UCPI – Weekly Report 10: 15-17 July 2024

This summary covers the third week 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 (SDS), 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.

INTRODUCTION

This week’s hearings focused on the infiltration of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and various peace groups including the Greenham Common women’s peace camp, revealing the extensive and often invasive surveillance carried out by undercover officers, along with the clearly political motivations for the deployments.

Campaigners feared nuclear war with the Soviet Union during heightened cold war tensions, and opposed the Government’s plans to expand the UK’s arsenal of nuclear weapons and station US nuclear missiles on British soil.

In the early 1980s this outrage led in the early 1980s to protests hundreds of thousands strong, and blockades at military bases around Britain involving tens of thousands.

With public opinion at that time posing a significant challenge to government policy and a threat to the re-election of the Conservative Party in the General Election in 1983, at least five spycops were deployed into the anti-nuclear movement.

The Special Demonstration Squad specifically recruited a woman police officer, HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’, to infiltrate the peace camp at Greenham Common. She was told that the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher at the time, wanted to know what the ‘Greenham women were doing’.

The Inquiry heard allegations that intelligence from spycops was exploited by Thatcher’s government to attempt to discredit and undermine anti-nuclear campaigns and the Labour Party’s support for unilateral nuclear disarmament just before the general election.

This week’s Undercover Policing Inquiry hearings featured detailed testimonies from three of the undercover officers involved and four of the activists they spied on.

Common themes from the police testimonies revolved around the supposed ‘justification’ for surveillance based on perceived public order ‘threats’ and the lack of clear guidelines and oversight of the deployments.

In contrast, the activist testimonies highlighted the government using the police for political ends and the outrageous targeting of this important movement for world peace, as well as the personal and community impacts of being subjected to covert surveillance, the breach of trust, and the ongoing repercussions of these operations.

OBSERVATIONS

It’s worth pointing out that on the third day of hearings, Greenham Common activist Rebecca Johnson’s witness statement was read out by a lawyer while Rebecca sat in the public gallery, an observer to her own testimony. Despite her willingness to testify and her crucial role in the events under scrutiny, the Inquiry chose not to call her for questioning. This exclusion was particularly striking given how often others referred to her expertise and experiences.

Hilary Moore, another activist, repeatedly drew attention to the ridiculousness of the Inquiry’s omission by suggesting the person to ask instead would have been Rebecca, who was after all actually living at the camps, ‘it would trip off the edge of her tongue.’ she said.

Asked to explain the structure of Greenham Common camp, Hilary responded, ‘Rebecca would be better at explaining this too.’

Asked what extent were actions planned or spontaneous she again replied, ‘I don’t think I can help with that really. I think, again, Rebecca is the better one there.’

The failure to engage directly with Johnson’s testimony raises serious questions about the thoroughness and fairness of the Inquiry, especially considering her significant contributions to the peace movement and her extensive first-hand knowledge of the issues at hand.

CONTENTS

Monday 15th July (Day 8)
Live: Kate Hudson – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

Tuesday 16th July (Day 9)
Summary of written evidence:
HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’
HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’
Live: HN65 ‘John Kerry’

Wednesday 17th July (Day 10)
Summary of written evidence:
Rebecca Johnson
Live: Hilary Moore
Live: Jane Hickman

Day 8: Monday 15 July

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Monday’s hearing focused on the infiltration of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) by undercover police officers during the 1980s and early 1990s.

Kate Hudson

Kate Hudson gave live evidence on behalf of CND. She started out as a supporter and is now the general secretary and author of a history of the organisation.

Hudson was questioned by John Warrington whose uncharismatic approach made the live evidence about this quite fascinating chapter of spycops infiltrations surprisingly dull and difficult to follow.

They began with her background and a history of CND since it was set up in 1957. Hudson explained the motivations behind CND’s campaigns, which were rooted in international law, concluding:

‘CND is in essence an enormously moral organisation determined to preserve life, to prevent further use of nuclear weapons, and of course to prevent nuclear weapons testing too.’

She emphasised that CND was a:

‘very broad church, including people from all walks of life, all faiths and none, different political perspectives and none.’

She detailed CND’s rapid growth in the 1980s, from a few thousand to over 100,000 members, driven by growing fears of nuclear apocalyse:

‘I think anyone who was around at that time would remember being in great fear and anxiety about the possibility of nuclear war.’

She described the structure of the organisation, with autonomous local and regional groups organised within a national framework.

CND’s primary objectives during the period examined by Tranche 2 of the Inquiry (1983-1992) were to oppose the introduction of Trident nuclear weapons and the deployment of US Cruise and Pershing missiles in Britain and Europe. Campaigning activities ranged from local efforts such as leafleting and petitioning to national demonstrations and parliamentary lobbying.

Warrington dedicated significant questioning to the organisation’s involvement in Non-Violent Direct Action (NVDA).

Hudson explained that NVDA was driven by morality and principal, and had always been a core part of CND’s activities. It took many forms including peace camps, occupations, blockades, sit-ins, blocking roads, and cutting fences at military bases.

Hudson strongly emphasised:

‘Non-violent direct action has never been a secret thing within CND. It’s a kind of strand of activity that we’ve supported since the early days, and at different times it has been more or less salient.’

She acknowledged that for some NVDA activities, advance notification to police might not occur:

‘In certain cases, where individual campaigners are prepared to take what might be described as illegal action, so for example blocking a road and willing to risk arrest and to do that on the basis of the defence of necessity… obviously one wouldn’t inform the police about those, because you would want to be able to get into place in the road before you were moved.’

The Inquiry presented several documents related to CND’s NVDA training and workshops. Hudson expressed approval of these efforts:

‘I think it is very impressive… how seriously the local groups and local campaigners were taking non-violent direct action, in the sense of preparing properly for it… really taking it seriously, so that would have been with due regard for legal questions, health and safety, making sure that the individuals themselves were safe and knew that they knew about breaking the law and what that might entail.’

SPYCOPS IN CND

CND was infiltrated by two undercover officers, HN65 ‘John Kerry’ and HN18 ‘Timothy Spence’, who attended national conferences and gathered intelligence.

Their reporting showed extensive surveillance of CND’s activities, including internal training sessions, meeting reports and personal, sometimes derogatory, comments about CND members’ private lives, including details about relationships, sexual orientation, drug use, and personality assessments.

The Inquiry examined reports that included subjective and potentially offensive characterisations of CND members. One report described a retiring chairman as ‘deeply enamoured with the sound of his own voice’ and ‘petulant.’

Another referred to a woman elected to a position as deriving her support more from her ‘ ‘glamour’ image’ than ‘any real ability.’ Hudson described this reporting as ‘incomprehensible’ and ‘quite shocking’, noting that the tone is ‘offensive and deeply subjective’. She expressed particular concern about undercover officers entering members’ private homes.

In their undercover roles, HN65 ‘John Kerry’ was chair of Hampstead CND, while HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ was secretary of Hackney CND.

Hudson described these as positions of authority and responsibility within local groups, explaining that the chair would make decisions about agendas and meetings, while the secretary would handle communications and logistics. She noted that as delegates to regional or national meetings, these officers could have wielded multiple votes depending on their group’s size. She said it was:

‘entirely reprehensible to pose as someone acting in good faith amongst a group of thoroughly decent people.’

The Inquiry examined CND’s cooperation with the authorities during large-scale actions. A 1983 report about a planned ‘Peace Chain’ event noted extensive liaison with police and park authorities.

Hudson confirmed this was typical:

‘Ensuring the safety of the marchers is absolutely paramount, and stewards are very well briefed to make sure that they ensure that the march carries off in a peaceful fashion.’

This is significant because one of the roles HN65 ‘John Kerry’ took within the organisation was that of Chief Steward. In his witness evidence he claims all he did was set up a PA system, but Hudson pointed out that would be a serious dereliction of duty as the Chief Steward had ‘an enormous amount of responsibility’ for coordinating with police and ensuring participant safety.

Documents were presented showing CND’s instructions to stewards, emphasising peaceful conduct and cooperation with police. In the end tens of thousands successfully formed a 14 mile human chain between Greenham Common and Aldermaston nuclear research centre – which passed off peacefully.

ELECTION INTERFERENCE

The Inquiry also examined the then Conservative government’s keen interest in undermining CND, noting a report from October 1982 about CND’s plans for the upcoming election:

‘London region of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has prepared plans for a campaign at the next general election. In order to provide more information about the campaign the following decisions have been taken.
1. a pilot campaign will be launched for one weekend in February 1983 and will involve petitioning and door-to-door canvassing in the Prime Minister’s constituency of Finchley.

2. a general election fund will be set up.

3. an election pledge will be taken by people who would be prepared to take a week off work to campaign prior to the election.’

Warrington asked Hudson if she had any observations about what she’d seen of undercover police reporting about CND’s plans in advance of a general election.

‘Well, it makes one think, of course, that there was a kind of a political motivation.’

Her written statement pressed this point firmly home, quoting extensively from MI5 whistle-blower Cathy Massiter:

‘It was a very important party-political issue. Unilateral nuclear disarmament had been adopted as policy by the Labour Party, a General Election was in the offing, and it had been clearly stated that the question of nuclear disarmament was going to be an important issue there. It did begin to seem to me that what the Security Service was being asked to do was to provide information on a party-political issue…

It is clearly not a legitimate function [of the Security Service] because it directly contravenes the Charter.’

New evidence emerging in this Inquiry shows that not only the Security Service, but also the police were being used for party-political ends.

As Hudson explained:

‘There are reports from ‘John Kerry’ that serve no purpose other than assisting the [Conservative Party] 1983 General Election campaign.’

Her testimony underscored the invasive nature of the surveillance and its impact on CND, reaffirming the organisation’s commitment to peaceful protest and public advocacy. She highlighted the disconnect between the undercover officers’ perceptions and the actual operations of CND, suggesting that the surveillance was politically motivated to undermine CND’s democratic right to campaign.

Additionally, she noted that around 1983 spying on CND seemed to shift away from simply observing the activities of the group to a ‘’much more interventionist or surveillance approach,’ and that there was a ‘political campaign against CND to try and discredit its democratic right to campaign peacefully to change the path of government policy.’

Day 9: Tuesday 16 July

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’

Tuesday started with a summary of written evidence from HN33/HN98 ‘Kathryn Lesley “Lee” Bonser’ who was deployed between 1983 and 1986.

She joined Special Branch in the early 1980s and was recruited into the undercover unit after working as a plain clothes officer on a CND march. She recalled meeting with a superintendent about her recruitment:

‘he indicated that the Prime Minister [Margaret Thatcher] wanted to know what the Greenham women were doing, and so, the superintendent was asking whether I would be interested in helping the police to find out.’

HN33/HN98 ‘Lee Bonser’ worked in the back office before being deployed and claims she was the only woman doing so at the time. Like other spycops, she stole the identity of a deceased child, Catherine Leslie Bonser, and created a backstory of leaving an abusive husband, friends, and family before moving to London.

This particularly manipulative tactic of inventing trauma to cover gaps in backstories was common among officers of both main spycops units, the Special Demonstration Squad and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit.

She said she had received no guidance against police conducting abusive sexual relations or breaching legal professional privilege. Notably, she was not shown the ‘Informants who take part in crime’ document that prohibits involvement in court cases, nor the SDS Tradecraft manual before her deployment. She described the training:

‘Undercover officers would learn from fellow undercover officers and the SDS managers on the job.’

HN33/HN98 ‘Lee Bonser’ attended SDS meetings at a safe house twice a week. Claiming to have rarely discussed her deployment with other undercover officers, she said that if they did, it was:

‘kept quite light and we did not get into the nitty-gritty but we might have shared a story from which we could all learn.’

Regarding her targets, she said:

‘Lambeth Women for Peace were not looking to overthrow the government and so were not subversive. They were against the nuclear bombs and probably would have preferred a Labour government. I had some sympathy for their cause, but they also represented a challenge to public disorder in their numbers and ability to cause disruption.’

HN33/HN98 ‘Lee Bonser’ emphasised that she reported everything she observed, no matter how small:

‘I would report most actions. ie the group going out to do something. It could be a matter of public order, no matter how small. There may not have been violence, but there may have been disruption. So I reported it for someone else to consider the appropriate police response.’

Her reports covered addresses, telephone numbers, employment details, relationship statuses, and vehicle information of group members.

One report dated 13 July 1984 referred to her facilitating a meeting of the Lambeth Women for Peace. Another dated 28 October 1983 showed her providing bank details of the group Greenham Women Against Cruise, though she couldn’t recall how she obtained this information.

By June 1986, HN33/HN98 ‘Lee Bonser’ was redeployed to report on the Socialist Workers Party, attending only a few meetings over a couple of months. Her withdrawal strategy from Lambeth Women for Peace included pretending to emigrate to Australia.

She maintained that she did not form especially close bonds with individuals in her target groups and only participated in criminal activity once, entering the Greenham Common airbase alongside many others. She was never arrested or charged with any offences during her deployment.

Like so many of these undercover officers, HN33/HN98 ‘Lee Bonser’ said that, in the grand scheme of things, she did not think her reporting contributed much to policing.

HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’

The Inquiry summarised the written evidence of HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’, as he declined to give live evidence and, because he lives abroad, cannot be compelled to attend.

He was deployed between September 1983 and November 1986 in Hackney and Stoke Newington. He stole the identity of a dead child as the basis of his undercover persona.

Attracted by the excitement of the role and the significant income boost due to overtime, HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ joined the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) after being approached by Bob Potter and subsequently interviewed by an SDS inspector. He received no formal training but had access to a guidance binder on creating a cover identity.

Although he received no specific guidance against engaging in abusive sexual relationships or serious criminal activities, he claims to have understood that such actions were unacceptable.

AVOIDING RELATIONSHIPS – WHY DIDN’T THEY ALL DO THIS?

To avoid relationships and provide cover for absences, he used a close contact as a pretend girlfriend, taking her to his cover accommodation without introducing her to activist groups.
This is particularly significant detail. The police have claimed officers were essentially compelled to deceive women into relationships otherwise they would have seemed odd in the social group they infiltrated.

Leaving aside the fact that most social groups include people who aren’t in relationships who aren’t suspected of being cops, this shows that even if the police did believe that they had an effective tactic to get round it.

It’s something used later by other officers. HN596/EN32 ‘Rod Richardson’ (deployed 1998-2003) and EN34 ‘Lynn Watson’ (deployed 2003-2008) talked of their partners who lived elsewhere and occasionally attended social events with them (played by a police colleague).

This means that deploying spycops without a pretend partner was a deliberate choice. Why else would they do that, unless they wanted the officer to deceive women into relationships?

POLICE INFILTRATING THE POLICE MONITORS

Tasked by Detective Chief Inspector Short to monitor Hackney and Stoke Newington due to potential public order issues, HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ focused on the Hackney Campaign Against the Police Bill, which later became the Hackney Police Monitoring Group.

He reported on various police monitoring and anti-racist groups, including the East London Campaign Against Racist Attacks and Police Harassment. His cover job as a van driver facilitated his interactions with activists, allowing him to transport them to various events.

HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ detailed his involvement with these groups, noting their activities like campaigning against police presence in schools, critiquing police actions, and organising mass pickets. His reports included information on MPs’ speeches, individuals’ employment, foreign travel, and even personal details like sexuality.

It is worth re-emphasising here that at the start of these hearings in July the Metropolitan Police were forced to apologise for and condemn this kind of targeting regularly carried out by SDS spies.

The Met Commissioner admitted:

‘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. It is an example of unacceptable political policing’

In February 1984, HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ joined the Hackney Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), participating in significant events like Greenham Common protests and a protest walk around Molesworth RAF base.

As the secretary of Hackney CND, he attended and reported on various meetings and events, including the 1985 CND national conference. Despite his extensive infiltration, he did not consider the groups subversive, viewing their activities as minor criminality focused on public order.

During his deployment, HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ faced three near compromises of his secret identity, four road traffic collisions, and minor infractions like driving violations, all of which were smoothed over by his managers.

He maintained his cover without facing significant consequences. He asserted that he did not engage in sexual relationships while undercover, and his ‘criminal’ activities were limited to flyposting and highway obstruction without any arrests or court appearances.

HN88 ‘Timothy Spence’ mentioned a visit by Commissioner Sir Kenneth Newman to the SDS premises, where undercover officers were congratulated.

While he found the informal welfare monitoring during his deployment sufficient, he noted the long-term effects on his personal life, including unnecessary lying and contributing to his divorce.

Notably, HN88 said seeing how the police treated people whilst he was deployed undercover made him rethink his commitment to policing.

HN65 ‘John Kerry’

The bulk of Tuesday’s hearing was devoted to the live evidence of HN65 ‘John Kerry’.

David Barr KC, Counsel to the Inquiry, questioned him, and began by discussing his time in Special Branch before joining the SDS.

Regarding his recruitment into the SDS, HN65 ‘John Kerry’ was approached by HN126 ‘Paul Gray’, who told him that they only recruited married men as being married with children ‘is what brings you home.’

HN65 ‘John Kerry’ explained:

‘there was a concern, I believe, that when you are so integrated into your groups that you could go ‘native.’ And the idea that you had a family to come back to would be something that would keep your feet firmly on the ground.’

This clearly failed to prevent the many fraudulent sexual relationships with women activists. Beyond that, the work often devastated their home life and a huge proportion of spycops got divorced soon after their deployment ended.

HN65 ‘John Kerry’ admitted to being excited about joining the SDS:

‘it fascinated me. I thought how exciting to actually be doing undercover work.’

Like his colleagues, he stole the identity of a dead child. He expressed discomfort about this practice but when asked if he considered how the family might feel, he admitted:

‘I am not sure, I am sure they would be not very pleased with it.’

He described visiting Manchester to familiarise himself with his cover identity’s birthplace:

‘It was very uneventful. It was almost a waste of time. The road where the child had been born no longer existed and there was nothing else for me to do up there…

it seemed that that was required of everybody, that at least you went to where you were meant to have been born, so you would have some knowledge of it.’

His deployment initially focused on the International Marxist Group and the Campaign Against Racist Laws (CARL) which he claims to have targetted because he thought it was a recruitment tool for the League for Socialist Action.

He was ‘absolutely dumbfounded’ when he witnessed a large demonstration in London, revealing significant opposition to racist leglislaton. His reports on their activities were accepted by his superiors without question.

He soon shifted focus to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). He explained:

‘CND at that stage wasn’t of any great interest. The interest of CND arose primarily during 1981, with the imminent arrival of cruise missiles… their membership just flourished, it just blossomed, because of the antipathy to Americans bringing their weapons and placing them in our country.’

HN65 ‘John Kerry’ became deeply embedded in CND, and like other spycops he gravitated towards a major role, eventually becoming chairman of the Hampstead branch. Like other spycops at the Inquiry, he played down any suggestion that he actively sought out a position of authority:

‘they press ganged me into it, I said I would not be chair, I would only be a facilitator. Because that was the image that I was creating at the time. I said I didn’t want to control it, I didn’t want to manage the group. I wanted just to facilitate what we were doing.’

Throughout his deployment, he reported extensively on group activities, internal dynamics, and decision-making processes, and attended multiple CND national conferences.

When questioned about the appropriateness of some of his reporting, particularly on peaceful activities, he defended the practice:

‘it is one thing you learn quite early in Special Branch careers, that it is just as important to know when something is not going to happen as when something is going to happen.’

Of course, on that basis they could justify spying on every person in the country.

Regarding CND’s nature, he said that they were not trying to overthrow the state ‘whilst I was there’ and admits it was not subversive, but was too large. He added:

‘they really were nice people. I mean that sincerely.’

HN65 ‘John Kerry’ also reported on local councils and the Greater London Council in relation to their nuclear-free zone policies. When questioned about the appropriateness of this he admitted:

‘There are [SDS] tentacles everywhere and some might have reached too far.’

Regarding the potential political use of intelligence, he said:

‘You could ask that question of any report written in Special Branch at any time by any squad, unfortunately. That’s the name of the game with us. So the answer is yes, it might have been. Because that’s what happens to Special Branch reports.’

Throughout his testimony, HN65 ‘John Kerry’ grappled with the ethical implications of his work. When asked about the consequences of his reporting on ordinary CND members, he acknowledged that some of his reporting may have been inappropriate:

‘It’s walking on a tight line, I agree, yes. I didn’t perceive that at the time, but now you point it out in the cold light of day, yes.’

Regarding sexual relations he claimed he had been subject to a number of sexual advances but never told his managers. He said he had created a backstory about a deceased girlfriend to help deflect advances:

‘You needed something to explain why, why you weren’t interested.’

He said he never heard of sexual activity by HN106 ‘Barry Tompkins’, HN155 ‘Phil Cooper’, HN67 ‘Alan Bond’, or HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’. However, he said he had heard about HN11 Mike Chitty ‘Mike Blake’ ‘when everything hit the fan’ after his deployment ended, Chitty had secretly been returning to the people he’d spied on and continuing his social life with them, including a relationship with a woman. His claiming for petrol to make all these visits aroused suspicion, and the SDS spied on him and discvered the truth.

He had also heard rumours about HN10 Bob Lambert (who decieved four women into sexual relationships and fathered a child before being promoted to head of the SDS).

After leaving the undercover unit, HN65 ‘John Kerry’ claims he suffered vivid and troubling nightmares and would wake up sweating:

‘I wasn’t the only one… 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.’

Day 10: Wednesday 17 July

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Rebecca Johnson

Rebecca Johnson is a lifelong peace activist, campaigner, and an accomplished academic. In 2004, she received a PhD with her doctoral thesis focusing on multilateral nuclear arms negotiations. She has been unwavering in her commitment to the cause, becoming co-chair and then president of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), an organisation that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017.

She heard about Greenham Common on a CND march in October 1981 and began to visit from 1982. The Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp grew out of a 10-day protest walk by Women for Life on Earth to draw attention to NATO’s decision to deploy US ground launch cruise nuclear missiles at the Berkshire airbase.

After the ‘Embrace the Base’ demonstration in 1982 when 35,000 women came to Greenham to surround the airbase, 5,000 women chose to stay overnight and close the base the next day.

By the end of 1983 there were over 200 women living in separate camps around the airbase. There were no rules at the camp but there were two central principles: non-violence and holding women’s space.

Greenham women were open about their intentions, communicated openly with the public, and often invited journalists when they took actions.

Many women became involved in Greenham-connected peace groups, including Lambeth Women for Peace (LWP) which was infiltrated by HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’. Johnson has some memory of Lee Bonser as a ‘quiet and friendly’ member of LWP who visited Greenham and went to meetings. Johnson wasn’t friends with HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ but thinks she saw her at friends’ private homes.

Johnson herself took part in a number of actions including entering the Greenham airbase and occupying the main gate sentry box with a number of other women. She was one of 44 women who climbed into the base on New Years Day 1983 and danced and sang on the top of a nuclear weapons silo. She and many other Greenham women were subject to serious violence from the police and members of the US Air Force.

She was also one of the named plaintiffs in the Greenham Women Against Cruise Missiles (GWACM) court case brought against Reagan and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. She believes HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ attended one or more meetings about the GWACM court case in 1983 and 1984 when Jane Hickman discussed legal issues, in which case she would have been party to confidential legal advice.

The revelation that officers like HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ attended confidential meetings and potentially had access to privileged legal advice, along with her experiences at Greenham, have all reinforced her belief that state entities act to suppress legitimate peaceful protest and maintain the status quo.

She reflected:

‘The more I have learnt through the Inquiry, the less I trust the police, politicians, and state entities.’

As noted above, Johnson was not asked to give live evidence to the Inquiry and she had to sit in the public gallery as her evidence was read by someone else. The absurdity of this situation was frequently highlighted by the other women giving live evidence.

Hilary Moore

Hilary Moore did give live evidence, and provided a comprehensive account of her involvement with the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp and Lambeth Women for Peace from 1982 to 1987.

She described the camp’s non-hierarchical structure, where all women had equal voices and the camps at each gate had a distinct ethos. She added that the camps were inclusive and welcomed all women, regardless of their backgrounds. Refuting claims made by HN65 ‘John Kerry’ that the women were violently anti-male she flatly said:

‘Not at all. Lots of the women there were married, had male partners… This was just a crazy notion about Greenham.’

Moore detailed the various creative and non-violent actions at Greenham, including the ‘Embrace the Base’ demonstration in December 1982. She mentioned actions like making banners, participating in a dragon dance day, and reflecting the base with mirrors.

Moore emphasised the non-violent nature of their protests and the attitude to legality:

‘We did not seek to break the law, but sometimes it was necessary to make our point… There was the famous action when some of the fence was cut, and Lambeth Women for Peace were there then.’

Discussing Lambeth Women for Peace, Moore described the group’s broad focus on peace and other local and international issues. They organised educational events, leafleting, die-ins, and peace picnics.

The group also supported Greenham Common through visits and actions; ‘our core foundation was to support Greenham Common’.

She highlighted their successful Clapham Common peace camp in May 1983, which drew significant local support and media attention.

Moore was critical of the infiltration by HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’:

‘She got involved very quickly, and we had our suspicions from the start’

Moore described the officer’s fabricated backstory of escaping an abusive relationship, noting, ‘it just didn’t add up why she was there’.

HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ was always a bit of an enigma, with her lack of political understanding and odd background story raising suspicions. Moore noted the usefulness of the officer’s car, which was an unusual asset in the group, facilitating trips to Greenham Common. This is of course typical of what we know about many other undercover deployments.

HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’, despite her enigmatic presence, came across as sociable and participated in many activities with Lambeth Women for Peace. After meetings, it was customary for the group to go for a drink, and HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ would join them at the local pub. She also took part in occasional social outings, such as meals, and even visited Moore’s house for dinner with other members.

While she was not considered a close friend, the spycop was a part of their shared experiences. Moore noted:

‘I did have a note in the diaries that I still have from the 1980s of a time when she came round for a meal at my house. I am a bit surprised to see it in retrospect. I don’t particularly remember it, but I have made a note that she was coming round with two other women from Lambeth Women for Peace.’

Unlike the lasting friendships formed within the group, a deeper connection with HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ was hard to envision.

Moore also recalled how the officer frequently took on administrative roles within the group, such as taking minutes and even facilitating meetings. This involvement provided ample opportunities to gather information.

Despite suspicions, the group did not take significant actions against her, reflecting their open and trusting nature. Moore remembered HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ participation in various actions, though she often preferred to take a ‘backseat’ role such as acting as a legal observer.

While it may have been seen as a less active role, a police officer taking on such a vital legal support role in case anyone was arrested is a matter of serious concern.

Reflecting on the impact of the surveillance, Moore condemned the unnecessary and intrusive nature of the reports, particularly the inclusion of personal details and the creation of Special Branch files on group members.

She further questioned the justification for such intense scrutiny and highlighted the broader implications for civil liberties and democratic activism:

‘It’s just horrendous that those records have been kept and were ever made of myself or anybody else in the group. Totally unwarranted.’

Jane Hickman

Jane Hickman, a solicitor involved with the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp and Lambeth Women for Peace, also gave live evidence, and provided critical testimony about her experiences.

Incidentally, Hickman served as a commissioner on the Legal Services Commission and was the founding partner of the firm Hickman & Rose which is representing some of the non-state non-police core participants in the Inquiry.

Hickman was introduced to Greenham Common when she represented women arrested for occupying a sentry box in 1982:

‘Representing those women for that occupation of the sentry box renewed my interest in the politics of peace and disarmament’

Her professional engagement with Greenham led to a personal involvement. She continued to be involved with Greenham Common from 1982 to 1985, providing legal advice and support.

She described the nature of the legal issues faced by the Greenham women, including so-called ‘breaches of the peace’, criminal damage, obstructing the highway, and theft of the US Air Force bus.

She represented individual Greenham women and those who formed the Greenham Women Against Cruise Missiles:

‘I couldn’t say that I was a solicitor for the peace camp, because it didn’t, as an entity, instruct anyone’

One of the most disturbing aspects of Hickman’s testimony was her account of how HN33 ‘Lee Bonser’ infiltrated confidential legal meetings, breaching trust and legal professional privilege:

‘The risk is really high. I can’t be specific, but I think it’s real, that risk’

Having a police officer party to defendants’ discussions contravenes basic principles of the legal system.

She also discussed the long-term impact of this surveillance on her career. After being made redundant from the Balham Law Centre in 1980, she struggled to secure a public sector job.

‘I had the kind of CV at that point where every job I applied for I would get and I applied to countless local authorities and nobody wanted me’

When she finally asked Lambeth Council Legal Department why she had not been employed, she was told it was because she was ‘thought to be too political.’

Hickman reflected on this revelation:

‘I had never understood that, because this was before the internet, before they could look you up.’

Hickman provided a detailed account of her involvement in various legal cases related to the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp. Despite the challenges, she remained dedicated to providing legal support to the women involved in the peace camp. Her legal work was intertwined with her personal commitment to the cause of peace and disarmament.

Her testimony also shed light on the legal strategies employed by the Greenham Women Against Cruise Missiles. The group sought to challenge the deployment of cruise missiles in the UK by the US government through legal action.

Hickman highlighted the extensive research and preparation that went into building a case, which she described as creating a valuable repository of information for future campaigns against nuclear weapons.

‘We put together a real library of materials that would stand in good stead in the future.’

She also detailed the campaign’s impact, noting that it expanded the discussion around nuclear weapons and contributed to the foundation of the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons, which later won the Nobel Peace Prize.

In a particularly poignant part of her testimony, Hickman expressed her disbelief at being the subject of undercover policing:

‘I just think it is absurd. And very alarming. Because I think if it happened to me it could happen to just about anyone. I know my views were on the left still at that period, and I was a feminist, but these were mainstream ideas. I was introduced to Marxism by a British university, not by some secret Soviet cabal. I find it inexplicable.’