jumble sales and 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. Despite this, the 1975 SDS Annual Report claims that officers ‘concentrated on gathering intelligence about the activities of those extremists whose political views are to the left of the Communist Party of Great Britain’.

‘Madeleine’ wonders whether her father, a double war hero who fought fascism all his life, would also have been considered a ‘subversive’ and a ‘dangerous extremist’.

Dave Morris, one of the two defendants in the McLibel trial and spied upon by multiple officers, described 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.’

He confirms that judging by the standards of the time, as requested, a proper risk assessment of threats to society would have set its sights on other dangers – not just the far-right but fossil fuel companies, tobacco companies and car manufacturers.

ANTI-APARTHEID CAMPAIGNS & RACISM

One of those dangers would have been the South African State’s security service that was active in London in the 1970s, targeting the African National Congress and Anti-Apartheid Movement.

Bombings and murders were committed against anti-apartheid campaigners in Britain. Military materials were used. Few charges were ever brought. In 1972, Peter Hain received a letter bomb, opened by his 14-year-old sister. The incident remains uninvestigated. The spycops seem to have been wholly uninterested in pro-apartheid violence. Instead, they obsessively collected information on a wide range of left-wing groups that opposed it.

Racism was a huge issue in this era. There were violent confrontations. SDS officers were involved in the fascist rally and anti-fascist counter-protest, known as the ‘Battle of Lewisham’, in August 1977.

THE BATTLE OF LEWISHAM

The Inquiry were shown a BBC film and an Associated Press report on the ‘Battle of Lewisham’. The SDS Annual Report for that year suggested that this was a triumph of SDS intelligence, minimising the clashes and violence.

Even just these film clips, and the fact that the demo is now known as the Battle of Lewisham, makes this claim of negligible disorder laughable, and casts doubt about the accuracy of the other information in these Annual Reports.

It was mentioned that one SDS officer complained that the intelligence supplied in the run-up was ignored by police planning for the demo.

‘Madeleine’ emphatically refutes a claim made by spycop Vince Miller – and repeated in the SDS Annual Report that year – that bricks were stockpiled at various locations by the SWP along the planned NF route and that members of the SWP carried weapons to the march in bags. The police were, in reality, undermining efforts to fight fascism and combat racism.

‘Madeleine’ continued:

‘The Battle of Lewisham is now rightly considered a watershed moment like Cable Street in the fight against fascism in this country. Unable to control the streets, the National Front went into decline and the event is now proudly remembered as the moment when the far right was again defeated. It is now commemorated by the local council and seen as a symbol of a community coming together to say yes to black and white unity and no to the forces of hate.’

In the early 1980s, East London Workers Against Racism – a subgroup of the Revolutionary Communist Party, which supported victims of racist attacks – was infiltrated by SDS officer ‘Barry Tompkins’. This meant that Tompkins reported on the victims of racist violence.

Spying on victims of racist violence and the groups supporting them is a pattern that endured, something we will see when we look at the 1990s and the spying on the family of Stephen Lawrence, Ricky Reel, and many others.

WOMEN’S LIBERATION GROUPS

Diane Langford knew of two that undercover officers spied on her. The Inquiry have now told her it had been six.

Her full statement is compelling, articulate, and moving. Here we summarise some of her main points.

As with many others, Langford’s commitment to the women’s liberation movement was fuelled by personal experience. She gave the example of how, when she was in her early twenties, her 19-year-old flatmate died from an illegal back street abortion:

‘The memory of her death remains vivid for me still, at the age of 79.’

She listed three dramatic events that spring to mind when recalling the period under scrutiny:

• Dave Robertson threatened my friend with violence when she outed him as an undercover.
• Robertson ignored an allegation of attempted rape at a meeting, instead focusing on my domestic arrangements and ridiculing my partner
• Banner Books was burned down by fascists while undercover officers had surveilled and had access to the building, and a man was reported to have died. This needs investigating.

When told that ‘Sandra Davies’ (HN348, 1971-73) spied on 77 meetings, of which 55 were related to the women’s liberation movement, Langford responded:

‘Sounds like more than I did! Why is the women’s movement not a focus of the Inquiry? The Inquiry is colluding with the state to limit the search for evidence’.

Indeed, the list of groups that were spied on contains numerous women’s rights organisations, despite ‘Sandra Davies’ being the only female spycop deployed in this period – and only active from 1971-73.

The surveillance of the women in these groups by men, seemingly because women’s equality was viewed as a form of subversion, starkly illustrates the degree to which the SDS was institutionally sexist and abusive.

WOMEN DECEIVED INTO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS

The Inquiry has found no documents from this era (1973-82) that instruct spycops officers either to have or to abstain from sexual relationships. But managers indeed know about it. ‘Graham Coates’ (HN304, 1976-79) mentioned in his statement that he even heard comments and jokes about relationships from spycops at meetings with their managers.

During this time, all of the spycops (and their managers) were male. The SDS went these ten years without any women officers, which may well have had an influence of the unit’s culture. The vast majority of these men were married, which was noted at the time of recruitment. It was perhaps thought that this might deter the undercovers from getting too close to their targets, but clearly it didn’t prevent them initiating sexual relationships.

It is now clear that in the era being examined, numerous spycops had sexual relationships with women while using their undercover identities. Some of these women were the targets of their spying operations, others came into contact with the spycops socially.

To quote Langford again:

‘We see the callous use of women’s bodies by misogynous male officers who see such abuse as a perk of the job, and a confluence of the sexist behaviour and patriarchal attitudes of so-called left wing men in socialist groups and that of those spying on them.’

The practices and culture established in this period were the foundations of the long running sexism which infected the SDS. officers’ reports rate women’s attractiveness and comment on the size of their breasts. No account was taken of the impact of the officers’ behaviour on their wives and families.

NO NECESSITY FOR THESE RELATIONSHIPS

Spycops gave no thought to the dignity of women, to their right to choose who they had sex with, the risk of harm if they found out the truth, or what would happen if they got pregnant. Most officers involved readily admit there was no necessity for these relationships. It was gratuitous and a grossly intrusive invasion of private citizens’ lives. Any spycop who deceives someone into sex should forfeit their right to anonymity.

We were told in the past that these deceitful relationships only rarely occurred, but the evidence now being published provides a different picture. We now know that in the era examined by the current hearings, 1973-82, at least a third of the officers in the unit engaged in sexual relationships while undercover. Of these, ‘Jim Pickford‘ (HN300, 1974-76), and perhaps ‘Alan Bond‘ (HN67, 1981-86), had children with women they’d spied on.

Despite all these officer being known to have deceived women into relationships in this era, the Inquiry is only calling one, ‘Vince Miller‘ (HN354, 1976-79), to give evidence.

BLAIR PEACH

An important issue in these hearings will be the killing of Blair Peach by the police in 1979, the subsequent police cover-up, and the campaign for justice by his then-partner Celia Stubbs. She has campaigned all her life, always to strengthen civil society, and was targeted by the undercovers as a result, even before Peach’s death. She recently spoke movingly about it, and spycops, to Channel 4 News.

The killing of Blair Peach and its cover-up remains one of the most notorious events in British police history, a national disgrace, and a permanent stain on the Met.

Peach and Stubbs were both members of the SWP as well as active anti-racist campaigners. Both Stubbs and Peach had spycops files kept on them, opened in 1974 and 1978, long before Peach was killed. The Inquiry has not released any of the documents involved that pre-date Peach’s death.

On 23 April 1979, there was a plan to march and sit down at Southall Town Hall protesting at a National Front meeting. Special Patrol Group (SPG) officers piled out of a van and one struck Peach, killing him. All six SPG officers refused to cooperate with the investigation that followed. And no officer was ever brought to justice for due to a major police cover-up.

The 1979 SDS Annual Report describes the Peach campaign as a main focus, yet the Inquiry has disclosed suspiciously few documents relating to this. The Home Office’s response in 1979 was to renew the SDS’s funding.
The SDS reported on the campaign for promoting actions like writing to MPs and local newspapers, and phoning in to radio shows. A number of spycops even attended Peach’s funeral, while police evidence gatherers photographed the attendees for later identification by the SDS.

Combined with the cover-up, it is clear that the infiltration of the Blair Peach campaign was about preventing guilty police officers from being held to account.

THE SPYING HASN’T STOPPED

The spycops units have continued to take an active interest in the Blair Peach campaign ever since. A commemorative event was organised for the twentieth anniversary of his death in 1999, and this too was targeted by spycops, with the excuse that such campaigns were ‘anti-police’.

Police lawyers told the Inquiry last November that the SDS and NPIOU never directly targeted justice campaigns. But the documents we see in these hearings prove that is untrue. Officers were tasked to spy on the Peach campaign.

Celia Stubbs was also involved in the Hackney Community Defence Campaign and Colin Roach Centre, both of which were targeted by spycops. She is extremely disturbed about the fact that her lawyers were put under police surveillance, and Special Branch files were opened on them.

For Stubbs, this conspicuous lack of evidence is just one more obstruction to truth and accountability.

EMPLOYMENT 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 unit 1972 Annual Report contains references to trade union activity and strikes (the miners, the dockers and building workers), as well as the union-initiated Shrewsbury Two campaign.

The police lawyers tried to fend off the fact that SDS officers illegally supplied personal details of activists to employment blacklists. They claimed that police received material from sources beyond that as well, so we can’t be sure that what they called ‘so-called blacklisting’ definitely involved information from SDS officers.

The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) seized a blacklist of more than 3,200 people at the offices of construction industry blacklisters The Consulting Association in 2009. In 2012 the ICO’s investigations manager confirmed that there was information in the files that ‘could only be supplied by the police or the security services’.

In 2013, SDS whistleblower officer Peter Francis said that he believed information he’d reported when undercover in the 1990s had ended up in blacklist files.

Kirsten 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.’

According to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, all Special Branches routinely gave details of politically active people to the construction industry blacklist.

The Blacklisting Support Group are outraged by this reference to ‘so-called blacklisting’ organisations. There is no doubt that blacklisting occurred. It is plain, indisputable historic fact. Any attempt to belittle it is deeply offensive to its many victims and their families.

STEALING IDENTITIES OF DEAD CHILDREN

At the start of the SDS, undercover officers simply invented names to use for their cover identity (apart from ‘Michael Scott‘ (HN298, 1971-76) who stole the identity of a living person), undercover officers used fictional identities to build their cover story in the early days.

But from around 1974, after a change of management, undercovers started to use 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 themselves, preferably with the same first name. The practice continued into the late 1990s – the most recent known being ‘Rod Richardson’ (EN32/HN596, 1999-2003).

Police have told the Inquiry that it was important that an officer have a real birth certificate in case the group they were infiltrating became suspicious and looked for one. But those same people could also find the matching death certificate.

While there are no reasons why a living person would have a death certificate, there are plenty of reasons why a birth certificate might not be found (eg, if someone was born abroad, or adopted), there is no reason why a living person would have a death certificate, and the cover would be blown. And this is exactly what happened.

Richard Clark (‘Rick Gibson’ HN297, 1974-76) was one of the first infiltrators to steal a dead child’s identity, and it blew his cover. He became active and influential in the Troops Out Movement (TOM), and then infiltrated to Big Flame.

They, however, became suspicious when Clark applied for full membership, started an investigation into his background, and confronted him with the death certificate, at which point his deployment ended.

Fictitious identities had actually offered better cover to spycops than stealing dead people’s identities.

LIFE IMITATING ART?

In last year’s hearings, police lawyers spoke of the ‘essential operational imperative’ to steal real identities But other police units doing undercover work, such as Regional Crime Squads, did not do this. So why did the SDS?

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 official police policy, was it instead a work of fiction that inspired this ghoulish practice? Whistleblower SDS officer Peter Francis (1993-97) said that the process was known as ‘the jackal run’ among SDS officers.

There was no justification to start the practice, and certainly none to continue after Clark was exposed. And yet, the practice continued for over 20 years. Stealing identities simply became an embedded practice in a unit that lacked accountability and effective supervision.

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.

In 2013, shortly after the spycops scandal became public knowledge, a 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 it. It has fallen to the Inquiry to belated start informing families.

ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP

‘Madeleine’, deceived into a relationship by ‘Vince Miller‘ (HN354, 1976-79) when she was an SWP activist, stated:

‘I have also discovered, to my horror, that MI5 has had files on me since 1970 when I was aged 16, more than 6 years before HN354’s deployment. We know the SDS was formed in 1968 and that extensive spying was happening at that time. I therefore wonder if I was spied on as early as 13, when I was a schoolgirl?

‘Miller has even reported on the pregnancy of a woman in our branch and the name her baby was to be given. This went straight to MI5.’

The SDS officers recorded extraordinary and gross levels of detail. The birth of anti-apartheid activist Ernest Rodker’s son, and a note saying that Ernest himself had been admitted to hospital, were reported and copied to MI5, as were reports about who was at Peter Hain’s family home, including his younger siblings.

Were these details requested by, or relevant to, MI5? The SDS, acting as their foot soldiers, neither knew nor cared, even when they had been instructed by MI5 or the Home Office to target particular individuals or groups.
According to police lawyers, every spycop simply hoovered up all the information they could and reported it unfiltered. It was not up to them to discern, nor is it their fault they reported irrelevant things.

Why did MI5 retain the seemingly trivial stuff for so long that it is still in their files and now being shared with the Inquiry?

FOOT SOLDIERS OF MI5

MI5 did indeed retain thousands and thousands of documents, luckily for the Inquiry, as the Met seem to have lost or destroyed almost all of the SDS intelligence reports. Witness Z, a senior officer in MI5, has made a statement on behalf of the Security Service, that confirms that the SDS has always been subordinate to MI5.

However, we won’t be getting any further explanation, as Witness Z is no longer going to give evidence to the Inquiry. No reason has been given as to why they were withdrawn.

Frankly, this is incomprehensible. Witness Z’s statement, only just released, shows they have extensive, vital knowledge about the roles of the SDS and MI5, and the cooperation between the organisations. It contains the admission that supposedly 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 and Whitehall.

At the time, MI5 defined 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’. Most, if not all, of those spied on by the SDS could not possibly be described as ‘subversive’ according to this definition.

SECRET LUNCHES

The SDS was well known to the most senior members of the Met, as well as MI5 and senior civil servants and politicians.

‘Michael James’ (HN96, 1978-83) reported that the Commissioner himself visited the SDS safe house. This practice has been confirmed for other periods by ‘Doug Edwards’ (HN326, 1968-71) and Peter Francis (1993-97) who both added that their Commissioners presented them with bottles of whisky.

From 1983, there is a programme and briefing pack prepared for Sir Kenneth Newman, the then Met Commissioner. It includes a brief profile of each member of the SDS at the time, ahead of an extended buffet lunch with the SDS officers at what is described as an ‘in-field location’.

It would be nice if the Inquiry could question Sir Kenneth about his knowledge of the SDS, unfortunately he is one of three ex Commissioners who have died since the Inquiry was announced.

But there can be no doubt that this phase of the Inquiry will put the nails in the coffin of senior officers’ claims that the SDS was a rogue unit, somehow totally secret and unknown even to the rest of the Met.

The 1975 SDS Annual Report emphasises the paramount importance of secrecy about the unit’s existence to avoid ‘an embarrassment for the Commissioner’ as well as maintaining officer security. This is a tacit admission that they knew the SDS was illegitimate. Why would there be any embarrassment if the unit were using reasonable methods to protect the public from genuine threats to their safety?

INFILTRATING, TAKING CHARGE & SABOTAGING

Police lawyers said the Inquiry should look at contemporaneous publications by the groups that spycops targeted to see how extreme the ideas were. It sounds fair enough at first, however throughout the existence of spycops, officers have written material for the campaigns they infiltrated.

From John Graham writing about the anti-Vietnam War protest in a 1969 edition of Red Camden to Mark Kennedy’s Indymedia posts, via Roger Pearce writing for Freedom, Bob Lambert cowriting the McLibel leaflet and John Dines’ anti-police section of the Poll Tax Riot booklet, it’s been common practice.

Spycops writing for campaigns pales in comparison to them being instrumental in running the organisations. A basic initial principle of the SDS, laid down by the unit’s founder Conrad Dixon, was:

‘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’

Despite this, the vast majority of spycops in the era begin examined, 1973-28, held positions of office in the organisations they infiltrated.

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

RICHARD CLARK: RISING THROUGH THE RANKS

One indisputable example of the exploitation and manipulation of both the people and the groups targeted, is the career of undercover officer Richard Clark (‘Rick Gibson’ HN297, 1974-76), who rose through Troops Out Movement (TOM) in order to get access to Big Flame.

Drawing together SDS reports and the statements of two people Clark spied on, Inquiry Core Participants Richard Chessum and ‘Mary’, James Scobie QC showed the Inquiry that Clark abused his friendship with Chessum and his sexual relationship with ‘Mary’ (and three other women) to reach his goal.

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.’

Despite this, in a carefully prepared strategy, Clark wrote to TOM head office in December 1974 asking for a local branch to join, knowing there wasn’t one.

By February 1975, Clark had succeeded in creating an entirely new branch of the TOM. There were five founder members; Mary, Richard Chessum, his partner, another student, and Clark. Rather than infiltrating a branch, he had actively established his own one. He generated something to spy on.

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

WORKING HIS WAY IN

Clark had no back story. He needed to develop a place in the social network of political activists. To do that, he developed a close friendship with Richard Chessum and initiated a sexual relationship with Mary.

He also had relationships with at least three other female 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 confirms that forming targeted sexual relationships started early in the SDS.)

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 was 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. Clark attended a private meeting of senior members of TOM, with leader Gerry Lawless. There were only ten people at the meeting.

Clark saw his post under threat. Workers Fight was trying to take over TOM. One of them was voted to go to a London conference that would elect national posts. Clark then 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, whom he had deceived into a relationship.

NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

It worked – Clark was elected to the Organising Committee for London, a national position. This spycop had deceived a second woman into a sexual relationship in order to oust Chessum, a decent man who supported the movement, and take his place.

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. Mary and her flat-mate largely disappeared from Clark’s reporting, now that they had served their purpose.

Due to Lawless’s paternity leave, Clark became acting head of TOM for several months and did great damage. He cancelled delegations to Ireland. He criticised certain members. At least one prominent organisation withdrew its affiliation. And by the time Gerry Lawless returned, two members of the Secretariat had resigned.

Clark then turned against Lawless. He held a meeting with Big Flame in his flat to organise opposition to Lawless’ leadership, decapitating TOMof 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.

CAUGHT IN THE ACT

However, 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 of 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 looked into background information ‘Rick Gibson’ had provided, and could not confirm any of it. Then, as mentioned above, they went to the government’s birth and death records archive to discover Rick Gibson’s birth certificate. And they also found his death certificate.

They confronted Clark with both. 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 to the inquiry for anonymity for spycops for fear of reprisals are highly questionable.

In this era, from Clark onwards, every single spycop took a role in the organisation they infiltrated (except for ‘Graham Coates’ (HN304, 1976-79) 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.

CONCLUSION

In her statements, Diane Langford connected the spying in the past to the new Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill rushed through Parliament just before the November hearings in 2020, which allows police to self-authorise to commit any crime. This undermines much of the point of the Undercover Policing Inquiry which is tasked to make recommendations for undercover policing in future.

In January 2020, the current counter-terrorism spycops unit listed peace protesters as extremists. One of them was the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign seeking to uphold international law and to promote peace, yet it is targeted as a problem to be undermined. Not much seems to have changed since the SDS was officially disbanded in 2008.

The Undercover Policing Inquiry hearings continue for another three weeks, after which it will be a year before there are any more.

<<Previous UCPI Weekly Report (16-19 Nov 2020)<<

>>Next UCPI Weekly Report (26-30 Apr 2021)>>

The third week of the Undercover Police Inquiry’s hearings brought revelations and frustrations.

The former undercover officers of Britain’s secret police engaged in a parade of selective amnesia, admitting what their vintage documents confirmed, but not a lot more.

And yet, we also brought the murky world of the spycops further into focus, learning the names of another MP who was spied on and a senior officer who illegally colluded with industrial blacklisting, as well as catching the Inquiry itself covering up for a criminal spycop.

CELEBRITY GUERRILLA COVERAGE

The Inquiry still refuses to live-steam its hearings, only giving us a live transcript that can’t easily be paused or rewound – a challenge to stare at for hours on end.

The women from Police Spies Out of Lives, representing women deceived into relationships by spycops, took matters into their own hands with a live reading of the transcript on their YouTube channel.

They took this inspired idea a stage further later in the week, with actors Maxine Peake, Siobhán McSweeney, and Barnaby Taylor speaking the words of the spycop witnesses.

There is, of course, no reason why the Inquiry can’t provide us with an audio-stream of the hearings. It would be no different to the read-a-long in terms of security. It’s further evidence of the way the Inquiry regards victims of spycops as marginal and the wider public as an irrelevance.

OVERVIEW

In the last three weeks, the Inquiry hearings have focussed on the formation of what began as the ‘Special Operations Squad’ (SOS) in 1968, and the years leading up to its re-naming as the Special Demonstrations Squad (SDS) in 1972.

It has confirmed the names of more than 100 groups who weren’t previously known to have been spied on.

There’s no good reason why the list couldn’t have been published by the Inquiry before, allowing members of those groups to come forward with relevant testimony in time to contribute.

The movement against the war in Vietnam was the original target for this new method of deep surveillance, and during this period the spycops also reported on anarchist, socialist, communist, Irish and anti-racist groups.

‘THROWN IN’

One after another, the former spycops described:

• being asked to join the unit, rather than formally applying;
• receiving no formal training or briefings;
• being initially sent out without even a target group or movement, just to see what they could join;
• not being steered away from groups that were clearly no threat to anyone;
• no advice as to what information to report, just a vague indication that all information was good information;
• deployments lasting much longer than the 12 month maximum stipulated by SDS founder Conrad Dixon (unless something went wrong & it was ended early);
• no psychological care during or after deployment.

Spycop ‘Dick Epps’ said:

‘I was never sat down in a classroom or a training room and given a training manual, or training lectures… We were all, if you like, being thrown in to a maelstrom, and seeking to find some sense of what we were trying to do’

Rather than merely gathering information on public order issues, it is abundantly clear that spycops were foot-soldiers for the Security Service, and most SDS reports were copied to MI5. It’s also a fact that details of activists were illegally shared with employment blacklisting organisations.

This overlap has been starkly, if unwittingly, illustrated by spycops who flitted between the concepts of democracy, national security, government policy, and corporate convenience as if these were all one and the same.

The spycops talked about targeting groups who ‘want to overthrow our form of democracy’, yet they spied on numerous democratic organisations, including political parties whose very function was to participate in our form of democracy. They sent one officer after another into the anti-apartheid movement, whose sole objective was to help bring democracy to South Africa.

NO SET TARGET

Giving evidence, the spycops admitted very little beyond what their own vintage documents proved, unless it served to distance them from responsibility. Their denials were risibly implausible, claiming to be unable to recall some of the central campaigns they were spying on.

When forced to concede that many groups they spied on posed no threat to the public, they tried to defend their deployments by saying the innocent groups were allied with more dangerous ones who were the actual focus.

None of them could explain why they failed to join the supposed real targets, nor why they were reporting personal details of the people in any and every group they came across.

Epps claimed anarchists were always the likely cause of any public disorder, but when asked why he didn’t infiltrate them instead of peace campaigns, he said:

‘I don’t know that it ever occurred to me that that was a route that I might find useful. But some of them were, as I say, harebrained and a little overexcited at these moments, and I didn’t feel drawn to that sort of grouping.’

Epps infiltrated the International Marxist Group (IMG) because they ‘took part in every demonstration going’. He was instructed by his managers to make a copy of the IMG’s office keys. He admitted he didn’t remember any IMG members being violent or disorderly at demonstrations, but claimed ‘they were much busier than other groups’ – as justification in itself.

OFFICER HN340 ‘ANDY BAILEY’

Officer HN340, ‘Andy Bailey’ (or ‘Alan Nixon‘), was, like Epps, deployed between 1969 and 1972. He said a lack of instruction was a continual feature of his work, and that he just made up his methods and activities. He presumed he was doing the right thing because his managers never told him otherwise.

Bailey joined a tiny left-wing discussion group, the North London Red Circle. In his written statement he described the Red Circle as ‘a talking shop’, saying:

‘It did support a revolutionary agenda and was subversive to the extent that it advanced the overthrow of the established political system in the UK, albeit never took any concrete steps… violence would have been the last thing on many of their minds’.

He said it was a ‘recruiting ground for the International Marxist Group’, with an implication that the IMG was in itself a serious threat to public safety even though, as we heard from Dick Epps, other officers knew that wasn’t the case and they’d only spied on the IMG because they, in turn, was supposed to be adjacent to the real targets.

IRISH ISSUES

Bailey also infiltrated the Irish Civil Rights Solidarity Campaign (ICRSC). Irish republican politics was a popular cause with the left at the time. As in the early years of the Troubles, Republicans were only attacking military targets in Northern Ireland it was, for many, a cause with little moral dilemma.

In October 1970, Bailey also attended the founding conference of the Irish Solidarity Campaign (ISC) in Birmingham. For an SDS officer to go to another constabulary’s jurisdiction, the unit must have either secured the permission of the local police, in which case they were complicit in what the spycops did, or else it was done without local approval, which is a serious breach of police protocol.

That Irish Solidarity Campaign founding conference was also attended by Bailey’s colleague, SDS officer HN68 ‘Sean Lynch’, whose deployment focused on Irish solidarity groups. A report was produced afterwards, with both their names attached to it, which contained a long list of all the groups and ‘fraternal delegates’ who attended the conference.

He explained:

‘They were there and so I reported it; it was then down to the back office to do their filtering, vetting, or whatever you call it’

The report was sent to both MI5 and the Home Office. The Met’s Deputy Assistant Commissioner commended the ‘first class work’ and asked that the officers be praised.

It will have been obvious to that senior officer that the depth of knowledge in the report can only have come from sustained infiltration.

It is already clear – and getting even clearer – that the SDS’s work was known and approved of at the highest levels of the Met, as well as its paymasters in the Home Office. There is, therefore, no way to sustain the claim that the SDS was a rogue unit, so secret that nobody outside really knew what was going on.

Bailey could not recall ISC members ever taking part in any acts of violence, nor any public disorder at any demonstrations organised by the ISC:

‘I’m sure something like that would have stuck in my memory and it definitely doesn’t.’

ANOTHER MP SPIED ON

Bailey’s reports would specifically mention whether or not events were attended by Bernadette Devlin, a young independent Irish republican MP.

According to Bailey:

‘if she was known to be going to attend any meeting or demonstration or whatever, then of course that would increase the likelihood of more people arriving at the demonstration’.

Devlin joins the growing list of MPs confirmed as having been spied on by the SDS, the unit that was supposedly formed to frustrate those who would overthrow parliamentary democracy.

SPYCOPS ABROAD

Bailey’s managers had instructed him not to join the International Marxist Group because it was ‘recognised as more of a political party’. This doesn’t tally with the fact that his contemporary, ‘Doug Edwards’, was not merely a member of the Independent Labour Party but the Tower Hamlets branch treasurer.

His managers did, however, instruct him to attend the Conference for a Red Europe in Brussels in November 1970, organised by the Fourth International (of which the IMG was a part).

As with the ISC conference in Birmingham a month earlier, Bailey says there was no direct contact between him and the other spycop who attended. That other officer was officer HN326, ‘Doug Edwards’, who complained about the trip in his evidence to the Inquiry.

This is the earliest known instance of spycops travelling abroad. It’s unclear whether the SDS followed protocol and got permission from their counterparts in Belgium (and any countries they passed through).

It is yet another example of spycops’ being engaged from the start in an activity that has been explained away as a later aberration.

TRADE UNIONIST DAVE SMITH

Blacklisted trade unionist Dave Smith was initially forbidden to deliver his opening statement to the Inquiry, as it mentioned the real name of spycop ‘Carlo Neri’ – which is Carlo Soracchi. The Inquiry insisted on nobody saying the name Soracchi out loud, even though it has been in the public domain for 18 months.

Smith spoke on behalf of the Blacklist Support Group (BSG), representing union members who were unlawfully blacklisted by major construction firms.

When the BSG first spoke about being blacklisted for union activities, they were ridiculed as conspiracy theorists. But it’s conspiracy fact – and it involves the collusion of the police and the security services.

Established in 1993 using an existing blacklist from the Economic League, The Consulting Association (TCA) was a secret body comprised of most major construction companies. Between them, they illegally orchestrated the blacklisting of thousands of construction workers.

Every job applicant on major building projects had their name checked against TCA’s blacklist. If there was a match, the worker would be refused work or dismissed. These checks were done on hundreds of thousands of workers a year.

It wasn’t just the major firms who kept union activists under surveillance and contributed to blacklisting – it was the same political police who are at the heart of the Undercover Policing Inquiry.

The police’s internal spycops investigation, Operation Herne, produced a report on blacklisting which concluded:

‘Police, including Special Branches and the Security Services, supplied information to the blacklist funded by the country’s major construction firms, The Consulting Association’

SPECIAL BRANCH INDUSTRIAL UNIT

The Special Branch Industrial Unit was established in 1970, ‘with the aim of monitoring trade unionists from teaching to the docks’. Special Branch files were effectively a database for MI5, private firms and others to find out about trade union activists.

Spycops often worked for the Industrial Unit, before or after being deployed undercover. One was HN336 ‘Dick Epps’, who told the Inquiry that Chief Superintendent Herbert Guy ‘Bert’ Lawrenson, head of the Metropolitan Police Special Branch’s union-monitoring C Squad in those early days, went to work for the Economic League.

One can readily imagine Special Branch Industrial Unit officers had a ready exchange of information with Lawrenson, their former boss, the man who quite possibly hired and trained them.

The Operation Herne report confirmed that, prior to The Consulting Association’s foundation in the 1990s:

‘Special Branches throughout the UK had direct contact with the Economic League’

MODERN POLICE HELP FOR BLACKLISTERS

As well as Special Branch files, police intelligence on political activists was later kept on the National Domestic Extremism Database, which holds files on thousands of citizens whom the State considers ‘domestic extremists’, many of whom have committed no crime whatsoever.

One of the units responsible for the database was the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU), whose Detective Chief Inspector Gordon Mills gave a presentation to a secret Consulting Association meeting in 2008. This was a senior police officer helping TCA, a company whose work was illegal.

NETCU and the Special Branch Industrial Unit, along with all the spycops units, are now absorbed into the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command. State spying on unions is now classified as counter-terrorism.

PERSONAL TARGETING

Smith then focused on a small group of union activists on the blacklist of which he was part. From the early 1990s until mid 2000s, they were spied on by three separate spycops: Peter Francis, Mark Jenner, and Carlo Soracchi.

Mark Jenner joined the construction union UCATT as ‘Mark Cassidy’. He attended picket lines, protests, and conferences, and even chaired meetings. Smith flatly accused Jenner, and through him the British State, of interfering with the internal democratic processes of an independent trade union.

When Jenner’s deployment was coming to an end, another spycop, Carlo Soracchi, using the name ‘Carlo Neri’, was sent to spy on the same group of activists. Soracchi was an agent provocateur, trying in vain to incite union members to commit arson against a charity shop he claimed was run by Roberto Fiore, leader of Italian fascist party Forza Nuova.

Jenner deceived ‘Alison’, an activist for the National Union of Teachers, into a five year co-habiting relationship during his deployment. Soracchi deceived two women into relationships with him during his deployment – Donna McLean, a Transport and General Workers Union rep from a homelessness charity, and ‘Lindsey‘ who was also an active trade unionist.

If the purpose of the spycop units was genuinely, as the police claim, to detect serious criminality or public disorder, why, in over ten years of spying, were none of these people ever charged or prosecuted with a serious criminal offence? This is nothing to do with disorder or crime, it’s purely political policing.

Smith said the police can claim all they like that they were protecting democracy. But by spying on trade union members and colluding with blacklisting, spycops are actually just protecting big business and capitalism. Capitalism and democracy are not the same thing.

OFFICER HN348 ‘SANDRA DAVIES’

Giving over a long session to questioning Special Demonstration Squad officer HN348 ‘Sandra Davies’ seemed something of an odd proposition, as she appeared to have had an uneventful deployment.

As it turned out, this was the point; her testimony demonstrated the pointlessness of many deployments, and the total absence of any consideration of the impact of this intrusion on the lives of those targeted.

The SDS’ annual report of 1971 confirmed that she was recruited for her gender:

‘The arrival of a second woman officer has added considerably to the squad’s flexibility and has proved invaluable in the comparatively recent field of women’s liberation.’

Davies infiltrated the Women’s Liberation Front (WLF). A small feminist group with Maoist leanings, its meetings were attended by about 12 people, hosted at one of the member’s homes.

As a constable, she had the same powers and responsibilities as her male colleagues but, as a female officer, was only paid 90% of the men’s salary.

In the SDS, she was sent to spy on the WLF who, according to her, mainly campaigned for equal pay, free contraception and free nurseries.

SUBVERSIVE BAKING

Davies reported on the WLF supplying home-made sweets and cakes for a children’s Christmas party organised by the Black Unity and Freedom Party. She also reported on the WLF holding a jumble sale. Both of these reports were copied to MI5.

She was elected treasurer of the WLF. As part of the six-strong executive committee, she took part in the expulsion of several members that led to the group’s decline.

Looking back, she continued:

‘I do not think my work really yielded any good intelligence, but I eliminated the Women’s Liberation Front from public order concerns’

That is a mitigation that could be applied to thought-crime spying on literally anyone. More to the point, it was a fact that must have been obvious very early on in her deployment. And yet she spent two years, full-time, spying on that group.

There was no suggestion that her managers gave much thought to whether what she was doing was worthwhile. As with other deployments, it seems that once they had their spycops in place, keeping them there was more important than the substance of the information they gathered.

The rights of the people being spied on – who had police officers in their lives and homes week after week – didn’t get a look-in.

MENTAL GYMNASTICS

Davies has been granted anonymity by the Inquiry. In her ‘impact statement’, she said that she wanted anonymity because she would be embarrassed if the group’s main activist found out the truth. She also said her reputation would be tainted if her friends found out she had been a spycop.

This is an extraordinary mental gymnastics – when we question the purpose of spycops, the police tell us that they’re doing vital & noble work ensuring the safety of everyone, yet when we ask why they want anonymity, they say it would be humiliating to be known as one.

SUMMARY WITHOUT QUESTION

Rather than insisting that all of the surviving former spycops give evidence, the Inquiry has chosen not to ‘call’ the majority of them.

Instead, the Inquiry team have prepared a short summary of each officer’s witness statement, and read it out. There is no opportunity for anyone to question the spycops, giving rise to a worry that their real history will remain hidden.

Less anticipated was that the Inquiry would be more inclined to cover up an officer’s wrongdoing than the officer themselves.

OFFICER HN339 ‘STEWART GOODMAN’

Officer HN339, ‘Stewart Goodman’, was deployed undercover from 1970 to 1971, initially against the anti-apartheid groups. He joined the Lambeth branch of the International Socialists (now the Socialist Workers Party), where – mirroring Doug Edwards’ and Sandra Davies’ roles – he became treasurer.

Speaking for the Inquiry, Elizabeth Campbell summarised:

‘HN339 recalls being involved in some fly-posting while in his cover identity, but no other criminal activity. Near the end of his deployment, HN339 was involved in a road traffic accident while driving an unmarked police car, which necessitated the involvement of his supervisors on the SDS.

‘HN339 states that he does not remember much about his withdrawal from the field, but suspects that this event may have been a catalyst for the end of his deployment.’

Goodman was not merely ‘involved in a road traffic accident’.

For those willing to wade through the documents, on page 18 of Goodman’s witness statement he said:

‘I crashed my unmarked police car. I had been at a pub with activists and I would have parked the car away from the pub so as not to arouse suspicion. I drove home while under the influence of alcohol and crashed the car into a tree’.

The car was a write-off. When uniformed officers arrived, Goodman breached SDS protocol and broke cover, telling them he was an undercover colleague. Rather than arresting and charging him, they drove him home.

He was eventually charged and went to court, accompanied by his manager Phil Saunders. He believes he was prosecuted under his false identity and that Saunders briefed the magistrates. He was convicted and fined.

INQUIRY COVERING UP THE TRUTH

It is utterly outrageous that the Inquiry told the public that the only crime Goodman committed undercover was fly-posting and then, literally in the next sentence, referred to a much more serious criminal offence.

Investigating the often-corrupt relationships between the spycops and the courts is one of the stated purposes of this Inquiry, yet here they are deliberately burying examples of wrong-doing which the officers themselves admit.

Because Goodman wasn’t called to give evidence to the Inquiry in person, there was no way to question him about the possibility of judicial corruption.

Beyond that, we are left wondering what else has been covered up in this way, and lies there among the hundreds of pages the Inquiry bulk-publishes after it has finished discussing a given officer’s deployment.

OFFICER HN343 ‘JOHN CLINTON’

Another summary was given for HN343 ‘John Clinton’, who served in the SDS from early 1971 until late 1974, infiltrating groups including the International Socialists (IS).

Clinton considered the IS to be subversive, though he had an exceptionally broad definition of the word, writing in his witness statement:

‘I witnessed a lot of subversive activity whilst I was deployed undercover… During industrial disputes they would deploy to picket lines and stand there in solidarity.’

He reported on campaigns and issues supported by the group, such as women’s liberation, tenants’ rights and the Anti-Apartheid Movement.

WHAT HE DIDN’T SAY

Clinton was infiltrating International Socialists in London in the summer of 1974, yet he made no mention of their involvement in the large anti-fascist demonstration on 15 June 1974 at which a protester, Kevin Gately, was killed by police.

It was the first time anyone had died on a demonstration in Britain for over 50 years. It was a huge cause célèbre for the left. Clinton didn’t mention this, nor any of the vigils for Gately and campaigning that followed among IS and the broader left.

It is a glaring omission that arouses suspicion. Given the SDS’s avid focus on such justice campaigns later on, it would be very odd indeed if their officer in IS didn’t participate, let alone fail to recall it as significant.

As with Stewart Goodman earlier, because this was an Inquiry lawyer reading out a hasty summary, nobody was able to question Clinton about any of this.

OFFICER HN345 ‘PETER FREDERICKS’

Spycop HN345, ‘Peter Fredericks‘, describes himself as being ‘of mixed heritage’. He was deployed by the SDS for about six months in 1971.

Fredericks was asked if he thought he was asked to target the Black Power movement because of his race.

‘No. I never came across anything vaguely associated with that statement,’ he replied, as if the police might have sent a white officer to infiltrate Black Power groups instead.

ANOTHER FAULTY MEMORY

Fredericks was asked if he remembered the case of the Mangrove 9:

‘Not clearly, no’.

The disbelieving scepticism of the barrister asking was clear even on the plain type of the transcript:

‘It doesn’t ring any bells at all? Let me see if I can help you.’

The Inquiry was then told how, on 9 August 1970 – a few months before Fredericks joined the SDS – there was a demonstration in Notting Hill about the police harassment of the Mangrove restaurant. As a result of that demonstration, nine black activists were arrested and prosecuted for riot.

There was a defence campaign set up, and their trial started at the Old Bailey in October 1971, while Fredericks was undercover in Black Power groups.

Fredericks said:

‘I was not involved closely with them. I would have read about it in the papers. I would have known something, perhaps.’

As with John Clinton’s failure to mention the death of Kevin Gately, this absence of memory is simply not credible. Even the barrister knew it:

‘And you don’t remember any conversations with any of your SOS colleagues, or anybody else in Special Branch, about this seminal event in the history of the Black Power Movement?’

Fredericks determinedly kept the lid on the can of worms:

‘Definitely not. Definitely not.’

In fact, the totality of Fredericks’s recollections of Black Power seemed to amount to very little at all.

‘SAMPLE THE PRODUCT’

When asked about intimate relationships between undercover officers and the people they spied on, his jaw-dropping response led to collective gasps of horror:

‘I have, if you like, a phrase in my head which helps guide me here. If you ask me to infiltrate some drug dealers, you can’t point the finger at me if I sample the product.

‘If these people are in a certain environment where it is necessary to engage a little more deeply, then shall we say, I find this acceptable, but I do worry about the consequences for the female and any children that may result from the relationship. That would be dangerous. So yes, it shouldn’t be done.’

Tom Fowler was live-tweeting from the Inquiry venue, watching on a screen. He reported:

‘Reading the words from the transcript is bad enough, but when you see it delivered with a wide grin, tongue darting in & out of the mouth, with the final “it shouldn’t be done” tacked on to the end with a complete lack of sincerity, it reveals an extreme misogyny as well as a certain sadism; a psychopathic willingness to use people for political ends, whilst enjoying it at the same time’

It serves to underline the problem of the Inquiry only providing a live transcript and thereby missing all the tone and inflection, something highlighted on the COPS blog earlier in the week.

WHAT NEXT?

The Undercover Policing Inquiry will now take a break to prepare for the next set of hearings. These will examine the Special Demonstration Squad 1973-82, and are expected to be held in March or April 2021.

Whenever they happen, COPS will be live-tweeting the hearings and producing daily reports, as well as weekly summaries like this one.

All our daily and weekly reports are linked from our Inquiry page.

<<Previous UCPI Weekly Report (9-13 Nov 2020)<<

>>Next UCPI Weekly Report (21-23 Apr 2021)>>

Undercover Policing Inquiry
Weekly Report 2
9-13 November 2020

After seven days of opening statements, and six years since it was first announced, the Undercover Policing Inquiry finally started taking evidence from witnesses this week.

This phase of the Inquiry concerned the earliest days of the Metropolitan Police’s spycops unit, the Special Operations Squad (later called the Special Demonstration Squad), for the years 1968-72.

The week began with the final opening statements from the significantly affected people whom the Inquiry has designated ‘core participants’.

HARROWING STORIES

Some came from the women deceived into relationships by officers, many of whom were directly responsible for the uncovering of the spycops who abused them. We touch on their accounts here, but cannot do full justice to these often harrowing stories.

On Wednesday, we heard from the very first witness, Tariq Ali. A 77-year old journalist, writer and broadcaster who has been politically active most of his life, Ali was spied on by many undercovers, right from the inception of the units in 1968 through to the 2000s. And for the first time we heard the undercovers themselves, with three sessions on the final two days from officers who were part of the unit when it was formed.

Given breadth of the hearings, in this report we will focus on bringing out the main themes and highlights of the week, rather than going into specific detail. All of the detailed daily reports can be found on our UCPI public inquiry page.

ONGOING PROBLEMS

The opening statements heard this week powerfully repeated points those who were spied on have been arguing for years.

They put the case that in order to get to the truth, we need to know:

• Cover names and real names of the spycops. These have still not been released. Lawyer Heather Williams reiterated that with the Inquiry only giving an identifying number for spycops, it is impossible for spied-upon people to actually know they were spied upon, and be able to come forward and give evidence. We will be left with just the officer’s unchallenged account of their activities.
• Information about what they did during their deployments, and which groups they targeted. We know that more than 1000 groups were spied on, yet less than 150 have been named. When they were on holiday with people they spied on, was this ordered or sanctioned by their managers?
• Photographs of the spycops, as they looked at the time, as this is likely to have far more effect jogging people’s memories. Tariq Ali said if he had been shown a photo of ‘Dick Epps‘ (who spied on him in the 1960s) he might have been able to recollect more about him. Non-state core participants have provided the Inquiry with personal photographs but the Inquiry has chosen not to publish them.
• What is in the files: what data was gathered about individuals and the groups they were part of? The vast majority of non-state core participants have been provided with nothing at all so far. A small number have been given access to the ‘hearing bundle’, but this 5,500 page stack came just five weeks before these hearings began; far too much to comprehend, while still but a fraction of the million pages the Inquiry has.

Another point reinforced was the demand, argued for years now, that the Inquiry’s Chair, Sir John Mitting, urgently needs the assistance of an advisory panel, made up of people with more life experience and expertise than him. It is clear he lacks the understanding to investigate the institutional racism and sexism which lie at the heart of this scandal.

These initial problems with the Undercover Policing Inquiry, and more, are detailed in our report from last week.

NEW PROBLEMS: LIVE STREAMING & REPORTING 

Although this was already known about last week, the loss of public access to the live-streaming of the hearings from Wednesday morning has caused even more than the expected difficulties. A few things changed in light of protests from those attending, but there are still significant problems for those present and those prevented from attending.

There is considerable upset that people could only follow it properly by travelling to central London during a pandemic. However, Mitting is still flatly refusing to live-stream the whole thing on ‘security grounds’, even though other inquiries dealing with sensitive material, such as Grenfell and Manchester Arena, are live-streaming their hearings.

It’s clear it’s technically possible; it was done for the seven days of opening statements. Indeed, Mitting is still permitted his own personal live-stream, and two more are in the rooms provided for no more than 60 people to watch proceedings. The rest of the world had to deal with video of a live transcript of what was being said. One core participant trying to follow it described it as watching ‘speeded up Ceefax’.

IMPOSSIBLE TO FOLLOW

Another problem was that many of the documents being referred to were not shown, making it near impossible to follow some of the key details. The video feed couldn’t be rewound to check things that had been said. If you missed something, that was it.

This led to outright anger from some of the media, as well as victims’ lawyers. Journalists said it was making it impossible for them to report on issues. Many people trying to follow it from elsewhere were bitterly frustrated with how difficult it had become. These complaints resulted in some minor improvements such as a different video process and the documents being released on the same day.

The Inquiry video venue is also proving problematic for those attending; the two live-stream rooms are windowless and unventilated.

CARLO SORACCHI

Another significant issue this week is Mitting’s continuing refusal to let the real name of spycop ‘Carlo Neri’, which is Carlo Soracchi, be used in proceedings. This is on the application of his ex-wife.

Soracchi was deployed 2001-2006, infiltrating trade union, socialist and anti-fascist groups.

Mitting’s ban on anyone saying his real name has affected two of the women he deceived into relationships, and the Blacklist Support Group (BSG).

As a result, Dave Smith of the BSG was unable to give his Opening Statement. This is despite the fact that Soracchi’s name has been out in public for quite some time, reported in newspapers and on social media.

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED IN THE SECOND WEEK OF UCPI HEARINGS? 

One of the most shocking facts to emerge this week is that many of the abuses, previously portrayed as the unsanctioned acts of rogue officers that were only perpetrated in recent years, have all been going on since the very beginnings of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). These include:

• Relationships with activists. Far from being some recent deviation, spycops were forming deceitful intimate relationships with activists from 1968 onwards. These include a long-term sexual relationship between ‘Mary’ and spycop ‘Rick Gibson’ in 1975, and the strong indication of officer Helen Crampton having a relationship with an activist within weeks of the SDS’ foundation in 1968.
• Travel to other countries. Whistle-blower Peter Francis genuinely believed that he was the first spycop to be deployed abroad when he travelled to Germany in 1993. Yet ‘Doug Edwards’ (HN326), who left the job in 1971, stated he ‘went to Brussels with this other officer whose name I can’t even mention’. Evidence also showed that another of the undercovers travelled to Scotland in 1969.
• Attending family events of people they were spying on. Birthdays, weddings, and funerals were all attended by spycops as far back as 1969. Not only were the details of private family occasions collected by the State, but memories (and many of the photographs) of them are now marred by the knowledge that one of the people there was the very opposite of a friend.

POLICE FOCUS ON VIOLENCE

A repeated theme this week has entailed barristers for the Inquiry asking about the violent tendencies of protestors, and the protestors emphasising the peaceful nature of most of the groups and campaigns they were part of.

Back in October 1968, protestors were asked not to bring fireworks and marbles to the demonstration against the Vietnam War, let alone anything else. Tariq Ali edited left-wing magazine Black Dwarf which published an article titled ‘Softly, Softly’ which stressed that, to ensure the protestors’ buses made it to the demonstration, nothing should be carried that could give the police cause to stop them.

A decade later, Ali was the Socialist Unity parliamentary candidate in Southall. During a confrontation between the National Front and anti-racists, local organisers put Ali in a safe house to keep him out of any trouble.

Police raided the house and the occupants, including Ali, were made to run a police gauntlet as they were ejected. Ali was truncheoned so severely that he passed out. The skull of the man he was with was fractured, leaving him in a coma for five months.

That was the same day, and in the same area, that Blair Peach – who we have already heard about in this Inquiry – was killed by the police. When the police unit responsible for killing Peach had its lockers searched, weapons found included a crowbar, metal cosh, whip handle, stock ship, brass handle, knives, American-style truncheons, a rhino whip and a pickaxe handle.

When considering which groups were the most violent and heavily armed, the police – with their arsenal of illegal weapons, aggressive attitude and fatal injuries – were clearly more of a threat than the activists.

Tariq Ali told the Inquiry in a written statement:

‘my strong feeling is that this Inquiry is likely to be a monumental waste of time. This is because the direction of travel is clear from the questions – to dissect the politics of the victims of police spying, and therefore to turn the spotlight away from the actions of the police. This is the politics of “blame the victim”.’

CREDIBLE THREAT OR DAFT IDEAS?

In order to continue operating, the SDS and other undercover officers had to  convince superior officers that what they were doing was worthwhile. The groups they were infiltrating had to be seen as a credible threat to society.

In some cases, police provocateurs provided evidence by creating it themselves. Tariq Ali described a group of ‘hippy anarchists’ who spent the night in the offices of Black Dwarf. The group made a crude painting of how to make a Molotov cocktail on one of the walls, just in time for it to be ‘found’ during a police raid.

This tactic of provocation is seen over and over again throughout the entire history of the spycops, no matter what acronym they used.

Taking just one spycop that we know of, Bob Lambert, as an example, provocation ranges from writing or co-writing articles, such as the ‘What’s Wrong With McDonald’s?’ leaflet, to allegedly planning and committing arson by placing a timed incendiary device in the Harrow branch of Debenham’s in 1987.

Once again, this behaviour must be contrasted with that of the spied-upon groups; in 1968 the VSC were actively expelling groups that wanted to use violence on the anti-war marches. In many cases it is clear that the police were creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The factor which made groups a ‘serious, credible threat’ was the spycops themselves.

FROM THE (POLICE) HORSE’S MOUTH

This assessment is borne out by evidence given by several spycops this week. Seemingly unaware that they were undermining their own justifications, various officers described the groups they had infiltrated as ineffectual at best, and deluded at worst.

As officer ‘Doug Edwards’ said on Friday:

‘They got an exaggerated idea of their own importance. They sort of had daft ideas’

‘Don de Freitas’, SDS officer HN330, infiltrated Havering International Socialists in 1968. His evidence portrayed a peaceful group, whose aims were not subversive, with most members ‘unwilling to support civil disobedience or terrorism’ (as if the two activities were comparable).

John Graham, who infiltrated Camden Vietnam Solidarity Campaign in the same year, viewed the members as ‘revolutionary’ because, even though they eschewed violence, they sought a change of government by trying to ‘persuade people to their point of view’.

Edwards, who in 1969 reported on the ‘Action Committee Against NATO’, said ‘I do not remember what the group stood for or what they did. I do not remember how I infiltrated the group or why I infiltrated them’. Obviously, it made very little impression on him. This is not what we’d expect from a dangerous group committed to serious disorder, which is what the SDS claims it existed to spy on.

There are many more examples of this attitude and experience from officers in our daily reports.

IF THEIR TARGETS WERE A THREAT, WHY WEREN’T SPYCOPS TRAINED?

Even before the officers’ evidence that the groups were not actually a serious risk to public safety, there is the lack of training to consider. If the spycops were indeed being sent to infiltrate dangerous organisations which threatened society, why weren’t they better prepared?

It was clear from the police statements there was a lack of direction in how to begin approaching their targets, exactly which groups to target, or other ‘fieldcraft’. ‘You had to play it by ear,’ ‘Doug Edwards’ explained.

If we’re to believe the Inquiry when it says spycops must have anonymity because, even now, being named would risk their lives, they need to explain why officers were left to do the job on a whim instead of being given instructions.

Spycop Joan Hillier asserted that SDS officers didn’t really need training as they were all experienced Special Branch officers (despite Hillier herself only joining Special Branch shortly before the SDS was formed):

‘Instinct would tell you what you shouldn’t do and what you should do.’

Officers would instinctively know not to get involved in people’s personal lives, form intimate relationships, commit crime, or appear in court under a fake identity, she said.

What Hillier refers to isn’t actually instinct, it’s personal individual morality. If it allows the officer to spy upon grieving families, undermine anti-racist and anti-fascist campaigns, and sabotage groups working for a healthier global environment – all whilst using the stolen identity of a dead infant – it is corrupt.

The fact that spycops did actually do the things Hillier lists them ‘instinctively’ avoiding, when she was an officer and afterwards over generations of deployments, shows it was not left to the individual, it must have been suggested and encouraged.

INSITUTIONAL RACISM & SEXISM 

Undercover political policing’s core traits of institutional racism and sexism aren’t news to anyone who has been following this topic, but the more evidence is heard at the Inquiry, the more inescapably obvious it becomes.  

Some of the most shocking testimony this week came from the women activists who were deceived into intimate and often long-term relationships by spycops.

Phillippa Kaufmann QC and Heather Williams QC spoke on behalf of over twenty of them; we cover this in detail in Monday’s summary of events. Kaufmann’s written statement gives further details of each woman’s story, and we strongly recommend that you read it.

Kaufmann also highlighted how both opening statements last week by Counsel for the Inquiry and whistle-blower spycop Peter Francis severely understated the role the women have played in exposing the spycops scandal. It was the women who, in the aftermath of their ‘loved one’ disappearing, uncovered the truth. Their unflinching determination cannot be overlooked.

Trying to summarise their evidence in this report cannot do it justice. Many of their experiences, in their own words, are gathered on the Police Spies Out Of Lives site and should be read there.

On Tuesday, the leading focus was the targeting of Black family justice campaigns and groups. In particular, we heard from the barristers representing Doreen and Neville Lawrence, The Monitoring Group, and Mike Mansfield QC. The Inquiry was reminded again of how it has an uphill struggle to even convince these core participants that it is capable of preventing yet further injustice, let alone of tackling the issue of institutional racism.

‘YOU WILL BE SILENCED’

Sir John Mitting, who is so sure of his own lack of bias that he’s refused input from any perspective other than his own, has treated Rajiv Menon QC, barrister for the victims of spycops, very poorly.

As the very first police witness gave evidence, Menon wanted to ask a series of questions. Mitting was clearly unhappy with this, describing his own decision to permit Menon questions on a single issue as ‘exceptional, and I do not propose to invite you to ask questions on any other topic’.

Menon tried to protest and explain why it was important for the non-police  core participants, at which point Mitting’s hostility became overt, telling Menon to obey or ‘you will be silenced’.

On Wednesday, Menon questioned Tariq Ali about a closed meeting of the Stop the War Coalition steering committee in 2003. As the public were not allowed at this meeting, the report must have come from a committee member or a recording device.

Mitting’s reaction to this simple statement was extraordinary: immediately and forcefully interrupting to warn Menon that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 prohibits any reference to intercepting communications unless Mitting deems it necessary in advance. ‘You will be committing an offence if you persist’, he intoned. ‘I would warn you not to’.

Menon, a barrister of 26 years’ experience and well aware of the law, explained that he was talking about the committee being bugged by a recording device, rather than an interception of communications, and therefore, the Act doesn’t apply. Mitting apologised, but it’s clear that he is giving Menon very little credit, and even less chance to pursue vital lines of questioning.

POLITICAL POLICING

Mitting’s attitude and performance so far fall completely in line with the overarching theme that the State and the spycops are there to support each other in maintaining the norms and values of the current government.

Spying upon anyone who they wanted to spy on was not only justified, but good, simply because they did it. National security, public order, and the convenience of the government of the day were fully interchangeable concepts for them. Any intrusion was justified because every citizen is a potential subversive.

Joan Hillier said that personal details – dates of birth, home addresses, etc – of those not even suspected of anything untoward would be routinely added to Special Branch files ‘in case it was needed in the future’.

By the spycops’ own admission, their aims were hazy, their training ranged from the informal to the non-existent, and they often didn’t feel like they accomplished anything.

On Thursday, Counsel to the Inquiry David Barr quoted from spycop John Graham’s written statement on Special Branch’s role regarding policing political groups:

‘I understood the role of Special Branch to be carrying out enquiries concerning the security of the State, in other words gathering intelligence on activities that sought to undermine the status quo, the government of the day and the political establishment’.

The conflation of national security with the convenience and policy of the government has always been a central factor in what spycops do. This Inquiry is, thus far, no different from the spycops’ operations.

WHAT NEXT?

There will be three more days of evidence from police (Monday, Wednesday and Thursday), with the possibility of unfinished things being heard on Tuesday and/or Friday.

After that, the Inquiry will take a break to assess what it’s heard. It will be back next year for another batch of hearings covering the SDS 1973-82. That’s currently expected to be around April 2021.

Hearings concerning the SDS 1983-1992 are expected in the first half of 2022, and those examining the SDS 1993-2007 are likely to take place in the first half of 2023.

Some time later there’ll be hearings on the National Public Order Intelligence Unit 1999-2011, then other undercover policing, then mid and senior rank officers, other agencies and government departments.

The Undercover Policing Inquiry has no set end-date, but is expected to perhaps conclude around 2026.

COPS will be live tweeting every hearing, producing a summary every evening, and a weekly report like this one at the weekend. All our daily and weekly reports, and our UCPI FAQ, are linked on our UCPI Public Inquiry page.

<<Previous UCPI Weekly Report (2-6 Nov 2020)<<

>>Next UCPI Weekly Report (16-19 Nov 2020)>>

Undercover Policing Inquiry
Weekly Report 1
2-6 November 2020

After five years of waiting, the Undercover Policing Inquiry finally got off the ground in earnest this week. This first round of hearings will be split in two parts. First, Opening Statements from all the core participants. Second will be actual evidence for the period 1968 to 1972.

The Opening Statements are a chance for the various parties to essentially lay out how they view things. They began with the Counsel to the Tribunal, David Barr QC, presenting a general overview of where we stand.

This was followed by barristers for police and those who were once in the world of police but are no longer. Finally came the non-state/police core participants, whose statements will continue into this coming week. In this report we will try to summarise what was a lot of material, and reflect upon the words of the lawyers.

Barr noted that much of what the spycops did during their deployment is already public knowledge:
• deceived more than 30 women into long-term intimate relationships
• fathered children with some of these activists
• stole the identities of dead children to provide convincing cover stories
• deceived grieving families, and worked to prevent them learning the truth
• undermined anti-fascist, anti-racist, environmental, and other social justice campaigns
• were responsible for the blacklisting of thousands of workers for wanting safe working conditions or being politically active

Despite acknowledging this, it is disappointing that Mr Barr failed to properly credit the activists. The women deceived into relationships were a fundamental part of exposing the spycops. The existence of this Inquiry is based on their work.

This phase will also look at various documents and hear evidence from 1968–1972. It does not cover the actions of spycops while outside England and Wales, despite them being active in around 20 other countries during their deployment.

There were also some surprising pieces of previously undisclosed information, and statements from people previously unheard from.

How and why was the Special Demonstration Squad set up?

Following the windows of the US Embassy being broken during an anti-Vietnam War demonstration in March 1968, Special Branch attempted to gather information on the next demo. Their usual tactics being unsuccessful, they created the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) who went deep undercover, living as activists among various anti-war groups.

The next demo in October 1968 was less volatile, and this was taken as a sign of the new unit’s success. Mr Barr has stressed that the Inquiry must decide not if it was successful, but if it was a necessary or disproportionate response.

The SDS rapidly widened its scope and began investigating subversion and demonstrations and disruptions of public order. Any organisation seeking social change could easily be said to be covered by their remit. By the early 1970s, the SDS was aiming to profile anyone ‘within weeks’ of first showing interest in ‘extremist ideas’.

One of the police barristers, Oliver Sanders QC (representing 114 spycops, the majority of former and current undercovers), stated that the main function of the SDS was to assess public order threats. In the period currently being examined by the Inquiry, 1968-72, many of these came from political protests. Their secondary function was providing intelligence on ‘subversion’ to MI5.

What was the role of MI5 and the Home Office?

Since the story of the spycops surfaced, the events have been framed as the work of one rogue officer, then several rogue officers, then rogue units. Those higher up unfailingly point the finger at those lower down.

It is now clear that from the very beginning, the SDS was funded by the Home Office and reported to MI5.

Sanders provided new information:

• MI5 and spycops were so allied that MI5 considered funding the SDS
• They liaised to ensure they didn’t duplicate spying, which might have resulted in spying on each other’s officers
• MI5 recommended tips to SDS spycops, and they asked for specific info
• Most SDS intelligence reports were copied to MI5 with the file reference numbers of the people / group already added
• the SDS weren’t in a position to question MI5’s focus, thinking and efforts, but were just following orders. ‘The SDS was a politically neutral cog as part of a much larger apparatus,’ he said.

Despite the Home Office directly funding the unit for over 20 years, a 2014 report commissioned on the link between the two institutions noted the key file was suspiciously missing. However, a lot of SDS reports have been retrieved for the Inquiry from copies sent to MI5.

How are the police lawyers attempting to portray the actions of the SDS?

It is now clear the various police lawyers are switching tactics and actually trying to justify the actions of the SDS. They describe the spycops as a benevolent and useful group, indispensable to the safety of the public, who only wanted political information so that demonstrations could be effectively policed.

Claim: Police never intend to harm anyone, including the women deceived into relationships

Peter Skelton QC, for the Metropolitan Police, told the Inquiry that the Met is ‘aware of continuing anger and distress of victims of spycops’. He said the Met stands by its 2015 apology to women deceived into relationships by spycops (despite the fact that it still won’t let women see their files, and is delaying civil claims by some of them).

Richard Whittam QC, representing a smaller group of undercovers and managers, also mentioned the apology naming such activity as ‘abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong’. But, he said, spycops committing crime is essential for national security and the prevention and detection of other people committing crime. The apology should be seen ‘in context’, by which he seemed to mean it should be disregarded.

This echoed other police lawyers, who have implied that it was acceptable to abuse people because times were different then, and it was all done for the greater good.

Claim: Spycops are better than the alternative

Repeatedly, police noted that people have been killed on protests – citing two cases from the 1970s, Blair Peach and Kevin Gately – and there would be more death and injuries if it wasn’t for the undercovers ensuring demos were policed properly.

Contemptuously, they failed to mention that Blair Peach and Kevin Gately actually both been killed by the police; Gately in 1974 on an anti-fascist protest organised by heavily spied-on groups, and Peach in 1979 as a member of the most spied-on group of all, The Socialist Workers Party, on an anti-racist protest.

Discussing spycops stealing of dead children’s identities, Sanders said that though it was regrettable, it was necessary to prevent risk of exposure. The alternative to spycops with stolen identities was paramilitary police on demonstrations, he said. This is a patently ridiculous excuse.

Claim: Intelligence must be gathered indiscriminately

Spied-upon groups which were newly named this week include Justice for Rhodesia, Croydon Libertarians, and the St Pancras & Camden United Tenants Association. This contrasts strongly with police insistence that spycops saved the public from violent riots, murder and mayhem by infiltrating these groups; that it was necessary to spy on people who were committing no crimes in order to get to the ‘real criminals’.

The SDS essentially turned belonging to groups such as Hackney United Tenants Ad-Hoc Committee into a valid reason for the state to target you for surveillance. A report from 1973 gives the names of three people who had merely asked about the International Marxist Group.

They did, however, say they found it difficult to infiltrate black power movements; a rather telling sign that they were lacking in Black police officers.

Claim: Even though they’re bad, we can’t judge them because it was a long time ago

Essentially, police lawyers found various ways to say ‘what the spycops did may have been bad but it was a long time ago, lessons have been learned, it’s different now, nobody need lose their job or pension, move on, there’s nothing to see here’.

This directly contradicts documents that make clear the government was aware from the very beginning that what they were doing was deeply unethical, and would cause public outrage if discovered. Even by the standards of 1968, the spycops’ behaviour was blatantly immoral.

This refrain was accompanied by police barristers stating that other types of undercover work keep the public safe from paedophiles and terrorists. This is of little relevance to the activities of political secret police.

It ignores that the spycops of 2010 – long after the supposed new regulatory framework of the Human Rights Act, and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act – were, if anything, committing even worse abuses than their 1968 counterparts.

The Inquiry also heard from representatives of the groups and individuals who were spied on

Families of the dead children whose identities were stolen

The Inquiry recently informed 19 families that their dead children’s identities were stolen by spycops. The Home Office Select Committee demanded in 2013 that affected families be told, yet the Met refused. Skelton conceded that the Met hadn’t cared about the families of these children.

Sanders said this procedure was invented in an earlier time when people felt differently about death and risk (once again using the ‘it was a long time ago’ excuse), yet the practice continued until the 1990s.

Additionally, one family whose living child’s identity was stolen has been informed.

Justice campaigns of grieving families, represented by Richard Parry and Jane Deighton

These were families in mourning who just wanted answers about what had happened to their loved ones so that they could have at least some closure; in many cases the parents and relatives of people who were barely more than children, and died violent deaths under traumatic circumstances.

Instead, their efforts were blocked and police were openly hostile to them and spycops infiltrated their campaigns for the truth. Police resources that should have been spent catching killers were instead spent on obstructing justice.

As a teenager in 1993, Duwayne Brooks survived a racist attack in which his best friend Stephen Lawrence was murdered. Brooks was spied upon in an attempt to discredit his evidence. He said this week that he won’t testify unless he can see his whole police file first.

Skelton said the Met is ‘grateful’ for Duwayne Brooks’ and Stephen’s mother Doreen Lawrence’s work.

Workers with trade unions and/or politically active workers who were blacklisted

Reports show that trade unions were targeted and spied on from as far back as 1973. Yet, Sanders unequivocally stated that the SDS did not have any involvement in industrial blacklisting.

It did not target justice campaigns, members of parliament or trade unions directly, it was merely inevitable collateral collection while spying on other things, he claimed. These are lies, with ‘collateral damage’ as an excuse. Whether accidental or deliberate, it’s still spying.

Dave Smith, a trade unionist and co-author of Blacklisted: The Secret War Between Big Business & Union Activists, was due to give evidence on Friday 9 November but was gagged by the Inquiry after a legal challenge to the content of his prepared statement.

Three wives (now ex-wives) of spycops, represented by Angus McCullough QC

For all but one of the wives of the undercover officers, it is the first time their words have been heard. In most cases they are now ex-wives, such was the stress their relationships were subjected to due to the activities of their husbands.

There can be no doubt that they were deceived and abused as badly as any other victim of the spycops. They were told that their husbands were gone for long periods in the interests of national security, not that they were on holiday in Thailand or Crete with women they’d manipulated into believing were the loves of their lives.

McCullough described how although they were vetted as support for their husbands, the wives and their children were offered no support during the periods of deployment. Nor were they years later, when the Met knew that the stories were about to hit the press and yet did not deign to warn them.

The officers themselves were flatly told that there would be very little support during deployment. They were given no prior warning of the psychological impact that going deep and long-term undercover would have on them. They received even less support than they’d been promised.

Skelton admitted the Met ‘hasn’t always understood’ how to support the spycops officers. Their wives, all of whom are mothers with children to care for, were used by the SDS and the Met as free, unqualified, in-house emotional support and therapy for their officers.

Peter Francis, represented by David Lock QC

Peter Francis, the only spycop whistle-blower to have come forward, was an SDS officer from 1993-98.

This week he requested a cast-iron guarantee from the Metropolitan Commissioner of immunity to prosecution for information about spycops he revealed prior to the Inquiry starting. Under the Inquiry’s terms, witnesses including Peter Francis cannot be prosecuted for anything that he says during the proceedings.

However, he could be charged under the Official Secrets Act for his previous public statements. His pension hangs in the balance, and he will not testify without absolute confirmation he will not be charged.

It should be obvious that without his evidence, this cannot be a properly informed inquiry. Under the current timetable, the Inquiry doesn’t intend to take evidence from Francis until 2023.

People from a vast range of groups targeted for their political beliefs and activism, overwhelmingly from the left

By the Inquiry’s own admission, over 1000 groups were spied upon (although Sanders and the police themselves now deny this).

This week, they revealed the previously unknown names of just 44 of them. This comes too late for members of those groups to ascertain which of their friends or intimate partners never really existed, let alone participate in their only current chance for some kind of justice.

New photos of SDS officers published

The Inquiry also published previously unseen photos of various officers. Only one was a spycop; the rest were mostly back office staff, apparently all at the same festive event in 1968.

People are excluded from the Inquiry, including core participants

Lawyers for the non-police side noted that without names and photos of spycops it is impossible to reach all the people who were their victims. It is grossly unjust that they will not be represented through the deliberate choice of the Inquiry to exclude them.

There are a great many people who, even though they know they were spied on and have come forward, will also be excluded. Another deliberate choice by the Inquiry is to refuse to livestream the proceedings.

After this week, the hearings will be conducted in secret. Despite that fact that secure livestreams have been set up due to Covid-19, only the text will be made available after the proceedings have finished.

As already stated, over five years into the Inquiry many victims still have no documents. Many more have no names or photographs that would answer otherwise impossible, unanswerable questions.

People giving evidence who were spied on during this time were only provided with relevant documents – a total of 5,263 pages – five weeks ago. Attempting to read all of them before the start is roughly equivalent to reading all of Lord of the Rings twice a week for five weeks straight.

No diversity, no understanding

The Inquiry’s Chair, Sir John Mitting, is not just preventing the victims’ access to full understanding, he’s determined to prevent his own. From the very beginning, calls have been made for a diverse panel of people with relevant life experience to advise and guide the Inquiry. This is standard practice for other inquiries, yet Mitting refuses to follow precedent.

The goal of this Inquiry should be to unflinchingly and honestly deal with institutional sexism, racism, and attacks on workers’ rights and the conditions of the disadvantaged. As an old white cis male Knight of the Realm who is a member of the men-only Garrick Club and finds the Macpherson definition of institutional racism ‘controversial’, comprehending these realities is beyond him.

As Ruth Brander, representing the Non Police/ State Core Participants, told him this week, ‘With respect, the concern is you, sir’.

A wise and impartial man would ask for help. Instead, Mitting refuses the offer of information that would increase the chances of a fair conclusion to the proceedings.

What next?

After two more days of opening statements from victims of spycops, the Inquiry’s first evidence hearings (Phase 1 of Tranche 1) will start on Wednesday 11 November. They will cover the formation of the Special Demonstration Squad in 1968, in response to protests against the war in Vietnam, and why it continued beyond that. They will continue until Friday 20 November.

The next set of hearings after that, taking evidence of events from 1973 to 1982, are expected in spring 2021. The Undercover Policing Inquiry has no set end-date, but is expected to perhaps conclude around 2026.

COPS will be live tweeting every hearing, producing a summary every evening, and a weekly report like this one at the weekend.

For more information including an FAQ, see the links on our UCPI Public Inquiry page.

>>Next UCPI Weekly Report (9-13 Nov 2020)>>