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.’

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBSERVATIONS

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

Day 4: Monday 8 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

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

HN20 ‘Tony Williams’

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

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

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

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

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

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

MSW

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

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

He states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Albert Beale

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

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

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

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

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

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

He defoned disorder:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Live evidence: Dave Morris

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

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

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

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

INFILTRATION IMPACTS

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

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

London Greenpeace was infiltrated by multiple undercover officers.

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

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

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

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

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

Morris emphasised the emotional toll such deceit took on individuals.

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

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

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

SUBVERSION AND LAWBREAKING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Williams’ also described Morris as:

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

Morris countered:

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

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

HN20 ‘TONY WILLIAMS’ & THE LONDON WORKERS GROUP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He recalled the conversation but denied advocating such actions:

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

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

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

TORNESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PERSONS UNKNOWN

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

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

In relation to the charges, Morris maintained:

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

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

QUESTIONABLE JUSTIFICATIONS

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

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

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

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

WRONGFUL ACCUSATIONS

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

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

Pearce said in his 2022 witness statement:

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

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

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

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

CALL FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

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

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

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

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

Stephen Charles Sorba

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

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

FREEDOM PRESS HISTORY

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

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

Sorba explained:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FUELLING DIVISIONS

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

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

Sorba recalled:

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNDERMINING

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

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

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

Day 5: Tuesday 9 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pearce admitted it was ghoulish:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RIGHT TO THE TOP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESPIONAGE WITHOUT ETHICS

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

He elaborated:

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

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

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

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

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

JOURNALISTS AREN’T JOURNALISTS

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

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

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

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

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

Pearce explained:

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

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

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

FICTIONAL BOMBS

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

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

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

Pearce conceded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FICTION AS FICTION

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

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

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

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

Day 6: Wednesday 10 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

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

HN12 ‘Mike Hartley’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He recorded in an aide-memoire:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HN82 ‘Nicholas Green’

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

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

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

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

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

On 28 January 1985, a Security Service note records:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HN67 ‘Alan Bond’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Live evidence: Michael Chant

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

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

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

Chant stressed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Day 7: Thursday 11 July 2024

Live evidence: Francis Bennett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bennett reflected on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Live evidence: HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPYING ON CHILDREN

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

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

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

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

ANOTHER TACTICAL CHILD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Monday, 8 July, is the first day of live evidence hearings for Tranche 2 of the Undercover Policing Public Inquiry(i).

Victims of the ever-growing litany of police abuses will be holding a protest and press conference outside the inquiry venue.

Protest and Press Conference
9am on 8th July
Outside the Undercover Policing Inquiry
International Dispute Resolution Centre, Juxon House, London EC4M 7BQ

The protesters, many of whom are core participants in the inquiry, will gather to voice concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding undercover policing(ii) and mounting evidence of ideologically motivated policing for political ends.

Opening statements(iii) heard by the Inquiry last week were dominated by stunning admissions on behalf of the Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis(iv). Mark Rowley apologised through his lawyers for corrosive cultures of racism, misogyny, exceptionalism and impunity within the police.

However, disturbing new evidence emerged of the extent to which the police were targeting groups for ideological (rather than policing) purposes(v), spying on elected politicians and police accountability groups(vi), and knowingly spreading misinformation to the Press for political ends(vii).

The Inquiry heard about undercover reporting on elected MPs such as Diane Abbott, Dame Joan Ruddock and the late Bernie Grant(viii), raising serious concerns about an erosion of the Wilson Doctrine which prohibits targeted surveillance of MPs by state agencies.

Perhaps most significant revelation was that undercover officers of the Special Demonstration Squad officers were tasked by Defence Secretary Michael Heseltine to gather ‘dirt’ on the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. There is evidence this reporting was used by the Conservative Party to undermine opponents in marginal seats in the 1983 General Election(ix).

Eleanor Fairbraida, a Core Participant in the inquiry and spokesperson for Police Spies Out of Lives(x) said:

“The use of undercover police to manipulate elections is clearest example of undermining Parliamentary Democracy to have emerged in this Inquiry to date, and it did not come from any of the so-called ‘subversive’ organisations being spied on, it came from the government, the Security Services and the Metropolitan Police.

It is very simple: protest is part of a healthy democracy, secret policing is not. What we need now is transparency and accountability. The inquiry must publish the full list of groups that were spied on, release the cover names of the undercover officers and give us our files.”

Eleanor and others will be outside the venue with banners and placards, and available for photos and interviews before the hearings commence(xi).

 

---

i – The Undercover Policing Inquiry was launched in 2015 and is divided into six tranches. Live evidence hearings for Tranche 2 (1982-1993) will begin on Monday 8th July. The Inquiry encompasses all undercover policing in England and Wales since 1968, with special emphasis on the Special Demonstration Squad and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit. For more information and live video links to hearings see ucpi.org.uk

ii – Spied-on women respond to Met demanding ‘transparency, not apology’

iii – See our summary of evidence presented during Opening Statements last week, including links to the documents on the Inquiry website.

iv – Met Condemns Its Own Spycops & Apologises

v – See opening statement on behalf of the Non-Police, Non-State Coordinating Group for Tranche 2 (Phase 2), other non-state opening statements on the UCPI website, and our summary of key issues emerging from opening statements.

vi – See opening statement on behalf of Stafford Scott, among others.

vii – See opening statement on behalf of Friends of Freedom Press Ltd.

viii – See opening statements on behalf of Diane Abbott MP and Dame Joan Ruddock PC, and Sharon Grant OBE.

ix – See opening statement on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

x – Police Spies Out of Lives, a campaign and support group formed by women who were deceived into intimate relationships with undercover officers, continues to advocate for those affected by these intrusive and damaging practices. The group has consistently called for the inquiry to reveal the true extent of the surveillance and the identities of all officers involved. More information is available at their site.

xi – Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance is a campaign group that opposes the surveillance of political activists and supports those affected by these practices.

 

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

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

CONTENTS

Introduction
Conclusions
Timetable of upcoming live evidence

Opening statements:

Day 1

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

Day 2

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

Day 3

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the words of James Scobie KC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timetable of Tranche 2 Phase 1 live evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HN19 ‘Malcolm Shearing’ himself will give evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPENING STATEMENTS

Day 1 – 1 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

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

Opening Statement of Counsel To the Inquiry

David Barr KC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening Statement on behalf of the Met Commissioner

Peter Skelton KC

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

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

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

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

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

Skelton expanded to say this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The statement concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Day 2 – 2 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

Opening Statement on behalf of ex-Spycops

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Sanders said:

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

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

Charlotte Kilroy KC – Category H: ‘Relationships’

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

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

‘Jenny’ and the wider Cat H group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening Statement of ‘Bea’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Socialist Workers Party

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

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

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

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

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Day 3 – 3 July 2024

Click here for video, transcripts and written evidence

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

The running order for the day included:

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

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

Rajiv Menon KC: Friends of Freedom Press Ltd

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

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

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

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

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

The statement emphasised:

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

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

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

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

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

Lily Lewis: Rebecca Johnson, Hilary Moore, Jane Hickman

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

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

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

(from the statement of HN33)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Owen Greenhall: David Morris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morris explained:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Owen Greenhall: Dame Joan Ruddock PC & Diane Abbott MP

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

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

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

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

Speaking in the House of Commons in 2015 she confirmed:

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

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

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

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

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

Ruddock stated:

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

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

Sam Jacobs: Sharon Grant OBE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Jacobs: Stafford Scott

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kirsten Heaven: NPSCP Co-ordinating Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the Undercover Policing Inquiry today in central London, the Metropolitan Police, through its lawyer Peter Skelton KC, slammed the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) – its deployments, tactics, racism, sexism and poor management.

The SDS secretly infiltrated and targeted over 1,000 political and campaigning groups from 1968-2007. Having already covered 1968-1982 in ‘Tranche 1’ of the Inquiry, today begins Tranche 2, examining the SDS from 1983 to 1992.

The Metropolitan Police made a series of damning admissions over the SDS’s undercover policing operations during that period, concluding that:

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

Their admissions, in the Statement read out by Mr Skelton to the Inquiry chair, Sir John Mitting, and broadcast live on the Inquiry’s YouTube channel, included:

“First, at least nine undercover officers in T2 [Tranche 2] engaged in deceitful sexual relationships whilst they were deployed. This was completely unacceptable. So too was the failure of their managers to identify and prevent those relationships from happening.

“The MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] apologises to the women affected, and to the public, for these failings and for the wider culture of sexism and misogyny which allowed them to happen.”
(Para 3)

“Second, 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.”
(Para 4)

“Third… there was a general failure by the SDS’s managers and by senior managers in MPSB [Metropolitan Police Special Branch] to lead the SDS properly and effectively. These failings extended beyond the issues of illicit sexual relationships and improper engagement with the criminal justice system [eg see para 44].

“Other unprofessional behaviour by UCOs [undercover officers] includ[ed] inappropriate reporting and the claiming of illegitimate expenses.”
(Para 5)

“During the Tranche 2 period, findings of sexism in the MPS were made by the independent People and Police in London study, particularly in its 1983 report, ‘The Police in Action’. More recent reviews have demonstrated that sexism and misogyny continue to be widespread and enduring features of the culture within the MPS.

“The prevalence of sexual misconduct on the part of SDS officers in the T2 period, the general disregard for the personal autonomy and dignity of the women affected, together with the inaction or indifference of their managers in response, is a clear and acute manifestation of that culture – for which the MPS unreservedly apologises.”
(Para 29)

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

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

“The MPS accepts corporate responsibility for these failings. Although there have been areas of progress since the T2 period, racism and discrimination remain an enduring challenge within the MPS…The MPS is committed to rebuilding the trust of Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities in London.”
(Para 71)

The Met’s Statement concluded:

“Sexual relationships should not have occurred. Reporting on justice and anti-racism groups who posed no criminal or public order threat should not have occurred and would not occur today. Open-ended long-term deployments, which caused a level of personal intrusion that was out of proportion with their value, should have been reassessed and ended. Further, the MPS should not have allowed a culture of exceptionalism and impunity to develop within the SDS.”
(Para 80)

“These serious failings have damaged public confidence in the use of undercover policing.” (Para 81)

The Undercover Policing Inquiry is about to resume hearing live evidence. The week starting 1 July will see Opening Statements from Core Participants delivered online. Live witness evidence will begin on 8 July (and victims of police spying will be holding a press conference – see below).

This second tranche of hearings will cover the 1980s and 1990s, which saw a massive escalation in the use of abusive police tactics, as police spying expanded to include civil society groups such as CND, London Greenpeace, Freedom Press and the Socialist Workers Party, who will all be giving evidence this summer.

This period also included some of the most controversial deployments, including (but not limited to) officers such as Bob Lambert, Andy Coles, John Dines, and ‘Matt Rayner’, who all deceived women into long-term intimate relationships.

Lambert fathered a child whilst undercover, and is accused of planting an incendiary device in a department store to further his undercover ‘legend’, before withdrawing from the field to take over management of the entire Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). Coles went on to write the training manual for the SDS and train officers in the later undercover unit, the NPOIU.

INQUIRY IN CRISIS

However, the Inquiry is facing a growing crisis. Hearings about the most controversial deployments in Tranche 2 have already been postponed due to the inquiry’s ongoing failure to provide full disclosure of the underlying police documents, and tens of thousands of pages of evidence are being published at the absolute last minute.

This makes it impossible for the victims (or indeed journalists) to effectively respond, or properly analyse the material to expose the full extent of police wrongdoing, which was the original purpose of this Inquiry.

After spending nine years and over £82 million on lengthy processes behind closed doors (plus Metropolitan Police spending an additional £62 million to defend the indefensible), Britain’s most secretive ‘public’ inquiry appears to be running out of time and political will.

Having heard only the first decade’s worth of evidence in an investigation that ought to span fifty years, the Chair published an interim report in June 2023. His findings were absolutely damning. The secret political policing operations were unjustifiable and should have been shut down in the 1970s. Instead they were covered up and sanctioned at the highest levels of government.

AFTER THE DELAYS, THE RUSH

Following that report, the government is bringing intense pressure to bear on the Inquiry to hasten its investigations to an end. The Inquiry is now required to hear all remaining evidence and deliver a final report by the end of 2026, leading to an apparent rush to judgment. Corners are being cut, and the victims of these police abuses are being held to impossible deadlines, or simply squeezed out altogether.The public inquiry into Britain’s political police, having wasted years in dealng with police delays and granting guilty officers anonymity, is now being rushed to finish, excluding many of the key campaigns that were infiltrated.att

Core Participants are becoming increasingly restless. It is clear, as we move towards the investigation of more recent police practices in the 21st Century, that the Inquiry barely intends to scratch the surface.

Tranche 3 disclosure has already begun, but the Inquiry has said it intends to focus on individuals and will not be providing disclosure or seeking evidence about spying on some of the most influential political groups: environmental direct action groups such as Climate Camp, Earth First!, Greenpeace or the Newbury Bypass and other road protest campaigns; Disarm DSEi and anti-war campaigners; social centres, such as the Sumac Centre or squatted social centres in London.

All of them will be excluded from the investigations despite having been specific targets of multiple undercover operations over many years.

JUSTICE RUSHED IS JUSTICE DENIED

At the start of this Inquiry, Lord Justice Pitchford, the original Chair, said:

“My overall duty in the conduct of the Inquiry is to act fairly.”

That duty of fairness has now been sacrificed to a new Home Office imperative of closing the book on uncomfortable revelations as fast as possible.

However, we, the victims of these abusive policing operations, will not allow the truth to be sidelined. So if you are finding it all a bit hard to follow, do not despair.

Campaigners and victims of spycops abuses will be picketing the inquiry venue and on the first day of in person hearings, and we will hold a press briefing at 9am on 8 July, outside the International Dispute Resolution Centre, 1 Paternoster Lane, St. Paul’s, London EC4M 7BQ.

For more about the Undercover Policing Inquiry, see our UCPI FAQ.

Activists in Catalonia have discovered more spycops in their ranks.

Those familiar with the British spycops scandal will know how officers infiltrated and undermined campaigns, formed long-term intimate relationships and integrated into partners’ families, and perverted the course of jusitce by infiltrating lawyer-client meetings.

The Spanish State’s spycops have committed each of these outrages in the Catralan towns of Girona and Salt.

A fourth officer has been unmasked. Maria Isern Torres, under the fictitious identity of Maria Perelló Amengual, targeted the independence, anti-racist and housing movements. She deceived activist Òscar Campos into a relationship.

The people targeted, like their British counterparts, are campaiging for truth and justice. On Friday 10 November there was a press conference at which Òscar Campos made this statement:

---

 

Less than four months ago we discovered and made public that the Ministry of the Interior of the Spanish State had infiltrated social movements in Girona.

We found that our assemblies and our mobilisations, our meeting spaces and our internal documents; even our defence campaigns and the conversations with the lawyers building the case for the 21 Raons (21 Reasons) defendants, still awaiting trial; and the homes and lives of many of us had been infiltrated to the most intimate extremes by an agent of the National Police Force, Maria Isern Torres, under the false identity Maria Amengual Perelló.

Although we still found ourselves in a state of shock, at that press conference we said that the the Interior Ministry under Grande Marlaska had not only violated its own laws and crossed all moral lines, but it had also made a grave mistake: because we would not be isolated and we would not be afraid; we would not take a single step back in our struggles and we would not hesitate to demand accountability and reparations for these illegal and immoral acts, which will become a boomerang for the State.

That is what we have done. We fought back immediately with a demonstration in Girona that was replicated by comrades in Palma (were the officer was from). The Catalan Parliament has approved the creation of a committee to investigate police infiltration.

The Town Halls of Girona, Salt and many other towns have declared Maria Isern Torres persona non grata, and we have circulated her image and her real identity, and built links with the victims of the other four infiltrators sent by the same Spanish police spying operation into social movements around the Catalan Countries.

Today we are taking another step, as we launch our legal case against the officer and her chain of command in the Spanish Police, right up to the Ministry of the Interior which orchestrated this illegal policing operation and maintained it for three years, in violation of our individual and collective rights.

We are not fooling ourselves. We have no trust in the Spanish judicial system. We have suffered that system as activists. It condemns, imprisons and evicts us, and invariably absolves the police for their abuses. It is rife with racism, classism and phobia against the Catalans. It has already thrown out previous attempts to prosecute and investigate Spanish police infiltrations.

Nevertheless, we will not stop. Just as we will not cease to mobilise on the streets, which will always be ours, we will also exhaust all the legal routes to justice, both within and beyond the Spanish State.

We will expose the dark, shameful side of this repressive State, which wants to see us muzzled and silenced, and which will use any means necessary, legal and illegal, to achieve that.

We call for a full investigation of this policing operation because we have the right to know the truth, down to the last details. We demand to know who is responsible, because they need to be removed from those jobs and punished.

We demand reparations for the damage done; and, like our British comrades who suffered infiltration and won a hard battle for the State to recognise the unlawfulness of these operations, we demand that this does not happen again, ever, anywhere, or to anyone.

Further info: article in Directa [in Catalan].

The Spanish state has charged the journalist who uncovered the spycops scandal, Jesus Rodriguez, with terrorism – read more in Rodriguez’s publication Directa [in Catalan]).

Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance press release on the publication of the Tranche 1 Interim Report by the Undercover Policing Inquiry, 29 June 2023

The Metropolitan Police’s political ‘spycops’ unit should have been disbanded 50 years ago, its activity was a waste of time and its intrusiveness would have caused outrage if revealed, a public inquiry has found.

Victims of the police spying operations today welcomed the findings of the Undercover Policing Inquiry Interim Report that the notorious undercover policing unit, the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), should have been disbanded in the 1970s.

The report covered the first part of the Inquiry’s work, from the formation of the Squad in 1968 to 1982.

The Metropolitan Police’s secret spying operations targeted around 1,000 campaigning and left wing groups, was sanctioned at the highest level of the police and successive governments, and continued operating until at least 2010.

The Inquiry Chair, Sir John Mitting, found that, in his view, only three groups were ever ‘a legitimate target’ for undercover policing of any kind.

In his report, Sir John wrote that these issues ‘should have been addressed at the highest level within the MPS and within the Home Office.’

He concluded:

“The question is whether or not the end justified the means […]. I have come to the firm conclusion that, for a unit of a police force, it did not; and that had the use of these means been publicly known at the time, the SDS would have been brought to a rapid end.”

The report does not assign blame, but finds that there were four crucial issues which should have alerted the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office to serious problems:

• long-term intrusive relationships by undercover officers
• the legality of entering private homes without a warrant or just cause
• the theft of dead children’s identities by officers
• undercovers taking on positions of responsibility in the groups they were targeting and using that to report on personal details of people engaged in legitimate activities

Public inquiry core participant Zoe Young, who was spied on for her environmental activism, said:

“The police have tried to justify their actions by saying they were targeting subversives and protecting public order. Their own evidence showed this was not the case.

They ignored violent groups such as the National Front in favour of reporting on cake sales and campaigns for free nurseries. While we were on the street calling for an end to racist murders, we now know police were spying on us. They treated as criminal anyone who wanted to change the world for the better.

If there is a subversive organisation in all this, it is the institutionally anti-democratic Metropolitan Police through their systematic attacks on basic human rights.”

Among the most shocking evidence released by the Inquiry are reports showing the Met explicitly targeted police accountability groups in the 1980s.

Over three sets of hearings the Inquiry heard from many former undercover officers, their managers and victims of the spying. Evidence showed a lack of training and direction to the operations, with officers mostly “self tasking”.

Managers admitted they did not try to change things but simply followed what their predecessors did. What emerged was a picture of a political policing organisation that had no meaningful oversight or clear requirements.

A number of reports demonstrated that teenagers were regularly reported on, alongside details of the children of activists. Numerous reports used derogatory and bigoted terms.

‘Lindsey’, a core participant who has been given anonymity, added:

“No doubt many undercovers and managers will be relieved they did not receive stronger criticism, the evidence of their reports speaks for itself. We see racist, sexist and offensive language regularly being signed off. Their reports show the contempt with which they held people trying to make the world a better place.

They had no guard rails, whether reporting on children or making salacious comments on people’s sexual activities. All this was filed away by Special Branch and MI5.”

While Donal O’Driscoll, another victim of spycops, echoed criticisms from many core participants:

“The Inquiry isn’t over and when it looks at later spying it will find these same patterns of abuse went on for decades and got worse, with the founding of a second unit in 1999.

We are outraged by the intrusive tactics used against us and the lack of oversight, but it only demonstrates what we already knew, that the Metropolitan Police is out of control, both then and now.

They remain a deeply sexist, racist and homophobic institution, despite being put in special measures last year. The Inquiry shows these problems have been deeply rooted for decades. We now know that some of the undercovers who abused people, such as Vincent Harvey, went on to hold high-ranking positions in the police.”

This report is just the beginning. As the Inquiry progresses, victims expect more shocking revelations, and call for the issues not dealt with in the Interim Report – such as the central role of MI5, government involvement, targeting of family justice campaigns, blacklisting of trades unionists, and reporting on children – to be properly addressed.

To this end, they continue to press long standing demands. These include the release of all personal files, the names of all the spycops, and a full list of the over 1,000 groups they targeted. They argue that only when this has happened can there be a full and proper debate about the nature of political policing in the UK.

–ends–

Notes:

• The Interim Report can be found on the Undercover Policing Inquiry website. A summary of the report which has been prepared by Police Spies Out Of Lives can be found at https://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/summary-of-ucpi-interim-report-june-2023/

• The Inquiry has cost £64m to date. It has completed one of four tranches of investigations and hearings since it was established in 2015, and is expected to conclude in 2026. Further statistics can be found at https://www.ucpi.org.uk/about-the-inquiry/#costs

• There are over 200 non-state core participants including many women who were deceived into sexual relationships by officers, families of murder victims such as Stephen Lawrence, Rolan Adams and Ricky Reel, as well as the families whose dead children’s identities were stolen by the undercovers.

• The Metropolitan Police conceded earlier this year that, “By modern standards, the SDS’s deployments in this period are unjustifiable, because of the way they were structured – not least because there was a failure to consider intrusion, necessity, and proportionality.”

On 18th April 2023 the ‘McLibel 2’ issued a statement (see below) correcting an unsubstantiated and, they believe, entirely false rumour/fantasy.

It had been published online that Keir Starmer – who gave his time for free providing legal advice in their mammoth libel battle with McDonald’s – collaborated with undercover spycop John Dines in the early 1990s.

After extensive correspondence with the publisher, Skwawkbox, the correction was finally published a week later.

Unfortunately the original article has not been amended or withdrawn. Hence we are also publishing the correction here for the record.

THE CORRECTION

We speak as the defendants in the 1990-2005 McLibel case, in which we successfully defended the public’s right to criticise the junk food multinational, McDonald’s.

We were very surprised to read a story you published on 17th April 2023 entitled “Exclusive: Starmer ‘used undercover spycop as driver/gofer during McLibel case’”

The story, based on unattributed sources (which we would have quickly corrected if we had been contacted before the article was published), alleged that Keir Starmer used an undercover spycop ‘as his driver and bag carrier’ during the case.

The facts are these: At our request, Keir Starmer (a socialist lawyer at the time) had volunteered to advise us for free behind the scenes as we had been denied legal aid. He was very helpful in his spare time, however we represented ourselves throughout the 26 pre-trial hearings and in what became the longest trial in English legal history (313 days). All the paperwork was held by us, and Keir didn’t have the need for a driver on the limited number of occasions he attended hearings as he worked nearby as a barrister.

It is true that a police undercover spy, John ‘Barker’/ Dines, had scandalously infiltrated the McLibel Support Campaign and shockingly engineered a fraudulent two year intimate relationship with Helen in which they lived together.

That scandal has been well documented, particularly in the book ‘Deep Deception‘ by Helen and others. Further details are likely to emerge during the Undercover Policing Inquiry when it resumes next year.

But the claim that Keir Starmer used Dines / Barker as his driver for the trial appears to be based on a mistaken retelling of Helen’s reports that Dines drove her home after legal meetings with Starmer, in all likelihood to obtain intelligence of what was discussed at those meetings and in breach of legal privilege.

It is of course reasonable to challenge and expose the actions of those who hold or seek power, including Keir Starmer, and it is also critically important people are made aware of the extent of the disgusting and harmful secret infiltration by Met Police spycops of over
1,000 mainly left-wing and progressive campaigning groups over a 50 year period.

However, circulating untruths about this, be they rumours or deliberate smears, is unhelpful and distracting and does nothing to build trust or confidence in those reporting or reading the untruths.

– Helen Steel and Dave Morris, The ‘McLibel 2’

18 April 2023

The full 81 minute 2005 documentary about the McLibel case is free to watch on YouTube.

As the public inquiry into Britain’s political secret police ends its first phase, what has been achieved so far?

February 2023 saw the Undercover Policing Inquiry finally concluding its first phase, known as Tranche 1, which looked at undercover political policing from the formation of the Special Demonstration Squad in 1968 until 1982.

The Inquiry, now in its eighth year, is expected to publish an interim report at the end of June this year.

After that, the Inquiry will return in 2024 to examine spying from 1983 onwards.

Thanks in no small part to hard work from victims of spycops and campaigners there has been some pretty damning media coverage of the actions of the Metropolitan Police.

Headlines outing endemic sexism, the widespread failings of the spycops, successive Prime Ministers knowing about the spy unit, and officers’ involvement in illegal activity have no doubt left the Metropolitan Police and the state reeling.

While media coverage does not even begin to deliver justice to the victims of the spycops, it does raise awareness of their actions. With little indication that the culture of the Metropolitan Police is changing, forewarned is forearmed for today’s political activists.

It has also been gratifying that more convictions of activists have been overturned after interference from undercover political policing was revealed at the Inquiry, adding to the 50 convictions already quashed.

MILESTONES OF TRUTH

There’s a long way to go in the fight for justice and transparency. But while we await the interim report from Judge Mitting, it’s important to recognise the milestones reached so far.

These include:

– The Ellison Review in 2013 into the ‘seriously flawed’ police investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The Review made a range of devastating findings against the Met, and the shocking role of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) in targeting the Lawrence family campaign.

– Home Secretary Theresa May’s statement to Parliament on 6th March 2014, saying she was ‘profoundly shocked’ by some of the Ellison Review revelations about the Met and the SDS, and that therefore she was initiating this public inquiry and calling for a ‘change in culture’ in the police.

– The Metropolitan Police’s 2015 apology and payment of compensation to seven women deceived into sexual relationships by SDS officers. In an unprecedented statement, the Met admitted the relationships were ‘a gross violation of personal dignity and integrity’ and ‘abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong’.

– The Investigatory Powers Tribunal’s powerful legal judgment in 2021 in favour of Kate Wilson and against the Metropolitan Police spying operations. They found that spycops had breached ‘a formidable list’ of five of the 14 articles of the European Convention on Human Rights and condemned their ‘disturbing and lamentable failings at the most fundamental levels’. The Tribunal ruled that the undercover policing units did not meet a pressing social need and were not necessary in a democratic society.

– The Inquiry’s own legal team’s finding, in January 2023, that the Metropolitan Police and government had failed to consider the legality and justification of the SDS activities during the 1970’s, and that if they had done so they would have been likely to conclude it should have been closed down.

Instead, the Inquiry asserted, the unit continued despite the fact that it had no tangible achievement in its supposed purpose of preventing public disorder.

UNJUSTIFIABLE

This devastating statement was backed up by the Metropolitan Police’s own admission that none of the SDS deployments looked at in Tranche 1 were justified ‘by modern standards’.

As the Inquiry’s legal team responded, why were these deployments allowed to continue unabated after the introduction of ‘modern standards’ in 2000? We will no doubt find out more about that in the next phase of the Inquiry!

We look forward to seeing and hearing the evidence relevant to Tranche 2 (1983-1992) next year, and the other Tranches after that. For the schedule and other information on the Undercover Policing Inquiry, check out our UCPI FAQ.

The Metropolitan Police can be sure that we, and the thousands of others affected by this unjustifiable and invasive political policing, are not going away.