UCPI Daily Report, 19 Nov 2025: Suresh Grover evidence

Tranche 3 Phase 1, Day 16
19 November 2025

INTRODUCTION

On Wednesday 19 November 2025, the Undercover Policing Inquiry heard evidence from Suresh Grover.

Grover is a long-term campaigner against racism. He has worked with the Southall Monitoring Group (later called The Monitoring Group) to help victims of racist violence and their families. Grover was pivotal to the campaign for justice by the family of Stephen Lawrence, a teenager who was murdered by racists in 1993.

This work has led to him being spied on for decades. Released documents show that the Met’s Special Branch opened a file on Grover in the mid 1970s. He was spied on for nearly 20 years before Stephen Lawrence was murdered. The Inquiry ignored this, focusing instead on the 1990s, when Grover was primarily spied on by Special Demonstration Squad officer HN81 ‘David Hagan’.

The Undercover Policing Inquiry (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.

Grover’s questioning is part of the Inquiry’s Tranche 3, examining the final 15 years of the Special Demonstration Squad, 1993-2008.

Grover has given the Inquiry a written witness statement [UCPI0000038013].

He was questioned for the Inquiry by Don Ramble. The Inquiry’s page for the day has video and a transcript of the live session.

BACKGROUND

Grover’s family came from Kenya in 1966 and settled in Nelson, Lancashire. As a teenager in the early 1970s, he was racially attacked and stabbed by skinheads.

‘I was not conscious about racism at that time, but it was a telling moment for me in my life, because before that I didn’t see myself as very different from any other student or kid of my generation.’

The perpetrator was well known. The Grovers had to see him around town, and yet the police refused to even take a statement from him.

‘It really drove me to look at racism and the impact of racism on our communities.’

In the mid 1970s, Grover moved to Southall in West London. Another pivotal moment on his path to activism occurred on 4 June 1976 outside the Dominion cinema on Southall High Street.

‘There was a reporting on the radio that somebody had been murdered, a young student called Gurdip Singh Chaggar, and I saw a police officer at the pool of blood and I went to him and asked him what happened and he just said to me, “Look this is Indian blood, just go away”. The way he said it was as if it was dirty blood.

That inspired a lot of young people in Southall to set up the Southall Youth Movement and come out on the streets against racial violence, because Chaggar’s murder was not the first one.’

THE MURDER OF BLAIR PEACH

On 23 April 1979, the National Front intended to hold a meeting at Southall Town Hall.

‘A public meeting openly calling for repatriation of anybody who was Black or brown or migrant, erasing Southall as a town and creating an English hamlet. That’s how they phrased it.’

There was a huge protest against the meeting, drawing people from many different communities. Police saw the anti-racist protesters as the enemy. Grover was there on the day and describes the scene:

‘A very militaristic occupation of Southall, resulting in 800 people being arrested, who were demonstrating peacefully. In a matter of four hours, 345 people were charged, there were serious injuries.’

One of the antifascists, 33 year old teacher Blair Peach, was killed by police. The Met knew precisely who was responsible yet did nothing.

An investigation by Commander John Cass of the Metropolitan Police’s Complaints Investigation Bureau identified the six officers who had, as a group, attacked Peach. Their lockers were searched and unauthorised weapons were found. One of them had Nazi memorabilia.

Cass’s report was not published at the time (it was eventually published 30 years later in 2010). However, it was available at the time to John Burton, the coroner who conducted the inquest. But Burton was very keen to toe the establishment line.

The Met claimed that Peach had an unusually thin skull. Despite 14 witnesses seeing the assault, Burton questioned whether police were involved at all. Grover was aghast:

‘It wasn’t just the ferocity of the blow, but because somehow he was responsible for having a thin cranium. That outraged a lot of us, and then Dr John Burton kind of out of nowhere created this theory that Blair Peach may have been killed by a left-wing activist to make him a martyr. There is no evidence of it whatsoever.’

The scale of the violence had shocked Grover, and seeing yet another blatant injustice outraged him. He set up the Southall Monitoring Group, embedded in the Asian and African-Caribbean communities to challenge racism, communal violence between religious groups, and domestic violence too:

‘When we set up the Southall Monitoring Group, I remember the first 50 cases that we got, out of which 39 were domestic violence cases. That’s because there was very strong patriarchy in our community and we wanted to challenge these young people.

We wanted to support women unconditionally if they wanted to leave their husbands because of violence. They wanted to set up and support women’s organisations who wanted to develop things autonomously in a self-organised way, so the Southall Black Sisters came out of the women of the Southall Monitoring Group.

It was not possible for us to live in a society where women were treated unequally, and they were part and parcel of the struggle that was taking place for equality and justice and not just against racism.’

Asked about the term and concept of ‘monitoring’, Grover explained that it came from the Black Panther Party in the USA. They were young Black activists who were campaigning against racism, brutality and poverty. As part of this, they would identify particular racist police activity and officers and hold them to account.

SUPPORTING THE TRAUMATISED

Grover says that The Monitoring Group has provided support to over 300 families who have lost a loved one, and given trauma support to over 1,500 victims of racism in the last decade.

He described how the impact of racism is emotional as well as physical, and not just for the person attacked but for whole families, friends and classmates. An instance can impact a whole community, especially when it’s a death.

‘It was about offering professional needs-based culturally-based service to victims of racism. Especially if they had suffered serious offences or were unable to navigate their life because of mental breakdowns or mental health problems, or because the impact was so severe they couldn’t have a meaningful quality of life.

We worked with a lot of psychologists, we created a programme of counselling… and we offered recovery plans to people. It was very private, very confidential.’

After the Stephen Lawrence inquiry in 1998, the Southall Monitoring Group received thousands of enquiries from all over the country. They responded to every one. They realised that they were no longer just for Southall, so changed their name to The Monitoring Group.

Grover is asked about the Ricky Reel campaign. Ricky died after being attacked by racists in October 1997. The police didn’t take his disappearance seriously, instead coming up with racist suggestions such as him running away to escape an arranged marriage.

Grover emphasises that, as always, the campaign was led by the family and he was just someone who supported them. He got local MP John McDonnell involved, organised search parties and had meetings with the police. When, after a week, they persuaded the police to search and directed them to likely places, Ricky’s body was found within a few minutes.

Grover also helped Michael Menson’s family. Menson had died in horrific circumstances in January 1997, the victim of an extremely violent racist attack which included him being set on fire. The police repeatedly suggested he must have done it to himself.

Michael’s family faced police indifference, and a refusal to investigate his death properly. The media were fed misinformation by officers, including smears about Michael’s mental health.

The family contacted The Monitoring Group when it came to Menson’s inquest. The jury reached a verdict of unlawful killing. Despite this, senior police officers continued to insist that the injuries were self-inflicted and that the coroner was wrong. The racist murder was eventually proved and three men were convicted.

Grover also supported Francis and Berthe Climbié after their eight year old daughter Victoria had been tortured and killed by a great-aunt. A great many agencies and professionals had been warned of the danger the girl was in, but they had failed to do anything about it. The ensuing public inquiry brought about major changes to child protection policy in the UK.

Grover described what his support role entailed:

‘Understanding the trauma they are suffering and then creating support around them unconditionally, be available with them on a 24-hour basis. Devise a strategy where we can get answers, whether it is from the police or [to] locate them if they are missing. Develop a campaign around them, using press and media…

It’s not about holding hands, it’s never been that. You know, most people who suffer racism or domestic violence are very conscious of what is the problem. It’s about offering them information and knowledge of what the legal process is and what the campaigning strategy can be. But they are the centre, they make the decisions, and you have to be quite selfless to allow that to happen.’

He said the Group never took charge of a campaign, nor stopped a family from involving whoever else they wanted to involve.

In 1989, Grover was made aware that he was being spied on. Investigative journalist David Rose had covered some of the work Southall Monitoring Group were doing supporting a family in Hounslow that was the target of ongoing racism. The local council had rebuffed The Monitoring Group’s representations and were passing information to the police. The Group was under surveillance by Special Branch.

There were some overt knock-on effects. Grover recounted how local politicians were discouraged from referring cases to The Monitoring Group following discussions with senior police officers. Funders said they were reluctant to allocate money because they’d been told the Group was ‘anti police’.

There were numerous break-ins at the office and to Grover’s car, where nothing of value was stolen, only documents. He was repeatedly stopped and searched by uniformed officers. These things tended to happen when he was involved with cases that had developed a high profile, including that of Stephen Lawrence.

Ramble brings up a Special Branch document from 10 September 1998, concerning the Stephen Lawrence campaign [MPS-0748392], which reported that the anger aroused by such issues could lead to public disorder, adding:

‘A number of groups and individuals see this issue as a natural platform from which to further their own (often extreme) political agenda.’

This is a running theme in spycops reports. They seem unable to comprehend the concept of solidarity, or even that someone could be genuinely anti-racist if they were not personally subjected to racism. Instead, they depict it all as something underhand, a jockeying for power.

Time and again we see the police expressing a belief that the people who say they want political change don’t genuinely mean it. This offers a powerful insight into the hierarchical and devious culture of undercover policing, and how the secret political police (who now openly admit they suffered from failures of ethical judgement) view humanity.

Grover agrees that there were some groups around the Lawrences trying to take advantage, including mainstream political parties. But the Lawrence family were always absolutely clear that they would not tolerate any public disorder on their behalf.

As for the wider potential for disorder, Grover agrees but gives it a different emphasis:

‘There is a lot of suspicion that this issue of racism and police racism won’t be dealt with. And that’s where the anger is coming from.

I think what’s happening is that the Lawrence case is seen as an example or a face of a greater tragedy that the Black communities and brown communities have suffered over decades, if not centuries.

So there is frustration that we are in 1998/1999 and the British state still doesn’t acknowledge that problem of racism. And it has a potential to lead to public disorder depending on what happens, yes.’

‘A CHEQUERED PAST’

The document mentions Grover by name:

‘Suresh Grover, who is the spokesman of the campaign, has long been the de facto head of the Southall Monitoring Group (now simply known as The Monitoring Group). He has a chequered past, involving a number of Trotskyist groups, and a high profile amongst the west London Asian community.’

It’s notable that not only is Trotskyism held to be intrinsically bad, but being Asian apparently ranks alongside it. Grover seems almost bewildered by the accusations:

‘I think it is so shallow, it doesn’t bear any resemblance to the reality… I have never been a member of any political party ever. I have obviously, during the course of campaigns, whether it is the Reel campaign or the campaigns you mentioned, met people from groups that are Trotskyist groups.

I don’t have an issue with talking to people. I have always talked to them. I don’t even have a problem with Trotskyist groups. I have worked with them. I have read Trotsky. It’s not an issue for me, but I have never belonged to them.’

The report continues:

‘Grover has been successful in maintaining the campaign in the public eye. However, he is in danger of losing some support amongst his Asian power base, as many feel he has aligned himself too closely with what they perceive as an Afro-Caribbean dominated campaign.

Furthermore, Grover has had to exercise restraint in his public pronouncements in order to retain his public funding.’

There it is again, the spycop belief that different groups must be in competition with one another, that campaigners are trying to amass personal power, that they all have much more sinister motives than they’re prepared to admit. And now they can apparently be bought off too.

Grover is agog:

‘I don’t think I had a public profile!’

The families he worked with always took the lead and the attention. As for the idea of Asian people not liking campaigns for families of another ethnicity, or The Monitoring Group choosing campaigns on the basis of race:

‘It is just cloud cuckoo land. Families come to us, they can be any race or nationality and we will support them if we have the resources and we believe that we have the capability and the expertise to do that.

So it just happened that I was dealing with the Lawrences, who were from the Caribbean origin, Michael Menson, who is African, and Ricky Reel, who is Asian. The Asian community actually supported the Lawrence campaign. They didn’t see it as different from their own experiences.’

The document also says Grover is about to turn his focus to the Ricky Reel campaign which will give him ‘the opportunity to win back support from his Asian constituency’.

Grover sounds equally disgusted and weary as he dismisses it:

‘I think it is racist stereotyping of me… I am not ambulance chasing different people of different nationalities suffering murder. The Ricky Reel family contacted me, I didn’t contact them.’

As for the suggestion that Asians would only support other Asians:

‘I actually call myself black, because I believe in the word ‘”political black”, I don’t know whether I need to explain that. We called ourselves the black community, which meant a mixture of anybody who had come from colonial countries and suffered racism, including Irish people…

We have never, ever, thought of this as a political campaign for gaining support from people on a Machiavellian basis. This has been purely to support a family because of the injustice that they have suffered.’

The document hasn’t finished with smearing Grover. It continues:

‘Grover privately agrees that the militancy that the [Stephen Lawrence] Inquiry has generated must be built on and he has promised the MFJ [Movement For Justice] leadership a place on the organising committee for the national civil rights march, planned for later this year.’

Grover says it is simply not true.

THE STEPHEN LAWRENCE CAMPAIGN

Grover was initially approached by a member of the Lawrence family for assistance. He helped them set up a campaign during the private prosecution of Stephen’s killers. He knew Stephen’s parents, Neville and Doreen, well, and was in daily contact with them. The friendship became deeper due to the intensity of the campaign.

‘I would have done anything for them… you want to ensure that people are strong, you make them strong by offering them support.’

He attended all 60 days of the 1998 public inquiry, liaising with the various groups and individuals who attended to show support.

He says at such times campaigns take over his whole life. The state has limitless resources while you have almost none. For the five years between the inquest and the 1998 inquiry, the Lawrences did not even get Legal Aid.

What they did have was a passionate, committed team who knew it was not just about the family themselves but about what it meant to others and what effects success might have:

‘People see their own experience through the tragedy that the Lawrences are suffering and they want things to change.’

OPPORTUNITY FOR CHANGE

With people having been failed by so many state agencies, there was some feeling that the 1998 Lawrence inquiry would be another pointless exercise. Grover knew it presented new opportunities to achieve explicit acknowledgement of institutional racism. The family gave him a de facto role of generating publicity.

He literally stood on a box in South London’s Elephant and Castle shopping centre talking to the general public about the case. He and others from the group leafleted and gave talks.

On the first day of the inquiry, only about a dozen people were in the public gallery. Grover knew that had to change. He wanted people to see the process for themselves, and he also wanted to show the media and inquiry that the public were watching. From there, the wider public discussion and awareness would develop.

The family started the inquiry by asking the Chair, Sir William Macpherson, to step down. They had seen his record in immigration cases. It showed he would not have the understanding of racism required to get to the truth. Their request demonstrated to the world that the Lawrence family were not going to sit by but were actively and uncompromisingly demanding the full truth. This garnered attention and support.

In the end, Macpherson did not step down, and in some ways that may have helped. He was so affronted at police behaving in a corrupt and untrustworthy manner that he came down on it at least as hard as a more liberal judge.

Ramble asks about the involvement of Alex Owolade from Movement For Justice (MFJ). Grover met him at the first week of the Lawrence inquiry and spoke to him no more than five times. MFJ were not part of the campaign.

Ramble brings up the written witness statement of HN43 Peter Francis [UCPI0000036012], who was infiltrating MFJ as well. Francis describes MFJ activist ‘Lewis’ passing on negative personal information about Doreen Lawrence that he’d heard from Grover.

Grover says it is scandalous to even suggest he would spread rumours about Doreen Lawrence, let alone to someone from MFJ who, contrary to Francis’s claims, he was never close to.

‘I am not close to the Movement For Justice. I am listening to them, I respect what they are saying, I am not agreeing with them. And I have a totally different ethos and philosophy and strategy at the inquiry than they do.

But that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be there, that they shouldn’t be engaged. It’s not a problem for me and I am not dismissive of them…

I always thanked people for coming to the inquiry, regardless of what their views were, because I think people taking their time out to support the Lawrence Inquiry is very important.

But I would never, ever and I haven’t ever, spoken about people’s personal issues – especially the Lawrences or any other family member – or any rumours that may be spread to people that I am not close to.’

He adds that he knows what the rumour is, knows it’s nonsense, and that it’s ludicrous to attribute it to him.

SPYCOP ‘DAVE HAGAN’

Ramble moved on to a pivotal SDS officer, HN81 ‘Dave Hagan’, who was deployed 1996-2002.

Much of the Special Branch intelligence on the Lawrence family campaign came from ‘Hagan’. He infiltrated Movement For Justice and, from there, spied on campaigns MFJ supported, including the Lawrences.

Hagan features prominently in the 2014 Stephen Lawrence Independent Review, which quotes a document written by his manager HN10 Bob Lambert saying that Hagan had persistently tried to have MFJ gain influence and steer the Lawrence campaign, despite the family’s attempt to prevent such groups doing it.

The 2014 Review revealed that in 1998, as the Lawrence public inquiry neared its end, Lambert brokered a meeting between Hagan and Richard Walton. Walton was a senior officer from the team crafting the Met’s institutional response to the inquiry. The Review describes Hagan as being, at the time, a police ‘spy in the Lawrence family camp’.

The outrage in 2014 was such that the Home Secretary was forced to set up the Undercover Policing Inquiry, mentioning Hagan four times in her explanation of why the Inquiry is necessary.

On the afternoon following Grover’s evidence to the Undercover Policing Inquiry, during the questioning of Doreen Lawrence, we learned that the SDS withdrawal strategy document for Hagan [MPS-0728625] says it had been his role to get Movement For Justice to support the Lawrence campaign.

If true, it is a devastating revelation. Movement For Justice was (wrongly) deemed to be a subversive threat to the state. The state sent in an agent who says he steered this ‘bad’ organisation towards the Lawrence campaign, then justified spying on the Lawrences because it was close to the ‘bad’ group.

Hagan has subsequently said it’s not true. He now says he was lying to his managers about his work and achievements. If this version is true, then the spying on the Lawrences and other justice campaigns wasn’t due to their adjacency to subversive groups. It means that the campaigns were, contrary to what the Met has said, spied on as independent targets. This is also a devastating revelation.

It is very disappointing that this wasn’t mentioned during the questioning of Grover about his role within the Lawrence campaign.

The Undercover Policing Inquiry wanted to question Hagan but has excused him as he has PTSD from his deployment and answering questions might make him feel worse.

Yet again, the Inquiry has prioritised the comfort of perpetrators above establishing the truth and giving answers to the victims.

Grover has no memory of ever meeting Hagan, and only became aware of him years later when Peter Francis became a whistleblower.

This tallies with what Hagan himself says in his written witness statement [MPS-0748378]. He rejects the label of ‘spy in the family camp’ and says he was much more peripheral than the 2014 Review claims and that MFJ was ‘barely tolerated’ by the Lawrence campaign.

But if this is true, it places him at odds with what his manager Bob Lambert said about a great swathe of Hagan’s reporting while undercover. Either Hagan lied to Lambert, Lambert lied to his superiors, or Hagan is lying now.

Grover says that Hagan wasn’t ‘in the family camp’, but stresses the need to differentiate between that small group around the family and a wider support group which included organisations like MFJ and the Anti-Nazi League as well as many unaffiliated individuals.

He affirms that there was pressure from such organisations who tried to influence him toward their ideas and methods, such as whether to hold demonstrations or whether to call for the Commissioner to resign.

REPORTING GOSSIP

In 2013, Hagan was questioned by Mark Ellison KC who was conducting the Stephen Lawrence Independent Review. A document from that meeting [MPS-0721026] records Hagan saying he never had a personal meeting with the Lawrences but did with Grover and the Lawrence’s lawyer Imran Khan KC. Grover doesn’t think this meeting actually happened.

Ellison asked Hagan why he reported personal details, such as Doreen and Neville Lawrence separating.

Hagan says something we’ve heard from countless spycops at the Inquiry, that they were told to get all information no matter how irrelevant or unjustified:

‘Part of being an intel officer, all information was valuable. Why did I report why they were going to get divorced? I was told that.’

He went on to claim that the divorce could somehow have led to public order problems which would come within his legitimate remit, and anyway he never thought anyone outside the police would find out.

He said there were ‘wolves circling the Lawrences’ who would try to take over the campaign.

Grover absolutely dismisses this:

‘I think the people who were getting nervous about the Lawrences were the Metropolitan Police, not the “wolves” that he described.’

He finds it shocking that Hagan would imply that the Lawrences were unable to discern who was a friend, or be incapable of running their own campaign. It is yet another example of one of the racist tropes common in SDS reporting, seeing Black people as gullible and needing to be led.

It is extraordinary that police officers who grew up in Britain when dozens of colonies were winning independence, and were undercover in groups studying and taking inspiration from Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Gandhi, could believe that Black and brown people were incapable of organising themselves effectively. The racism was so deep-set that it overpowered the evidence of their own eyes.

The Inquiry took a break, during which Tom Fowler discussed the hearing with Zoe Young of Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance:

CHALLENGING HAGAN’S LIES

Much of the hearing was taken up by running through a catalogue of Hagan’s reports on Grover, asking if what was said in them was true.

On 5 June 1998, Hagan filed a report of a public meeting of the informal group of Lawrence family supporters [MPS-0001129]. It was an opportunity for those, like Grover, who had been at the public inquiry, to relay what had gone on that week and what was coming up.

The gang of five who killed Stephen were due to appear at the inquiry. Hagan wrote:

‘The group intend to let the five make a statement, but if they do not give the answers they want, i.e. confessions, then anything could happen. Given the paucity of policing within the room, disorder should be expected.’

Ramble says that this description makes the report fall within the SDS’s legitimate area of public order intelligence. Grover is having none of it:

‘It is an outrageous statement. Because there was never any contemplation of any disorder within the room, by anyone. There was never even a thought there would be disorder.’

Grover says they didn’t expect any admissions from the murderers. So the campaign planned to turn their backs on them as they entered. They were going to wear T shirts with Stephen’s photo on them in order to humanise him and bring his presence into the room.

Grover says it appears to be another example of a common spycop activity; exaggerating and inventing threats, instead of admitting their deployment was actually needlessly intrusive in citizens’ lives.

‘It is really meant for his superiors to think that he’s doing good work rather than resembling any real possibility [of disorder] taking place.’

He says that the public gallery was always very disciplined. Even when there was frustration it was never expressed with anger or shouting. They were well aware that the murderers’ attendance was going to be exceptional and worked with the inquiry and police to prevent disorder. He is absolutely outraged at Hagan’s suggestion that he was planning the opposite.

On the same day as the last report, Hagan filed another [MPS-0001134] about Grover speaking at a meeting organised by the Socialist Workers Party.

‘Grover, more outspoken than on previous occasions, stressed the importance of Monday and Tuesday when the five accused would be appearing. He was particularly angry over the treatment of Stephen Lawrence’s mother, who had been searched that day prior to going into the inquiry.

He argued that the police’s incompetence was an attempt to cover up their systematic racism and corruption… Grover did not elaborate on plans for within the Inquiry room on Monday…

The general mood of those present was very angry. If similar numbers attend on Monday there is potential for severe public disorder when the five appear.’

Grover makes no apology for his impassioned speeches. Nor for the factual accuracy of what he said, much of which had already been admitted by police. But he had already made plans for the day, as described. He had organised for the hearing to be in a larger room to allow the expected numbers in to witness it.

Once again, Hagan had cherry-picked a couple of sentences and spun them to imply plans for gratuitous violence. This was an example of another common SDS racist trope: seeing Black people as savages who need to be contained and subdued.

‘I think there is an assumption here that when Black people come together there is bound to be public disorder. That’s what I am objecting to.’

CONCOCTING DRAMA

Hagan’s report of 28 June 1998 [MPS-0001145] is the first in a series of reports describing escalating tensions and differences between MFJ and the Lawrence family campaign, with MFJ seeking more militancy. Grover says it was never the issue:

‘We are both angry about state institutions who do not want to acknowledge racism in any way or do not want to acknowledge the violence that is being used on a daily basis on Black communities, and lack of investigation in race murders.

The difference is there is an approach from some groups, where they believe they are the vanguard of a resistance that is taking place, and us, who are saying, “Actually, ordinary people can effect change”…

Anyone, whether it is a mother or a brother or a sister, who experiences this injustice has the capacity to run a campaign and effect change as fearlessly and as audaciously as anybody else.’

He says that this is more concocted drama by Hagan to justify his deployment to his superiors. It may well be that MFJ was getting frustrated that it was unable to influence the Lawrence family campaign – especially as Hagan was tasked to steer MFJ towards it – but Grover says the family had their own strategy.

On 29 June 1998, Hagan reported on the five murderers’ appearance at the Lawrence inquiry [MPS-0001154]. Hagan says 500-600 people were there. Grover thinks it was even more:

‘People were there because they had seen this epic battle between a Black family and the Metropolitan Police…

I think everybody was conscious that this is not time for violence. This is actually the first opportunity over decades, if not centuries, to convince a public judicial inquiry that there is the existence and prevalence of racism within the police force. And for that to be acknowledged would be historic, because it would potentially create a sea change in the police.’

He only had to dissuade around ten people from ideas about disorder, the rest were very disciplined. The factor that was beyond his control was the behaviour of the murderers.

Hagan referred to the Nation of Islam, a Black nationalist group popularised among African-Americans.

‘The appearance of a strike force from the Nation of Islam, who hitherto had played no part in the campaign, was viewed with dismay in many quarters, especially amongst the Lawrence family who strongly disapprove of them.

It is believed that Suresh Grover, who had been unsuccessful in obtaining volunteers to steward the protest, had allowed a small number of NoI [Nation of Islam] members to take on the stewarding role.’

Grover is absolutely baffled by this nonsense. He understood that the Nation had been in contact with Neville Lawrence who was happy for them to attend, the same as any other group or individual. Grover had already sorted out stewarding without them.

Furthermore, the use of ‘strike force’ is nothing more than a hackneyed spycop embellishment to make it sound like they’re working among violent groups.

Hagan said the Nation:

’emerged from the Inquiry building and took up a thoroughly menacing stance, as if stewarding the protesters. Then, when matters had calmed down, they attempted to re-enter the building only to be denied access. It was at this point that the trouble started up once more and resulting in the police resorting to the use of CS gas in their efforts to restore order.’

Grover wasn’t there as he was in the hearing. Someone from the Nation came in and said they’d been CS gassed and the hearing took a break.

Hagan said that as the murderers left the inquiry a group of around 50 protesters tried to attack them, and the five were covered in spittle.

‘The suspects came out spitting at people. I remember them spitting at members of the Southall Monitoring Group at the entrance…

I was quite shocked about their attitude, to be honest. They are street fighters. I had never seen them before. They came out running, spitting…

Yes, there were people who threw cans at them. But there were barriers, they couldn’t be hit.’

Grover spoke to the police officer in charge who agreed nothing serious had happened. This is not the kind of significant public disorder that could ever be used to justify an undercover infiltration. At the various public procedures in the Lawrence campaign, Grover has always worked with uniformed police to ensure things passed off safely.

THE FILTHY LUCRE THAT NEVER WAS

A report of Hagan’s about the Lawrence campaign, dated 21 July 1998 [MPS-0001191], asserted:

‘Groups such as the Newham Monitoring Project (NMP) and Southall Monitoring Group (SMG) may stay within the campaign as they are both in receipt of council funding regarding the inquiry.’

Once again, we see spycops implying that campaigners have their own reasons for their work, that it’s about material gain or personal power rather than genuine principle and solidarity. Grover dismisses it unequivocally:

‘It’s totally inaccurate and made up.’

Newham Monitoring Project weren’t funded at the time of the inquiry, and in fact Grover and others raised money for one of their members! And the Southall Monitoring Group never applied for funding to do Lawrence campaign work either. But beyond the inaccuracy is the slur on Grover’s integrity:

‘The issue of our funding and me using it as a veto not to develop a campaign is insidious and is just shocking.’

Two days later, on 23 July 1998, Hagan submitted a report [MPS-0001212] in which he extends his stories of power struggles. Hagan claims that not only are the MFJ at odds with the Lawrences, but the Southall Monitoring Group and Newham Monitoring Project are also at odds with them, but for different reasons: Neville and Doreen Lawrence being duplicitous in order to maintain public sympathy.

It’s a lot of volatile reporting about what was, in fact, a meeting at the end of the first part of the inquiry, where tickets for a social event to thank the supporters of the Lawrence campaign were given out.

DIVORCE GOSSIP

Hagan claimed that the monitoring groups wanted outside organisations in the campaign but were pretending not to because they had to go along with the Lawrences’ wishes in order to get council funding. He says that Grover has told everyone that Neville and Doreen have separated, and goes on to say they will continue working together as ‘a front for the campaign’.

Grover wholly rejects this drama, and is again especially affronted at the accusation of spreading gossip about the Lawrences’ personal lives.

Hagan said Grover had claimed:

‘There was someone very close to the Lawrence family who was an ‘Uncle Tom’ and as a police agent was actively advising the Lawrences against any real action.’

This, too, is lies. Grover had no such suspicions about anyone, and wouldn’t use the term ‘Uncle Tom’. And, in Hagan’s use of ‘real action’, we see again the implication that there’s a secret lust for violence.

The Inquiry’s Chair, Sir John Mitting, made a rare personal interjection to ask about this point. He said that Hagan must have found out from someone about the Lawrences separating, so if it wasn’t Grover, then who was it?

Grover replied:

‘It’s not me, sir. I can guarantee that it’s not me. I would never say it in a public meeting. It’s not relevant to what I am doing at that meeting. I can’t answer that question.’

You would be forgiven for thinking that would be the end of it. But Mitting spent a further six minutes on this point. Who else spoke at the meeting? Might they have said it? Who knew about the separation at that time, though? Did you say it in the heat of the moment and not remember?

There was an implication that if Grover couldn’t point the finger at anyone else then it must have been him and he’s lying about it.

It didn’t seem to occur to Mitting that Hagan might, like other spycops before and since, have used a report to put a fact gleaned elsewhere into the mouth of an activist. Grover had to give twelve separate iterations of saying it wasn’t him before Mitting relented.

INVENTING SCHISMS

We returned to Hagan’s reports. When the Lawrence inquiry restarted, MFJ held a demonstration and Hagan filed a report about it on 17 September 1998 [MPS-0001314] saying the low turnout was in part because:

‘Suresh Grover had sown confusion by telling other parties, such as [privacy], that he had organised a meeting with the judge the following week.’

Grover has no idea what this is referring to, and says there was no such meeting. Hagan continued:

‘Grover has decided to distance himself from the MFJ in an attempt to keep in favour with Neville Lawrence.’

All of this assumes it’s a power play, where everyone has hidden motives as they try to become more dominant, rather than having any moral motivation or genuine cooperation. Grover is clear:

‘It is utterly wrong. As I said, I was the campaign coordinator for the Lawrence family. I don’t need to get favours from Mr Neville Lawrence, I agreed with his proposition on how things should move. I don’t need to distance myself from the Movement For Justice.’

He emphasises that he was not opposed to MFJ’s motivation or their support for the Lawrence campaign, although he wanted to ensure that any protest done specifically for the Lawrence campaign was done with the family’s consent.

‘If you want to have an anti-racist demonstration, Movement For Justice, please go ahead and do it, I have no issue with that. So I am not stopping them doing things, but I am asking them to respect the Lawrence family if they are using Stephen’s name.’

Hagan expanded on his list of supposed rivalries in a report he wrote the following month, October 1998 [MPS-0001370], in which he alleged that the family of Ricky Reel were annoyed with Grover and using MFJ to try to get his attention:

‘Mrs Reel had asked the MFJ to attend the Southall Monitoring Group annual general meeting on Monday, 5 October to speak to Suresh Grover about the need for the march. Grover himself appears to have lost some of his interest in the Reels’ case in favour of concentrating his efforts on the Menson case.’

Grover is astonished not just at the allegations but at the obvious contradiction. A couple of weeks earlier Hagan had said that Grover had committed to the Reel case in order to reinforce his standing within his ‘Asian power base’, but is now also saying that he’s not really involved in the campaign.

‘I am just horrified that he suggests that. I don’t know whether he’s doing it deliberately to tell his managers that he’s needed and he’s looking at the differences taking place… It is just full of lies.’

In reality, Grover has worked with the Reel family since the day they called him. Indeed some of them are with him at the Undercover Policing Inquiry, sitting in the public gallery as he speaks.

It’s something Sukhdev Reel herself confirmed when she spoke to Tom Fowler in the lunch break:

A NEW CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Hagan reported, on 13 October 1998 [MPS-0001402], that the Lawrences’ barrister Michael Mansfield KC was intending to start a ‘civil rights movement’.

Grover explains that they were looking ahead to the conclusion of the Lawrence inquiry. There would be a report with recommendations for the future.

‘There are many examples of reports that have been completed, recommendations are made and they just end up on a shelf without any kind of audit or accountability or enforcement.

So the Lawrence campaign has always been embedded in communities, supporting families, and this would be an ideal opportunity for us to bring [together] hundreds of families who had become invigorated by the revelations in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry and saw the possibility of change and wanted to be part of that process.’

They took ideas from campaigns in South Africa, the USA, Ireland and India. This was to be something stemming from those who’d supported the Lawrence campaign, though whether the Lawrences themselves would be involved was up to the family. It would combine the families, lawyers and activists to make something that would sustain.

Hagan said that MFJ had always wanted a mass demonstration along with forming such a movement, and so they might insert themselves into this one.

Grover confirms that they’d wanted the demonstration but there had been no mention of the movement.

‘We were not thinking of a demonstration… we wanted a people-led movement to take ownership post-Lawrence on the anti-racist agenda. That’s how we were trying to build it.’

At the end of that year, 21 December 1998, Hagan wrote [MPS-0001643] about the anticipation of the Lawrence inquiry’s report.

‘A great opportunity is seen to have been lost due to the infighting within these disparate groups. Had the Lawrences called for a civil rights march then it is not unrealistic to imagine that 100,000 people may have taken to the streets.’

Grover confirms that some groups such as the Socialist Workers Party wanted a big protest march to coincide with the inquiry’s report.

‘Was it a missed opportunity to have a march? Possibly. But you have to have a demand which people rally round. It’s not sufficient just to say, “Oh, the Lawrence Inquiry has found this to be institutional racism”, that in itself will bring people together but is not a demand to change something effectively.’

Grover says that they were considering whether to call for the resignation of the Met Commissioner, and this prospect petrified undercover officers, yet they were reporting on peripheral issues like whether to have a march.

Ramble is startled by the use of a word as strong as ‘petrified’, so Grover unpacks his point.

‘Just imagine, the publication of the report finds, as we know, the failure to investigate properly is really to do with three things; lack of senior leadership, institutional racism, and failures due to different missed opportunities.

For the first time, if the Metropolitan Police are found to be institutionally racist, that legitimises years and years of failures and legitimises the struggles that Black and brown people have carried over decades.

And if that led to the dismissal of the Commissioner, I think there was concern within the central government, as well as the senior political reaches, that would seriously damage the Metropolitan Police’s credibility and even create greater distrust between Black communities and the police forces. That’s actually what petrified them.’

A SIMPLE REQUEST

In January 1999, Hagan submitted a report [MPS-0001707] describing Grover as ‘the main mouthpiece and communicator for Neville Lawrence’. Hagan further embellishes his fantasy of Grover being a secret thug who was playing along with the Lawrence family for money and status:

‘Although privately he would favour a more vociferous confrontational approach with groups such as Movement For Justice, he is dictated to by Neville and sees a safer long-term future under the Lawrence umbrella.’

Grover says that he was never a ‘mouthpiece’ for Neville Lawrence, who in fact communicates very well himself and ‘probably better than me, as far as his pain and campaign is concerned’.

He says again that he doesn’t object to MFJ’s support but has never thought that he could align with them strategically for the task in hand, which he eloquently summarises:

‘I am just asking very simple thing, which is that police officers get rid of their bias and racism or misogyny, and act as professional individuals when they put their uniform on. That’s a basic thing that we are asking.

But there is a culture of racism steeped in the Metropolitan Police and other police forces, which is so difficult to eradicate; and unless you put it out in the open and reveal it and expose it, it’s very difficult to change it.’

The same report claims that Southall and Newham monitoring groups fund many of the family campaigns but have threatened to withhold money if these campaigns have MFJ on board. Grover is categorical:

‘It is absolute rubbish.’

He points out that MFJ were involved in supporting Duwayne Brooks, Stephen’s friend who was also attacked and became the main witness to the murder. He was vilified by police and needed support. Grover says that if Brooks wanted MFJ to support him that was no problem.

Again, we see that Hagan was infiltrating MFJ to spy on the Lawrences, so his reporting depicts everything as a power struggle between the two groups.

Later that month, on 24 January 1999, Hagan submitted a report [MPS-0001717] on a march calling for justice for Roger Sylvester who had recently been killed by police (the Undercover Policing Inquiry also heard evidence from Roger’s brother Bernard Renwick on 27 November 2025).

Hagan said that MFJ’s Alex Owolade:

‘appeared to gain the respect of those on the demonstration for his display of leadership. Suresh Grover from The Monitoring Group and Asad from the Newham Monitoring Group followed the march from the sidelines and heckled Owolade’s attempt at attempting to wrest control of the march.’

Once again, Hagan portrays it as a power struggle between the two groups. Grover, once again, seems to be a mix of baffled and offended by the report:

‘It is a total fabrication. I have never heckled Alex at a march. I would have no interest in wresting control of a march.’

Hagan goes on and says it overtly:

‘The petty jealousy that currently exists between The Monitoring Groups and Movement For Justice will continue for the foreseeable future as each side seeks to manoeuvre their own group into a position of influence with any family campaign or victims of perceived police brutality.’

Grover reiterates his respect for MFJ and their right to advocate for what they want, and that his concern is supporting families in a way that they want. It is not and never has been about doing anything for credibility, leverage or power over others.

Grover has no memory of ever meeting Hagan. When prompted, he says that perhaps Hagan was among a small group from MFJ and the Socialist Workers Party who spoke to him once at the end of the Lawrence inquiry.

THE IMPORTANCE OF RECOGNISING INSTITUTIONAL RACISM

The Lawrence inquiry report by Sir William Macpherson famously concluded the Met were institutionally racist, which he defined as:

‘The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.’

This has become a contentious point at the Undercover Policing Inquiry. At the start of the current hearings, Imran Khan KC (representing the Lawrences among others) said that institutional racism was entrenched in every aspect of the Special Demonstration Squad’s operations – the management, authorisation and oversight of the spycops – and so this inquiry’s final report must adopt the definition of institutional racism given in 1999.

The Inquiry’s Chair, Sir John Mitting, interrupted Khan to say it doesn’t apply because the SDS were not directly providing a service to members of the public. He appears to have a view that racism is limited to individual acts of deliberate hatred.

He also has an extremely narrow definition of ‘service’. Policing is a service paid for by the public for their own protection. The Metropolitan Police Service is a very large organisation. Much of its work stems from decisions taken by people who do not deal directly with the public. The racism Macpherson described was not limited to those having direct contact with members of the Lawrence family.

And even with a reductive view of racism as being solely about direct personal interactions, the spycops still count. The Met were deploying these officers into individuals’ lives, and their actions had quantifiable impacts. Just because the citizen is unaware of it does not make it any less real, nor the citizen any less subject to the racism of that individual officer.

In 1998, as the Lawrence inquiry went on, it was obvious that there were failures in the process, and in the behaviour and attitudes of police officers. But more than that, the failures stemmed from an established police culture that treats Black communities differently and adversely.

Black people are more likely to be searched, and if searched they are more likely to be arrested than white people. If arrested, they’re more likely to be charged; more likely to be convicted; more likely to be imprisoned. The attitudes that cause this increased likelihood are replicated in other public services, and even suffered by Black officers within the police service itself.

Grover talks about the pivotal moment of the finding of institutional racism being accepted not just by that inquiry but much more broadly too:

‘It comes up with a definition, which by the way is accepted by the Government. It is lauded by the Home Secretary, it is accepted by all public authorities and it talks about the collective failures of an organisation to provide a professional service to BME communities.

It looks at how that can be detected through the process, through attitudes and behaviours, and it tries to mitigate the racism and bias within the police force.

It also tries to explain the elements of unwitting racism that may exist, or unconscious bias that may exist in the police service.’

Grover then cites the 2023 Casey Review, which found that the Met was still institutionally racist, as well misogynist and homophobic. He lists Casey’s four tests for institutional racism:

• Are there racist and prejudiced attitudes within the police force, does that exist?
• Are officers from racialised groups suffering racism, and is that routinely ignored, dismissed or not even spoken about?
• Are racism and racial bias reinforced within the organisation through lack of action or otherwise?
• Is the police force overzealous when it comes to crimes committed by Black people or Black communities or racialised groups and they are under-protected when the crimes against them take place?

A NEW HOPE

Grover describes the sense of progress and optimism that followed the publication of Sir William Macpherson’s Lawrence inquiry report in 1999.

Legislation was changed and Home Secretary Jack Straw told parliament that the changes would make Britain a beacon on race relations to the whole world. (Straw later discovered that, despite being in charge of the ministry in charge of the police, he was spied on by the SDS from the time he commissioned the Lawrence inquiry). There was a clear drive to change the culture within the police.

This, Grover says, completely changed after the 9/11 attacks. Police resources were diverted from racial violence into counter-terrorism. Jack Straw was succeeded as Home Secretary by David Blunkett who, even by the standards of holders of that office, was markedly regressive. While some individual officers had improved, the institution did not. Once again, it fell to people like the Southall Monitoring Group to try to convince police to take cases seriously.

In the longer term, we got the Brexiteer Tory governments who actively corroded the progress that had been made. Seemingly in reference to Mitting’s reluctance to consider institutional racism at the Undercover Policing Inquiry, Grover says:

‘It is absolutely necessary to look at the prevalence of racism in society at every different level, especially institutional and state racism. And it is not possible to understand the motives of public officers like undercover officers – who served the public – their motives, their behaviour, their decisions, unless you look at the institutional racism.’

Thirty years since the Lawrence inquiry, Grover is at another one. He is asked what, with his experience, he would advise the Undercover Policing Inquiry to do to ensure it creates effective change.

He is upfront that the Lawrence inquiry covered a lot of the same ground – how police respond to Black communities – and so if this inquiry doesn’t come to the same conclusion of institutional racism being a cause, it would be profoundly disappointing and the inquiry should have to explain itself.

‘Everybody keeps saying “I understand the pain”. Yes, you do, and I am grateful that you do, but how do you want the pain to stop? You can’t just put an Elastoplast on it, you have to change the culture that causes that pain. And if you don’t address it at an institutional structure level, you don’t deal with the causes of it.’

He refers back to the four tests in the Casey, telling Mitting to look at Casey and apply the four tests she specifies. Did spycops have racist views? There are plenty of examples. Are there complaints in how they regard Black communities? HN81 describes Mr Lawrence as ‘a boring speaker’. In fact, he is father who’s inspired thousands, not just talking about grief but how to change. Yet he is always looked upon as a problem.

‘The state saw black people as a problem, not racism. We had to change that culture. And HN81 describing Mr Lawrence as a boring speaker totally diminishes his contribution to bringing the inquiry to the forefront of British society’

Grover points out that by saying that to the managers, HN81 is effectively telling his managers, ‘Mr Lawrence cannot think for himself’.

SPYCOP PETER FRANCIS

Ramble moves on to another officer who infiltrated MFJ and spied on Grover, HN43 Peter Francis ‘Peter Black’ / ‘Peter Johnson’ / ‘Peter Daley’. He was deployed from 1993, shortly after Stephen’s murder, to 1997, just before the public inquiry.

In Francis’s written statement to the Inquiry [UCPI0000036012], he says that the Lawrence inquiry was supposed to be a watershed where the Met came clean:

‘My view was that the Inquiry should be made aware of the parameters of my deployment and the fact I had been tasked, from 1993, to gather any intelligence to help put a stop to the anti-racist campaigns, in particular the Stephen Lawrence family campaign, because of the concerns about public order and subversion surrounding the campaigns.’

He says his manager, HN10 Bob Lambert, overruled any suggestion of telling the Macpherson Inquiry about the spying, in discussions that were ‘hostile and heated’.

Grover says the Lawrence inquiry should absolutely have been told.

‘It would have had an impact on the definition of institutional racism for example, because is no longer unwitting racism, this is a police force who not just has let the family down but actually has decided to spy on it, and it is a conscious decision to subvert the campaign.’

Francis mentions an SDS manager, known only as HN86/HN1361, describing him as:

‘incredibly racist. His view of the Black justice campaigns was that they were unable to think for themselves and therefore they must all be being led by the more radical left-wing groups looking to advance their own agendas. In private he was always referring to Black people as “monkeys”.’

Later on in his statement, Francis says that the spying was ordered from on high:

‘I was asked to find out any information that could be used to stop or subvert the campaigns. That tasking came directly from HN86, but was also repeated to me higher up, by Chief Superintendent [HN593] Bob Potter.

Bob Potter was also a horribly racist person. He would come to the SDS meetings and then we would have one-to-one discussions. He would use the n-word to describe the campaigns and impress on me the importance of stopping these ‘effing’ and then the n-word…

Both HN86 and Potter made clear to me that higher up they wanted the campaigns to go away.’

Grover is stunned and appalled:

‘I don’t know what to say, because if this is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it’s not accurate, then there is no difference between Bob Potter using the n-word and the people who killed Stephen Lawrence.’

Francis quotes more extreme racism from Potter, although he is emphatic that he did not hear such terminology from any other SDS managers:

‘In the extremely racist words of HN86, there was a fear that the “monkeys were being organised” and that it was our job to stop it “before all the monkeys in London got out of their trees”.’

Grover is for once struggling for words. He recounts racist behaviour from police officers, drawing the National Front logo in their car window condensation, showing the ace of spades (a reference to a racist slur) to Black people, and says that these add up and consolidate a culture of racism:

‘Unless that’s addressed openly, it just lingers and thrives secretly within the force, especially when it is very hierarchical and militaristic in its formations. So junior officers can do what they want and if senior officers have these attitudes, it gives the junior officers the carte blanche or the openness to be even more racist.’

The Inquiry asked about several other spycops who spied on Grover to a lesser extent.

SPYCOP MARK JENNER

Although Grover has no memory of ever meeting HN15 Mark Jenner ‘Mark Cassidy’, he appears in a number of the spycop’s reports.

The first is on a meeting in March 1999 [MPS-0001935] about the formation of an organising committee for a new civil rights movement.

Once we get beyond Jenner’s standard spycop sneering and supercilious tone, Grover agrees with the factual content but points out that there was no relevance to public order.

Six months later, Jenner reported on Grover and the new civil rights movement again [MPS-0002165]:

‘The movement is run in a dictatorial fashion by Suresh Grover, who has the support of the majority Black Asian community groups and white left-wing groups, who are only too happy to be seen being politically correct.’

Yet again, the spycops see everything as being a game of power, using inauthentic underhand behaviour to appear to be what others would want.

Grover rejects it entirely:

‘I have never run organisations in a dictatorial fashion. In fact I have been criticised for being too democratic and too inclusive…

The way I conduct a meeting is actually to give everybody a chance to speak, no matter how long it takes, especially marginalised people. So if giving women the chance to speak is politically correct, I am not going to apologise for that.’

Jenner doubles down on his theme:

‘Victims will be encouraged to talk to the NCRM [new civil rights movement] before going to the police. So that a fully investigated documented case can be put to the authorities.

While sounding laudable, there is little doubt that the hidden agenda is to further weaken black and Asian trust in the police and to highlight their perceived weakness in dealing with racial crime.’

Grover says the aim was actually to empower victims and families to be able to speak out for themselves.

‘There is nothing in the programme or the strategy which says the reason why we are doing this is to undermine police, [and] confidence between them and the Black communities. You know, we don’t have to do that. The police do that very well themselves…

If women come to us, suffering sexual violence or rape which is racially motivated, you are going to get asked to support these women and expose why those failures were taking place. So I am not going to apologise about that. I wish it didn’t take place. I want to live in a society which is equal.’

SPYCOP CARLO SORACCHI

HN104 Carlo Soracchi ‘Carlo Neri’ was deployed 2000-2006. As with Jenner, Grover has no memory of meeting him but he nonetheless appears in the officer’s reports.

On 16 October 2000, Soracchi filed a report [MPS-0004301] saying that people were scathing of Grover, blaming him for the low turnout at a civil rights march.

Once again, the view is that left wing groups are a violent threat, and family justice campaigns are gullible, incompetent and ripe for takeover by socialists.

Grover highlights the way spycops are trying to use their image of violent socialists as an excuse for spying on the campaigns socialists supported. He is emphatic that MFJ, his supposed violent rival, has never advocated anything violent in front of him at all.

He rejects not only the caricature but also the schism:

‘When we were experiencing serious racial violence in our towns, the only groups that turned up to support were far-left groups and we developed a relationship with them. But we didn’t necessarily join their political groups…

For example, we know in Southall we consider Blair Peach to be our brother. We never met him. We have no problem that he was a member of Anti-Nazi League. The reason why we remember him is because of the way he was killed. We think solidarity is an essential aspect of civilised, just society.’

There was a break in the hearing, during which Tom Fowler and Heather Mendick discussed what we’d heard.

SPYCOP ‘SIMON WELLINGS’

HN118 ‘Simon Wellings’ was deployed 2001-2008, infiltrating the Socialist Workers Party and Globalise Resistance.

In November 2001, Wellings wrote a report [MPS-0007284] saying South London Stop the War Coalition were planning a meeting with Grover as one of the speakers, and another report a week later [MPS-0007351] on how the meeting went. It’s factually accurate but has nothing to do with public order.

DISCOVERY

Grover was stunned when he first received evidence that he’d been spied on:

‘I was actually angry and devastated. I was. Because the work we’ve done, I think, is totally legitimate. It’s totally lawful. It’s raising issues and cases to the extreme levels so the State begins to respond to it, because otherwise [the State] is totally oblivious to the concerns of people who are suffering injustices.

Yes, we are vocal, we can be fearless, we can be audacious, and sometimes we are deliberately that, but it is within the parameters of being totally lawful.’

Asked about the impact of the spying on him and his work, Grover is damning:

‘It is devastating to know that we live in a liberal democracy and there are decisions made by a police force which is there to protect you or deal with issues to do with crime, consciously deciding to spy on families whose only crime seems to have been asking questions which are legitimate… families whose children have been murdered. That is soul destroying.

But, you know, you have to keep on going. You have to be strong for other families and I think the impact on them is much greater than on me, and I don’t want to make it about what the impact on the Southall Monitoring Group is.

But we know as The Monitoring Group and the Southall Monitoring Group, that it has had serious consequences on what we are able to achieve and not achieve, because of the way that they have spied on us.’

He expresses disappointment that he has not received more documents from the Inquiry.

He realises that it has harmed his work and the people he helps. When he meets with senior police as an advocate for a family who’ve suffered injustice, it is plain that the police feel he has a hidden agenda that is different from that of the family. It is equally plain that the officers will get that impression from the fanciful, libellous smears peddled by spycops.

He cites an example of Bob Lambert specifically talking about the Hounslow Monitoring Group, which Grover coordinated, as being ‘anti-police’. He also mentions meeting Commander John Grieve during the Lawrence inquiry and being specifically asked if he or The Monitoring Group were opposed to working with the police.

It’s clear that the police do not recognise The Monitoring Group as legitimate. The claim that they were only spied on because of adjacency to fearsome socialists is plainly untrue. They were targeted as a Black-led group for the work they did in exposing police failings.

‘The real danger they see within the Lawrence campaign and other campaigns is that we are trying to project that the Lawrence case is not exceptional but it is a part of culture, and that threatens them.’

Grover asks the big question underneath the whole scandal:

‘The issue here is why they were doing it, where the information was going to, who was controlling that information, what the strategies were to get more surveillance on us. What was the point of it? What did they want to achieve in the end?’

Grover concludes with a statement he prepared in the afternoon break a few minutes earlier.

Watch a video of that statement in full:

He says that the state has failed to destroy the campaigns it has spied on. He criticises the Undercover Policing Inquiry for creating obstacles to the truth, and for giving preferential treatment to police wanting anonymity.

He says the period we’re talking about, the 1990s, was less perilous than today when we recently saw a far-right march 150,000 strong.

‘Racial incidents have spiralled nationally; Islamophobia, attacks on Black people, antisemitic attacks. The far right want our community to feel afraid and isolated, and these groups have been emboldened by global funding and the political establishment that seeks to scapegoat migrants, particularly Muslims. The austerity which has been manufactured by successive governments has plunged vast sections of society into poverty and in effect can be mobilised against migrants.’

He highlights the use of sexual violence as a tool of racism, and the hypocrisy of racist ‘save our women and children’ protests that include people with records of criminal violence against women and children.

‘We have to condemn sexual violence no matter the race of the perpetrator, because misogyny and sexism are not confined in any one race or community, but embedded in patriarchal systems of power and deeply intertwined with racism and economic inequality… To achieve true justice we must dismiss these intersecting systems of oppression.’

He condemns escalating repression and limits on the right to protest, and praises the tenacity and strength of the spied upon in their engagement with the Inquiry and the wider campaign, the women deceived into relationships, blacklisted workers, and the justice campaigns.

‘There is one lesson that we need to learn from all this, is that we need to be more vociferous in trying to convince the Chair about dealing with the issue of institutional racism and misogyny and what the women have classified as institutional sexism, and we really need to ensure that the Inquiry does not waver when it comes to ensuring that the right of protest and the right of assembly remain intact in this society.’

After the hearing, Tom Fowler discussed the day with Eveline Lubbers of the Undercover Research Group: