Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Techie1 + 2,024]

Mr Justice Mitting says witnesses need to know who was working covertly for police to give evidence to inquiry.

One of the officers infiltrated the campaign for justice for Stephen Lawrence

The cover names of at least two special operations or special demonstrations squad officers are to be made public.

The Undercover Policing Inquiry, now chaired by Sir John Mitting, will release the assumed identities of two officers – despite acknowledging this will increase risks to them.

One of the two apparently infiltrated the campaign for justice in the wake of Stephen Lawrence's murder in 1993, the other is someone who may have had sex while undercover.

A statement from Sir John, referring to the individuals with coded references, says: "The Inquiry cannot fulfil its terms of reference on a critical issue – the alleged infiltration of the Lawrence family campaign and the intelligence gathered and reported upon it by undercover police officers, in particular HN81– unless the cover name is published.

"It is essential that members of the group against which HN81 was deployed and others in the Lawrence family campaign should be able to give evidence about HN81’s actions.

"They cannot sensibly be expected to do so unless they know who HN81 was in the name by which HN81 was known to them."

He adds that it is likely that the move will have an adverse impact on the individual's mental health but says the public interest outweighs HN81's rights.

Elsewhere he says: "Publication of the cover name of HN16 is necessary to afford an opportunity to any individual who may have had an intimate relationship with HN16 under the cover name to provide information and evidence about it to the Inquiry.

"This involves a small risk of significant interference with the right to respect for private and family life of HN16, if it leads to the revelation of the real name of HN16."

Another officer's cover name is to be released, the judge says, if the Met does not submit an application to stop this. 

No details have been given yet about what the officer, referred to as HN330, did while undercover.

Sir John Mitting has taken over the inquiry from Sir Christopher Pitchford who stood down in June.

Last year, it was determined that there would be no automatic anonymity for those who had worked covertly in the past and that applications for secrecy would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

View on Police Oracle

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

I wonder how many people would perform undercover work knowing that years down the line they will automatically release the names of the officers in some circumstances to some of the most dangerous people in the world?

[Pete 1,492]

it could cause great danger to the officer but “public interest” makes that unimportant?

fudge this ridiculous country. why do we bother

[Mac7 808]

By not releasing the identities of the UC's could it not be assumed that the evidence witnesses are providing is not tainted with bias?

It's one of the specialist roles that I have never considered going for. I know a few UC's and I take my hat of to them. They do some sterling work, often unrecognised and some very dangerous work.

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

I wonder how many people would perform undercover work knowing that years down the line they will automatically release the names of the officers in some circumstances to some of the most dangerous people in the world?

I don't think you understood the article.

Last year, it was determined that there would be no automatic anonymity for those who had worked covertly in the past and that applications for secrecy would be decided on a case-by-case basis

No automatic anonymity is a very long way from automatically releasing their names.

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

I hope the judges risk assessment was stringent.

[Pavillion 43]

Completely agree with the releasing under cover officers names when public interests outweighs their right to privacy. Well done to those who have the ability and gumption to be able to make such decisions. If it was not for the tireless effort of those who head the inquiries society would be far worse off without them.

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

5 hours ago, Pavillion said:

Completely agree with the releasing under cover officers names when public interests outweighs their right to privacy. Well done to those who have the ability and gumption to be able to make such decisions. If it was not for the tireless effort of those who head the inquiries society would be far worse off without them.

Thanks for that enlightening perspective. Does the public interest outweigh the possible risk to officers lives? From your enlightened position is the life of an officer a price worth paying. Just that UC tend to be used to infiltrate some very dangerous groups, many of which wouldn't think twice about perpetrating lethal revenge, if they subsequently found out who and where the officer is!

Edited October 26, 2017 by Cathedral Bobby
added a word

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

20 hours ago, Reasonable Man said:

No automatic anonymity is a very long way from automatically releasing their names.

It is asking officers to partake in a form of Russian Roulette.

[Sceptre + 2,701]

47 minutes ago, Cathedral Bobby said:

Thanks for that enlightening perspective. Does the public interest outweigh the possible risk to officers lives? From your enlightened position is the life of an officer a price worth paying. Just that UC tend to be used to infiltrate some very dangerous groups, many of which wouldn't think twice about perpetrating lethal revenge, if they subsequently found out who and where the officer is!

There's not much point talking to Pavillion as they're clearly a troll, but for what it's worth I can see some logic to the judge's decision. If hypothetically you were told that one of your colleagues was suspected of some malpractice and asked to offer your opinion on their character, but weren't told which colleague was under suspicion then you'd find it pretty hard to be of any use - much the same is true here, from the outside parties' points of view. 

Releasing a cover name is not the same as releasing the officer's identity - many of these names would surely end up in the public domain anyway because part of the remit of the inquiry is the use of the identities of dead children. A group might be able to link that name to a face they remember from years ago, but still identifying that person and locating them would not be straightforward and if you spent your earlier years infiltrating truly dangerous groups your persec should be pretty spot on. As Mersey says hopefully the decisions to release names are being closely examined and the officers' current or former forces are offering support and protection to mitigate the risks. 

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

It is asking officers to partake in a form of Russian Roulette.

Don't UC officers do that anyway?
Besides, what's the point of any law enforcement if it doesn't deliver justice? Total anonymity would make them like the KGB etc.

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

I would hope that the risk to the UC officer is assessed as low. Whilst the case is very high profile, the level of retribution against the original suspects has been lower than one might expect so that may carry on to the officers.

Whereas in a terrorism case or organised crime case the risk to the UC would be that much higher and your expect their anonymity to be preserved.

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

The only time that an under cover officer should be identified is if they have committed  criminal offences. Every under cover officer is responsible for his/her actions. It is unfortunate that one or two officers have acted in a manner where they were out of control and in that case the handler also bears some responsibility.  

As has been said there are many levels of Under Cover some with minimal risk but some with huge risk of an officer's safety.

[Mac7 808]

I think it's taints the evidence from witnesses. If you identify UC's to the witnesses their account could be biased and untrustworthy. It would be interesting to see accounts before and after they've been identified to see if opinions change.

I akin it to identifying suspects from photos or cctv. There are strict rules about this and how images should be viewed etc

[Straker + 5]

Unless I'm missing something they are releasing the name the officer used as an undercover not his real identity. 

Presuming the use of different names for other operations and that the officer can't be identified or traced by the undercover identity (which presumable has been part of the risk assessment the judge mentioned) I can't see it increasing the level of personal risk to him or her. 

Or at least the risk of him being identified visually in the street stating relatively the same.