Spycop Gets Special Treatment – and Inquiry Won’t Say Why

Spycop HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ is back at the Undercover Policing Inquiry this coming week. He’s been given a set of last-minute ‘special measures’ for his questioning in quite extraordinary circumstances.

HN1 is a key figure in the spycops scandal. Deployed into London animal rights groups 1991-1996, he personally committed most of the worst abuses for which the Special Demonstration Squad is infamous.

He stole the identity of a dead child, he deceived a woman – Liz Fuller – into an intimate relationship, he was arrested in his fake identity, and he was an agent provocateur.

The Inquiry’s original Chair, Lord Justice Pitchford, assured us that women deceived into relationships would be given the fullest possible account about what was done to them and that this included, at a minimum, the man’s real name.

Pitchford’s successor, Sir John Mitting, has broken this promise. He says that the right of Liz Fuller to know the real name:

‘is outweighed by an even more compelling reason of public interest which cannot be stated openly.’

The most obvious implication is that HN1 currently has some role that would be adversely affected if people knew the truth about who he really is. Which is all the more reason for his name to be made public.

We’ve already seen how HN2 Andy Coles had become a pillar of the community in Peterborough before he was unmasked by activists.

He was a school governor, endorsing a campaign to protect older teenagers from abuse and sexual exploitation (despite being a perpetrator of it himself when he was a spycop), and Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Cambridgeshire (despite playing a key role in one of the greatest scandals in Metropolitan Police history).

He too would surely have had a ‘compelling reason of public interest’ to be anonymous if we hadn’t exposed him first.

So we have to wonder what undeserved position of civic trust or public respect HN1 is currently in that the Inquiry is so depserate to protect.

SUDDEN CHANGES

On 13 January 2025, the very end of the Inquiry’s hearing was devoted to hearing submissions made to the Chair on the subject of HN1 ‘Matt Rayner’ and the extra ‘special measures’ that had been announced on 23 December, immediately before everything stopped for Christmas. The full details were not properly shared or confirmed until after the holidays, on 8 January.

We were shocked to learn that this officer, whose real name is still being kept secret, would no longer be appearing in person. Instead, he would just participate remotely, and would not be visible to anyone other than the Chair and the Inquiry team.

The Chair, Sir John Mitting, had already reached this decision without any consultation with the victims of these police officers’ abuses.

The hearing on 13 January was the first opportunity for ‘non-state core participants’ (the people who were spied on) to respond to this news, and put forward their views for consideration.

First, we heard from Tom Lowenthal, acting on behalf of the ‘Category H’ core participants (individuals in relationships with undercover officers)

He started by saying that some of the women who were deceived into relationships by undercovers had applied to be able to see HN1 give evidence.

He was immediately interrupted by Mitting, who said there had already been some discussions, and agreement reached ‘on all relevant sides’ that one of these women, Liz Fuller, would be allowed to see and hear his evidence live.

Despite the Inquiry’s previous assurances that women deceived into relationships by spycops will be given the real name, Fuller still isn’t being told. Not only is there the overwhelming ‘public interest’ reason for this, but the nature of this reason is being kept secret too.

Several other women deceived into relationships by spycops – ‘Jessica’, Helen Steel, ‘Alison’ and ‘Lindsey’ – have also applied to see his evidence, and their submissions were read out.

They didn’t have an intimate relationship with HN1, but emphasised that none of these relationships were isolated events, taking place in a vacuum:

‘SDS officers advised, supported and covered for each other in perpetrating these abuses’.

HN1 has said he knew that women activists considered HN2 Andy Coles ‘creepy’. It’s vitally important that Jessica, who was deceived into a relationship by Coles, is given maximum chance to understand what HN1 knew and when about that relationship.

Similarly, Helen Steel would like to better understand the way that HN5 John Dines treated her, and the callous exit strategy that he adopted. She knows that HN1 was with Dines (who was his Special Demonstration Squad ‘mentor’) when her relationship with him ended, and she wants to know how much he knew about this.

 

‘Alison’ was deceived into a five-year relationship with HN15 Mark Jenner, and ‘Lindsey’ was deceived into a year-long relationship with HN104 Carlo Sorrachi. These both took place after HN1’s deployment, and it is likely that his behaviour ‘set the stage’ for those who came later.

The police have already admitted that these relationships were a violation of the women’s Article 3 human rights – ‘no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, an absolute right that no circumstances can ever justify breaching.

In order to recover from these relationships and make sense of their experiences, the women need to understand more about them. Seeing HN1’s demeanour and facial expressions would provide them with far more insight than an audio-only feed.

The Inquiry has to balance their Article 3 rights against HN1’s own Article 8 rights (respect for his privacy), and Lowenthal believes it would be disproportionate to put his rights above theirs.

Mitting interrupted again to claim that there’s been a ‘misapprehension’, and that it’s actually HN1’s ‘safety’ that is the primary issue.

It’s pointed out that Jessica and Helen have both met HN1 in the past when he was undercover, and the others have seen contemporaneous pictures and videos of him (such as his role as ‘Watery Ophelia’).

All four women have followed all of the Inquiry’s privacy restrictions up till now, at ‘significant personal cost’.

They asked that if their application is rejected that they are supplied with gisted reasons for it. Mitting said he will reflect after he’s heard everyone’s submissions, and then state his reasons.

Next, we heard from Owen Greenhall, representing a number of Hodge Jones & Allen clients

There was also an application made on behalf of three of the non-state core participants and Geoff Sheppard’s Recognised Legal Representatives.

There is supposed to be a ‘presumption of openness’ in any public inquiry, and the burden is supposed to fall on those who seek privacy to prove why this is necessary.

In other legal cases, it has been felt that the use of a cipher and a ban on photography has removed any risk of an individual being identified. Why isn’t that enough here?

Geoff Sheppard is unable to attend the Inquiry venue but asked that his lawyers be allowed to view the evidence of HN1 – due to his involvement in Sheppard’s conviction and imprisonment, and the disputed facts around these issues – so they would be in the same position as the lawyers representing HN1 himself, rather than being disadvantaged.

What possible risk is there in allowing legal representatives to see him give evidence?

It was noted that there are explicit statutory restrictions to ensure that lawyers are able to see defendants in serious criminal cases.

It was also noted that there are multiple images of HN1 in his undercover role available online, and many of those he spied on saw him a lot and knew very well what he looked like.

Paul Gravett is one of those who saw a great deal of HN1 over those years, and had a fairly close relationship with him. Claire Hildreth has also given very moving evidence about the very close relationship she had with him.

Finally for this group, Dave Morris is concerned that HN1 abused his position (as babysitter to Dave’s child) to gain intelligence about the McLibel case.

Kirsten Heaven appeared next, on behalf of the entire ‘cooperating group’ of Non-State, Non-Police Core Participants

A group application had been submitted in writing asking that those with a ‘direct interest’ in this Tranche of hearings be given access to HN1’s evidence.

There was no reference to HN1’s ‘safety’ when this issue was first raised, or even the week before the hearing.

There has been no sight of any evidence (not even a ‘gisted’ version) to support his seemingly late application for these new ‘special measures’.

Kaden Blake had already given evidence about how she felt learning that he had stolen the identity of her deceased brother, and gathered personal information about her family in order to build his cover identity.

She said:

‘it is a further insult to us that HN1 applied for anonymity on the basis of his right to a private life.’

Heaven pointed out that HN1 misled the police and the courts during his deployment, and has not been entirely candid with the Inquiry itself up till now. He didn’t even admit to his sexual relationship with Liz Fuller until December 2017.

There is footage of HN1 performing in a play in the garden of someone’s private home in the presence of young children, showing his physical appearance, height, mannerisms and demeanour, and raising the bizarre possibility that he will be questioned about this incident (and the video shown) in a hearing where he himself cannot be seen.

Core participants are extremely disappointed that HN1’s human rights are being given precedence, given the way he which he violated their rights. Granting these special measures would only serve to further insulate him from public scrutiny.

The non-state core participant group was applying for permission to see him on screen. This would be critical to ensure equal treatment, to maintain public confidence in the Inquiry, and to allow those who view his evidence to assess his credibility for themselves.

Mitting brushed aside what was said about the lateness of the application for special measures, declaring:

‘I am not troubled about timing matters. This Inquiry must proceed, difficult decisions have to be made from time to time.’

Oliver Sanders, HN1’s lawyer responded

Sanders countered all of these arguments by telling Mitting that he and his Counsel will be able to assess HN1’s demeanour for themselves, and the rest of us don’t matter.

Someone’s demeanour is ‘always a somewhat subjective manner’ he said, standing with his arms crossed in front of him.

He pointed out that Mitting will be hearing from some other officers in entirely closed hearings (as if that makes it acceptable for HN1 to be granted this level of secrecy).

Sanders then suggested that HN1 has only been proceeding on the basis that special measures would be granted, and added that it would be ‘unfair to him and unsettling for him’ to change arrangements at the last minute.

He talked about how concerned his client is about his identity being revealed, then made the extraordinary claim that ‘there’s been an AI-generated image circulated on Twitter or X today’ showing how HN1 might look nowadays.

This is obviously nonsense. If the possibility of AI images derived from old photos were enough of a problem to warrant withholding someone’s current appearance, it would surely apply to everyone else who’s been granted a similar level of anonymity.

More to the point, we have been scouring the internet ever since and can find no evidence of such an image to back up Sanders’s allegation. His Chambers have not responded or commented on this. It appears that he just made it up and lied to the Inquiry.

Mitting responded to this, saying he wanted a ‘closed private submission’ from Sanders. Off they went to discuss it all in secret.

Twenty-five minutes later they returned, and he asked Sanders to respond ‘in open’ to one particular submission: the one made by Geoff Sheppard’s legal team (Owen Greenhall and James Wood KC).

Sanders argued that there was no basis for allowing Sheppard’s lawyers to see HN1 give evidence, and it wouldn’t ‘add anything’ to Sheppard’s pending appeal case.

James Wood KC responds

Given the opportunity to respond to this, Wood re-stated what Greenhall had already said: that this is a ‘wholly exceptional step to take’, and one that would not be permitted in any criminal proceedings.

The final decision

Mitting said there has been a risk assessment of some kind into the ‘safety’ of HN1.

He told us something we already know: that even HN1 has conceded that Liz Fuller and her lawyers should be allowed to see and hear his evidence, and this would not constitute too much ‘risk’ to him.

However, in response to the rest of the day’s submissions – from core participants with a real interest in HN1 (such as Paul Gravett) and several deceived women – he had decided that they and their lawyers would not be allowed to see him, only hear him.

Mitting gave his reasons:

• Giving evidence is unlikely to be an easy task for HN1.

• Mitting has to elicit the ‘best evidence’ he can get from each witness.

• He’s therefore very reluctant to do anything which might ‘disturb’ a witness.

• He says that ‘widening’ the group that can see the witness will ‘inevitably pose perceived risks’.

• He thinks he can assess HN1’s truthfulness and accuracy without anyone else’s assistance.

He does not say why these things don’t apply to all other witnesses.

In Mitting’s view, Geoff Sheppard’s pending Court of Appeal case engages criminal law so he had decided it was desirable to allow James Wood KC to see this ‘critical witness’ in order to assess his credibility.

In saying this, he accepted the deceived women’s point that seeing is very different to just hearing, but he implicitly believes Sheppard’s appeal against a criminal conviction is a far more serious thing than what officers did to the women.

Mitting added that someone’s demeanour is often said to play an overstated part but cannot be discounted entirely.

As Doreen Lawrence once said about spycops:

‘They were doing the deception. Why should they be allowed to be anonymous while people like me had their faces all over the newspapers? These people were not innocent. They knew what they were doing.’

TL;DR:

Liz Fuller can watch ‘Matt Rayner’, the man who deceived her into a relationship, give evidence.
So can James Wood KC.
Everyone else can just listen to his voice, and be glad that it’s not a ‘closed’ (private) hearing.
Once Mitting’s made his mind up, he doesn’t like changing it. And he doesn’t like asking anyone else what they think first.