Spycops Survivors’ Damning Report on State’s Bid to Stop Inquiry

PRESS RELEASE

9 November 2026

CALLS GROW DEMANDING ‘NO COVER UP’ OF THE SPYCOPS SCANDAL

INQUIRY PARTICIPANTS PUBLISH UNOFFICIAL CONSULTATION REPORT

LONDON — Survivors of undercover police spying have published their own consultation report after boycotting the Home Office’s online questionnaire, which they say was ‘rigged’.

Non-state core participants in the Undercover Policing Inquiry say the Home Office consultation on the future of the inquiry was designed to produce a predetermined outcome, with the apparent aim of legitimising Ministers taking the unprecedented step of shutting a statutory public inquiry down.

The Inquiry into the spycops scandal is proving to be highly embarrassing for the Metropolitan Police. Campaigners cite police obstruction of the Inquiry, a biased questionnaire, a history of interference by previous Home Secretaries, and a direct conflict of interest, saying it looks like an attempt at a state cover-up.

Today, in advance of the Home Office’s own consultation report, the Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance have published an analysis of 2,690 letters sent to the Home Office by stakeholders and members of the public, after survivors of spycops abuses urged allies to boycott the official survey and write directly to the Home Office instead.

The report finds unanimous opposition to curtailing the Inquiry, calling for it to be completed to ensure the shocking police malpractice exposed never happens again.

Ben Leamy of the Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance explained:

‘I believe the consultation is a sham, a pretext. The decisions Ministers will make off the back of it will have significant implications for state transparency and accountability.

We are publishing this report because we do not trust the Home Office to accurately represent the views expressed.

Our report shows the strength of the responses from thousands of people who boycotted the rigged Home Office questionnaire and sent letters instead.’

The letters point to the fact the questionnaire offered respondents no option to support the Inquiry continuing under its original Terms of Reference, instead forcing respondents to answer multiple-choice questions geared to choosing which bits of the Inquiry could be discarded, and rating alternative proposals for after the original inquiry is shut down.

Dave Morris, a core participant in the Inquiry said:

‘The police spent five years trying to sabotage this Inquiry with endless secrecy applications, closed hearings, and redactions.

Now Ministers want to cite those self-inflicted delays and costs as an excuse to shut it down before it examines modern political policing.

It is vital that this policing scandal is fully exposed and never allowed to happen again. Allowing police to escape accountability simply by making an inquiry too slow and expensive sets a dangerous precedent.”

Core Participants have written to the Ministers responsible to ask for meetings as well as writing to Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, calling on his government to support state candour for victims and uphold the spirit of the Hillsborough Law. They point to a conflict of interest at the heart of the review.

The current consultation was launched by the Labour Government in the summer, but Campaigners say the Home Office has been seeking to curtail the Inquiry for longer than that.

A freedom of information request revealed that in October 2023, then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman secretly proposed changes to the terms of reference, with the idea of holding a public consultation and ending the inquiry at the end of 2026. Taken together, campaigners say, this amounts to the appearance of a state cover-up.

‘Lisa’ from Police Spies Out of Lives, who was deceived into a six-year intimate relationship by undercover officer Mark Kennedy explained:

‘There is a conflict of interest at the heart of this review, because the Home Office is itself a subject of investigation for the role it played in authorising and funding abusive undercover units.

The Home Office Minister, Lord Hanson of Flint, who is overseeing the consultation, was Policing and Security Minister in 2009. He had oversight of the covert unit that was deceiving me into an intimate relationship.

That is due to be investigated in the part of the Inquiry the Home Office is now proposing to cancel.

Letting a minister decide whether operations on his own watch will be investigated can’t be right.’

The report is available at ucpi.uk/consultation/report.

[ENDS]

NOTES FOR EDITORS

Core demands of the non-state Core Participants:
– scrap all proposals to curtail or narrow the Inquiry.
– guarantee all remaining elements of the Inquiry proceed in full.
– appoint a new Chair and expert panel.
– enforce disclosure timetables backed by sanctions against further police obstruction.

The Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI) was established in 2015 following a series of scandals involving undercover policing . Evidence heard by the Inquiry has included: theft of deceased children’s identities; deceptive sexual relationships; targeting of anti-racist and family justice campaigns; unlawful blacklisting of trade unionists; infiltration of environmental, anti-war and community organisations; reporting on legitimate political activity.
www.ucpi.org.uk/about-the-inquiry

Outstanding work

The Inquiry’s chair, Sir John Mitting, retires in 2027 and rather than appoint a replacement, the Home Office took the opportunity to launch the consultation. As a result there is currently no Chair in place for Tranche 4, Tranche 5, and Module 3. These tranches should examine the legal framework that still governs undercover policing today, and Module 3 that should be making recommendations to ensure the identified failings do not reoccur.

The consultation

Launched on 16 July 2026 during tranche 3 hearings with a deadline of 20 August 2026 until complaints forced the Home Office to extend until 20 September.

The consultation proposes three alternatives to completing the full Inquiry: a narrower statutory inquiry, a non-statutory review, or voluntary police disclosure to victims.
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-of-the-undercover-policing-inquiry

Section 14 (1b), Inquiries Act 2005 permits ministers to end an inquiry early. Explanatory Notes state that the power is intended for where it is “no longer necessary or possible for the inquiry to continue”.

Conflict of Interest

Ending the inquiry early would effectively reward obstruction and set a precedent that inquiries can be terminated by making them too slow and expensive to complete.

The Home Office is itself a subject of investigation in the Inquiry, making its role in deciding the inquiry’s fate a conflict of interest.

Additionally, Lord Hanson of Flint was Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing from June 2009 to May 2010, squarely within Tranche 4.

He now oversees the consultation set to decide whether the Inquiry examines that period at all.

Gunning principles

These are requirements for lawful consultations, confirmed by R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] UKSC 56, stipulating that: proposals be consulted on at a formative stage (not pre-determined); sufficient information be given to permit intelligent consideration and response; adequate time be allowed; and responses must be conscientiously considered.

The consultation was launched after ministers sought to curtail the Inquiry; the consultation paper withheld financial and impact assessment data; the initial five-week window ran over summer recess; and the questionnaire’s multi-choice structure excluded the option of supporting the Inquiry’s completion.

These breaches may make a decision to end the Inquiry early vulnerable to legal challenge.