EN officers

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search


URG logo 1.png

This article is part of the Undercover Research Portal at Powerbase: investigating corporate and police spying on activists.


Part of a series on the
Undercover
Policing Inquiry
N Officers list
Description: A list of N & EN cyphers used to designate individual officers in the Undercover Policing Inquiry and by Operation Elter

Officers of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) are for the purposes of the Undercover Policing Inquiry designated by the cipher EN. Officers were in early parts of the process simply designated by N followed by a number. As the number of officers grew, this changed to HN for those officers of the Special Demonstration Squad, the H representing Operation Herne, the corresponding police investigation. As the role of the NPOIU officers in the Undercover Policing Inquiry was taken on by the National Police Chief Council's Operation Elter, the EN cipher was adopted for them.[1] For more details see under [N officers].

This page lists the known EN numbers and material relating to them. Separate pages have been provided for the HN numbers.

Updated January 2019.

Cypher Name (italics for cover name only) Position Notes
EN1 Marco Jacobs undercover Deployed 2004-2009. Real name restricted. Had sexual relationships.
EN26 likely to come unknown Minded to refuse application to restrict real name with closed hearing on this to take place in late 2018.[2] Reasons set out in closed note.[3]
EN28 unknown cover officer Application to restrict real name refused. Cover officer for ARNI & NPOIU.[3]
EN29 restricted cover officer Real name will be restricted due to risk arising out of subsequent undercover work into serious crimed. Briefly deployed in a minor role as undercover, the cover name for which will not be released.[3]
EN30 restricted cover officer Cover officer for over six years, including deployments of interest to the Inquiry. Real name will be restricted.[3]
EN31 likely to come cover officer Cover officer for approximately six years, including for Mark Kennedy and EN34 Application to restrict real name refused.[3]
EN32 Rod Richardson Undercover Real name will be restricted.[3] Also given as N596.
EN33 restricted undercover Deployed in early years of NPOIU to groups that pose a 'real risk' to the officer. Mitting has ruled both real and cover names will be restricted.
EN34 Lynn Watson undercover Deployed into various groups 2003-2008. Real name restricted.[4]
EN35 to come undercover 2 May 2018: closed hearing needed before decision on anonymity applications can be made[4] - due to be heard before 5 July 2018.[5] 30 Oct 2018: minded to restrict real name but application to restrict cover name refused.[6] in the ruling, Mitting stated:[6]
I am minded to make a restriction order in respect of the real name, for the following reasons. EN35 was deployed in circumstances which gave rise to a real risk to safety, which remains to an extent which cannot be quantified. Publication of the real name of EN35 would interfere with private and family life. The interference is not necessary to permit the Inquiry to fulfil its terms of reference and so would not be justified...
EN36 restricted undercover Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names,[5] writing:
"EN36 belonged to the [NPOIU] for a short period in the mid-2000s. EN36 was engaged in legend building and established links with a group whose members almost certainly posed and pose no threat to the safety of EN36. EN36 has potentially significant evidence to give about the management of the [NPOIU], if at all possible in public. If so, protective measures will be required. EN36 is a serving police officer and has been deployed, undercover, in circumstances which give rise to a real threat to life and limb..."[4]

30 October 2018, Mitting notes difficulties to be resolved in handling of evidence in relation to this officer's deployment and its management. However, Mitting ruled that the officers real and cover names will be restricted, noting: "It is not possible to say more about the non-National Public Order Intelligence Unit deployment referred to in the application in this open ruling."[6]

EN37 to come undercover 30 Oct 2018: application over cover name refused; minded to restrict real name, Mitting stating:[6]
I am minded to make a restriction order in respect of the real name, for the following reasons. EN37 was deployed in circumstances which gave rise to a real risk to safety, which remains to an extent which cannot be quantified. Publication of the real name of EN37 would interfere with private and family life. The interference is not necessary to permit the Inquiry to fulfil its terms of reference and so would not be justified...
EN38 unknown undercover Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names,[5] writing:
"EN38 is a serving police officer. EN38 was deployed into one group over several years by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit and reported on others. Members and associates of the group posed and still pose a real risk to safety. Publication of the cover name of EN38 might lead to the identification of the real name, in which case the risks would materialise. I am not prepared to run those risks.... Further, the ability of EN38 to fulfil valuable current police duties might be impaired by publication. It is not in the public interest to run that risk."[4]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict both real and cover names, writing:[6]

If it is suggested that, because EN38 is still engaged in police work, so the undercover work performed for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit must be the subject of public scrutiny, I reject the suggestion.
EN39 restricted undercover Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names,[5] writing:
"Full reasons for the decision which I am minded to make are set out in a closed note. They cannot be made public. They include the fact that EN39 is a serving officer who has been and can be deployed as an undercover officer since the closure of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit. It would not be in the public interest to publish anything which might reveal EN39's real or cover identity."[4]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting ruled to restrict both real and cover names, writing:[6]

I have not given weight to a generic argument about legend building. 29. Nothing further can be said in an open document about EN39's post-National Public Order Intelligence Unit deployments, without compromising the restriction order made. If it is suggested that the public interest requires that EN39 is withdrawn from undercover work, so that work for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit can be publicly examined, that would still not obviate the risks to safety or the great disruption to private and family life which would result. Nor could it prevent other harm to the public interest. Whether or not the suggestion is, in theory, sound, it would have no bearing on the outcome of this application.
EN40 restricted undercover Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names,[5] writing:
"EN40 is a serving police officer who performs undercover duties. Disclosure of the real or cover name would undermine the ability of EN40 to discharge those duties. It would not be in the public interest for that to occur. Disclosure of the real or cover name would, for reasons which are explained in the closed note which accompanies these reasons, put the safety of EN40 at risk."[4]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict both real and cover names, writing:[6]

I remain satisfied that the publication of EN40's cover name in the context of an National Public Order Intelligence Unit deployment would put safety at risk from individuals associated with other deployments. I do not accept the suggestion that EN40 is in a position no different from that of an undercover police officer assisting in the investigation and ultimate arrest and prosecution of those charged with serious offences. In the event that the participation of such an officer in the investigation was required to be revealed to the trial judge and/or to the defence, carefully tailored steps would be ta ken to ensure that the officer's true identity w as protected. Disclosure of EN40's cover name would be likely to stimulate a determined effort by activist researchers to publish information about EN 40 and/or to discover the true identity of EN40. The risks to EN40 would be uncontrolled.
EN41 restricted Undercover Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names,[5] writing:
"EN41 is a serving police officer who performs undercover duties. Disclosure of the real or cover name would undermine the ability of EN41 to discharge those duties. It would not be in the public interest for that to occur. Disclosure of the real or cover name would, for reasons which are explained in the closed note which accompanies these reasons, also put the safety of EN41 at risk.... Although disclosure of the cover name w ould be likely to prompt evidence from others who may have encountered EN41, it would amount to a disproportionate interference w ith that right and would not be j ustified under Article 8(2) of the European Convention."[4]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict both real and cover names, writing:[6]

I remain satisfied that the publication of EN41 's cover name in the context of an National Public Order Intell igence Unit deployment would put safety at risk from individuals associated with other deployments and would also undermine the ability of EN41 to perform current undercover duties. I do not accept the suggestion that EN41 is in a position no different from that of an undercover police officer assisting in the investigation and ultimate arrest and prosecution of those charged with serious offences. In the event that the participation of such an officer in the investigation was required to be revealed to the trial judge and/or to the defence, carefully tailored steps would be ta ken to ensure that the officer's true identity w as protected. Disclosure of EN41 's cover name would be likely to stimulate a determined effort by activist researchers to publish information about EN41 and/or to discover the true identity of EN41. The risks to EN41 would be uncontrolled.
EN42 unknown undercover Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names,[5] writing:
"EN42 is a serving police officer w ho has performed and continues to perform undercover duties. Some of the deployments have created a real risk to the safety of EN42. Further, disclosure of the real or cover name might imperil the safety of others and would be likely to impair the ability of EN42 to discharge undercover duties in the future. It is not in the public interest that either should occur.... Although no risk assessment has been prepared, from what I know it is unlikely that any member of the target groups against which EN42 was deployed by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit in the 2000s poses a real risk to the safety of EN42. It is desirable that the evidence of EN42 about their deployment is provided or given in public, if that can be done without compromising anonymity. Careful thought, and a risk assessment, is required before any final decision can be made about the manner in which the evidence of EN42 is to be received. "[4]

Mentioned at a court hearing of 25 January 2019 (into Judicial Reviews relating to the Inquiry) that the application for anonymity was under review due to new (unknown) information having emerged.[7]

30 October 2018, Mitting notes difficulties to be resolved in handling of evidence in relation to this officer's deployment and its management.[6]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict both real and cover names, writing:[6]

I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of EN42's account of the deployments which give rise to a risk to safety. I do not accept the suggestion that EN42 should not be deployed undercover until the truth about the National Public Order Intelligence Unit deployment is determined. Experienced undercover officers are a scarce resource (though views about difficulties of recruitment differ). I do not understand there to be any serious disagreement amongst informed and reasonable people that they should be available for deployment in appropriate circumstances. The forced withdrawal of a significant number of experienced undercover officers, including EN42, would be likely to have an impact on policing which would not be in the public interest. Therefore, even if the risk to the safety of EN42 could be run, it should not be.
The assertion that the evidence which EN42 can give or provide about his National Public Order Intelligence Unit deployment will inevitably disclose the cover identity is not necessarily correct. Careful thought and a risk assessment will be required to determine how it can be done without risk to EN42.
EN43 restricted undercover Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names,[5] writing:
EN43 was seconded to the National Public Order Intelligence Unit in the last years of its existence. Before and after that time EN43 was deployed by different police bodies in both criminal and non-criminal fields and is still employed by a provincial police force in a covert role. Some of the deployments have exposed EN43 to danger. Publication of the real name would create some risk to the safety of EN43. Publication of the cover name adopted by EN43 during EN43's secondment to the National Public Order Intell igence Unit would impair performance of current and future duties in the undercover field and may also put safety at risk. It would not be in the public interest to publish either. Further, publication would interfere with an element of the right to respect for private and family life of EN43 - physical integrity -and would not be proportionate or justified..."[4]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict both real and cover names.[6]

EN47 restricted undercover Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names,[5] writing:
EN47 is a serving police officer undertaking valuable undercover duties. For reasons explained in the closed note which accompanies th is note, publication of the real or cover name of EN47 would put at risk the ability of EN47 to perform those duties. It is not in the public interest that that risk should be run.[4]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict both real and cover names, writing:[6]

I am satisfied that EN47 has been and is engaged on undercover deployments and that disclosure of the cover name while deployed in the [NPOIU] would put the ability of EN47 to undertake those duties at risk. The forced withdrawal of EN47 from those duties would have an immediate impact on policing which would not be in the public interest. The public interest in their performance by EN4 7 outweighs any likely benefit to the public interest which might result from the publication of the [NPOIU] cover name.
EN48 restricted undercover Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names,[5] writing:
EN48 was deployed by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit in the 2000s. Members and associates of the target groups posed and pose a real risk to the safety of EN48. Article 3 of the European Convention is not engaged, because the risk is contingent not immediate, but the right to respect for the private and family life of EN48 under Article 8 would be infringed in that and other respects. Although publication of the cover name might prompt evidence from others who encountered EN48, it would amount to a disproportionate interference with that right and would not be justified under Article 8(2).[4]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict both real and cover names, writing:[6]

I am satisfied that the risk assessor's assessment of the risks posed to EN48 as a result of the [NPOIU] deployment is balanced and fair. He and I took into account the varying opinions expressed by other officers about similar risks. The difference between EN48's evaluation of the risks posed by the post [NPOIU] deployments and that of the risk assessor is primarily due to the absence of accessible internal records about the deployments. Hence, at least in part, his somewhat more cautious view. Notwithstanding that, he still assesses the threat and risk that it may materialise as medium and the degree of harm which might be inflicted, if it does materialise, as high. As the open 'Minded to' note states, the risk which I had primarily in mind was that created by the [NPOIU] deployment.
EN49 resticted cover officer Cover name will be resitricted.[2] Cover officer for majority of NPOIU's existance "principally for two undercover officers, one of whose cover names I have refused to restrict. Before then EN49 performed duties which, if disclosed, would give rise to a risk to life. The risk of that happening is not high, but it cannot be run. For that reason, a restriction order in respect of the real name of EN49 must be made".[3]
EN50 likely to come cover officer Minded to release real name with closed hearing on this to be held in late 2018.[2] Cover officer for NPOIU "towards the end of it existence. The undercover officer for whom EN50 was the cover officer was deployed for a short time into a group whose members pose no threat to the safety of EN50. EN50 can give evidence about the discharge of this duty and about the discharge of his/her duties generally and the management of the undercover unit in his/her real name without putting his/her safety at risk. There is likely to be some passing interest on the part of the traditional and non-traditional media in EN50's evidence, insufficient to cause any significant interference in his/her right and that of EN50's family to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention. EN50's own concerns about the impact on both safety and private and family life are not objectively justified."[3]
EN51 resticted cover officer Real name will be restricted.[2] Cover officer for NPOIU "in the last years of its existence. The evidence which EN51 can give about the discharge of those duties is likely to be of significant interest to the Inquiry. But for the factor referred to below I would have required the evidence to be given in the real name of EN51, without protective measures. 20. Other duties performed by EN51 for police bodies other than the National Public Order Intelligence Unit did give rise to a real risk to life and physical safety. Those risks remain. Whether or not Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention are engaged, they must not be run. Even if the risks fall to be assessed under Article 8, running them would not be justified under Article 8(2)."[3]
EN52 likely to come cover officer Seconded 2005-2006 to NPOIU where cover officer for an unsuccessful and questionable undercover deployment; also involved in the winding up of the SDS.[3]
EN53 resticted cover officer Real name will be restricted.[2] Seconded NPOIU 2009-2011, where cover officer for two undercovers. Mitting wrote: "For reasons explained in the open and closed 'Minded to' note dated 2 May 2018, I am minded to make restriction orders in respect of both the real and cover names of both officers. The risk posed by members of the targeted groups to the safety of EN53 is negligible. However, other police duties,performed outside the National Public Order Intelligence Unit have given rise to risks to safety , which cannot be precisely quantified, but remain. Those risks are explained in the closed note which accompanies these reasons. Further, publication of the real name of EN53 would interfere with the current and future performance of work by EN53 which it is not in the public interest to interrupt. To do so would also amount to a disproportionate interference in the right of EN53 to respect for aspects of private life - physical integrity and the ability to perform useful paid work - which would not be justified under Article 8(2) of the European Convention. Careful thought will need to be given about the manner in which the evidence of EN53 and the two undercover officers is to be provided or

given."[3]

EN54 likely to come Temporary head of undercover operations 2003-2004. Minded to refuse application to restrict real name with closed hearing on this to take place in late 2018.[2] Temporary head for nine months. Mitting wrote: "With one possible exception, no threat to EN54's physical safety arising from the performance of these duties has been identified. For reasons explained in the closed note which accompanies these reasons, I am unconvinced that even the possible exception gives rise to a real risk to EN54's physical safety. The evidence which EN54 may be able to give about the discharge of his/her duties for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit islikely to attract the attention of traditional and non-traditi onal media and is likely to interfere, for a short period, with EN54's right and that of his/her family to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention. I am not persuaded that there is any greater risk of interference by others. The risk assessor has drawn attention to the "Contrainfo" post referred to in the case of EN31 above. I do not believe that this gives rise to any greater risk to EN54 than it does EN31. I am satisfied that the need for a public official performing a significant managerial role in one of the units under specific investigation to give evidence publicly in his/her own name about the discharge of those duties justifies any interference in his/her right to respect for private and family life under Article 8(2)."[3]
EN74 restricted undercover Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names,[5] writing:
EN74 was an undercover police officer and was deployed by the [NPOIU] in the 2000s. Other duties gave rise to a real risk to life and limb which, to an extent which cannot be precisely quantified, remains. Publication of the real or cover name would increase those risks. The risks are contingent, not immediate, and so engage Article 8 of the European Convention, not Articles 2 and 3. Publication of t he cover name of EN74 might lead to identification of the real name, in which case the risks w ould material ise. It is not necessary to fulfil the terms of reference of the Inquiry to run those risks.[4]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict both real and cover names, writing:[6]

As the open 'Minded to' note states, the risk which I had in mind was to life and limb.
EN287 DCI Richard May NDEU manager No cover name; restriction order application over real name refused,[5] with Mitting writing:[4]
In the course of a 30-year police career, which ended in 2013, EN287 was a Detective Chief Inspector seconded to the National Domestic Extremism Unit, the successor unit to the [NPOIU]. He had a managerial role. He played a part in the invest igation by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary into the activities of Mark Kennedy. In this context, he was identified in a Guardian article on 8 November 2012. None of these activities put him or his family at risk of harm or of anything more than passing media interest. This may be unwelcome to him and them, but is outweighed by the legitimate interest which the public has in his performance of his duty in a senior and responsible public office. In respect of this office, the starting presumption that evidence given by such a person about such duties should be given in his own name is not displaced.

The Guardian article of 8 Nov 2012.

30 Oct 2018: Mitting refuses application to restrict real name:[6]

EN288 restricted undercover Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names,[5] writing:
In the course of a police career of significant length, EN288 was deployed on a number of occasions as an undercover officer in circumstances which gave rise to a real risk to life and limb. The risk to life from one of them remains and may engage Article 2 of the European Convention. The risk to safety from at least one other deployment also remains. Both risks engage Article 8. Publication of a cover name might prompt evidence from members of the groups against which EN288 was deployed who do not pose a risk to life or limb; and the risk of identification of the real name of EN288 is not great. However, even running a small risk would amount to a disproportionate and unjustified interference in the right of EN288 to respect for an aspect of private life - physical integrity - and, if Article 2 is engaged, would infringe it.[4]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict both real and cover names, writing:[6]

The 'Minded to' note and th is ruling are not based "on the basis of the officer's say so". The threat of serious physical harm was and is reliably established.
EN289 unknown undercover Real name restricted with application over cover name to be determined later,[5] Mitting writing:
EN289 is a serving police officer. EN289 undertook ad hoc deployments for the Animal National Rights Index/the National Public Order Intelligence Unit in the late 1990s, attending and reporting on approximately 6 marches. EN289 was instructed to, and did, research and obtain the identity of a deceased child. The nature of the deployments was such that EN289 did not have to use it. Save in one respect, the information and evidence which EN289 could provide is of peripheral relevance to the Inquiry. That respect is the fact that EN289 was instructed to obtain the identity of a deceased child. Given that the cover name was not used, no purpose would be served by determining EN289's application for a restriction order in respect of the cover name at this stage. : Publication of the real name of EN289 would not serve to permit the Inquiry to fulfil its terms of reference, might impair performance of police duties and might have some impact on the mental health of EN289. In those circumstances, publication of the real name would not be in the public interest and would risk interference with the right to respect for private and family life of EN289 which would not be justified...[4]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict the real name, writing:[6]

The submissions address publication of the cover name, upon which I have, as yet, not indicated any decision which I might be minded to make.
EN291 restricted Authorising officer, not with NPIOU Application to restrict real name granted.[2] Mitting wrote:[3]
EN291 was not seconded to the [NPOIU], but did write authorisations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for the deployment of EN327 (HN66) and performed cover officer duties for EN32 and EN508 in 2002-03. EN291 was not deployed as an undercover officer. There is no risk to EN291's safety from those encountered by the three undercover officers. There is some risk of unwelcome attention from traditional and nontraditional media. EN291 was diagnoed by Dr. Busuttil in April 2017 as suffering from a chronicmental illness for a number of years which required treatment. "In his opinion disclosure of EN291's true identity would exacerbate his/her chronic mental ill ness and may increase the risk of suicidal ideation. I have asked for confirmation that, as of September 2018, the position remains unchanged.
It is not necessary to permit the Inquiry to fulfil its terms of reference that the evidence which EN291 can provide is given under his/her real name. EN291 will give evidence in public, albeit under his/her cypher. EN291's duties for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit did not require him/her to interact with any member of the public. Publication of EN291's real name would not, therefore, prompt any evidence from them. In those circumstances, the interference in EN29's right to respect for his/her private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention would not be justified under Article 8(2).[3]
EN327 Dave Jones undercover Same as HN66. Real name restricted. Deployed against London Rising Tide and the Camp for Climate Action (Drax) 2005-2007.
EN407 Likely to come cover officer Minded to refuse application to restrict real name with closed hearing on this to take place in late 2018.[2] Mitting wrote:[3]
EN407 acted as a cover officer for EN34 ("Lynn Watson") in 2002 and 2003. Publication of EN407's real name would not give rise to any risk to his or her safety arising from those duties. Nor would it give rise to risks to EN407's safety arising from other police duties performed by EN407 during his/ her police career. Publication of EN407's real name will undoubtedly give rise to transient in terest from traditional and non-traditional media, which will be unwelcome to EN407. The limited interference with EN407's right and that of his/her family to respect for their private and family life is a price which must be paid to permit EN34's deployment and its management to be publicly scrutinised. It is justified under Article 8(2) of the European Convention . I am satisfied that the risk of any other form of intrusion is negligible.
EN506 restricted unknown Real name restricted.[2] Mitting wrote:[3]
EN506 performed a necessary and important administrative duty in relation to the deployment of EN40, which gives rise to no risk to the safety of EN506. EN506 is a serving police officer who has performed duties which, if the real name were to be disclosed, would give rise to real risks to life and limb. Further, EN506 continues to perform valuable police duties which would be compromised if the real name were to be disclosed. It is not in the public interest that should happen... Interference with the right of EN506 to respect for an aspect of private and family life - physical integrity - would not be justified...
EN507 restricted undercover Real and cover names to be restricted,[5] with Mitting writing:
EN507 is a serving police officer and has undertaken undercover operations w hich put safety at risk. The continued ability of the police service to deploy EN507 in undercover operations is of public value. Publication of the cover name would substantially impair the undertaking of such operations. It is not in the public interest to do so.
Further, publication of either real or cover name would interfere with the right of EN507 to respect for private and family life and would not be justified...[4]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict the real and cover names, writing:[6]

The submissions assert that there is no reference in the 'Minded to' note to any risk of physical harm. There is: "EN507 is a serving police officer and has undertaken undercover operations which put safety at risk." It is correct that that assessment was based on EN507's account, which I have no reason to disbelieve. I do not accept that the public interest in the disclosure of the cover name of EN507 outweighs the public interest in the continued ability of the police service to deploy EN507 in undercover operations of public value, for the reasons explained in the closed note which accompanied the 'Minded to' note.
EN508 cover name to come undercover Application to restrict cover name refused; real name will be restricted.[2] Deployed 2002-2004 into a number of groups on intermittent basis, none of the member of which pose a 'real risk' to the safety of EN508. Mitting wrote:[3]
"There is a strong sterile corridor between cover and real name. Even if it were to be breached, the worst likely consequence is unwelcome, but transient, attention from traditional and non-traditional media. It is possible that publication of the cover name might prompt worthwhile evidence from those encountered by EN508. The limited interference with the right to respect for private and family life, if any, which publication of the cover name might cause is justified by the need to take the opportunityto try to obtain such evidence.
There is no need to expose EN508 to media attention or to risk more serious intrusions into private life by publishing the real name. Such interference would not be justified under Article 8(2) of the European Convention.
EN808 restricted cover officer Real and cover names to be restricted,[5] with Mitting writing:
From 1999 to 2011 EN808 was employed as a cover officer by a provincial police force and from 2011 to 2013 EN808 performed a similar role when seconded to the successor unit to the [NPOIU]. EN808's duties required him to make use of a cover name. From 2016 to date, EN808 has been employed by a provincial police force to undertake duties under a cover name which put safety at risk. It is not in the public interest that either real or cover names are published.
Publication of the real name of EN808 would interfere with the right of EN808 to respect for private and family life. The nature of the duties performed by EN808 does not require publication of the real name to permit their worth and propriety to be assessed. Publication of the real name would interfere with the right to respect for private and family life of EN808 and would not be justified under Article 8(2) of the European Convention.
I have read two closed witness statements by EN808. I have no reason to question the truthfulness of the factual assertions made in them. The decision which I am minded to make is based on them. There are no separate closed reasons.[4]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict the real and cover names, writing:[6]

Details of the activities which give rise to a risk to safety cannot be identified openly. For the avoidance of doubt, the nature and source of the risk is identified in the closed note.
EN1001 restricted cover officer Real and cover names to be restricted,[5] with Mitting writing:
EN1001 was not seconded to the [NPOIU], but performed a peripheral supporting role in one operation for a short time in the late 2000s. It is unlikely that the Inquiry will need to receive or take into account evidence from EN1001 so as to permit it to fulfil its terms of reference. EN1001 was and is a serving police officer with a provincial force. In that capacity EN 1001 has undertaken routine criminal undercover deployments, some of which were dangerous. The work done by EN1001 and that done by other police officers would be substantially impaired if either the cover or real name of EN1001 were to be published. It is not in the public interest that either should occur. Further, publication of either would interfere with the right to respect for the private and family life of EN1001 and would not be justified[4]

30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict the real and cover names, writing:[6]

The first sentence of the 'Minded to' note accurately describes the role played by EN1001. The words used in paragraph 4 of the gist of the application "as he/she used when seconded to the [National Public Order Intelligence Unit]" would have been better expressed as "when performing that supporting role". The words used in paragraph 5 of the gist of the application accurately state the original text. The words "whether any" could have been better expressed as "which, if any". These semantic quibbles do not "underscore", let alone demonstrate or establish, "the inappropriateness of relying exclusively on the self-report of the officer". I had, and have, no reason to doubt the truthfulness and substanti al accuracy of t he statement made by EN1001 in support of the application for a restriction order.
I am satisfied that it is not in the public interest that the valuable duties performed by the unit of which EN 1001 is part should be jeopardised by publication of the cover name of EN 1001, as they would be. I also reject the suggestion that EN 1001 should be removed from current duties until the public hearings have occurred which concern the National Public Order Intelligence Unit.


Notes

  1. Witness Statement Protocol (v.1.0), Undercover Policing Inquiry, 22 January 2018 (accessed 22 January 2018).
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Steven Gray, Counsel to the Inquiry's Explanatory Note to accompany the third 'Minded To' note in respect of applications for restriction orders over the real and cover names of officers of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit and its predecessor/successor units, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 15 November 2018.
  3. 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 Sir John Mitting, In the matter of section 19(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005. Applications for restriction orders in respect of the real and cover names of officers of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit and its predecessor/successor units 'Minded to' Note 3, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 15 November 2018.
  4. 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 Sir John Mitting, Applications for restriction orders in respect of the real and cover names of officers of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit and its predecessor/successor units 'Minded to' Note, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 2 May 2018.
  5. 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 Steven Gray, Counsel to the Inquiry's Explanatory Note to accompany the Chairman's 'Minded To' Note 12 in respect of applications for restrictions over the real and cover name of officers of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit and its predecessor/successor units, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 2 May 2018.
  6. 6.00 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04 6.05 6.06 6.07 6.08 6.09 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 Sir John Mitting, Applications for restriction orders in respect of the real and cover names of officers of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit and its predecessor/successor units Ruling 1 and 'Minded to' 2, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 30 October 2018.
  7. Rob Evans, Public inquiry into #spycops infiltration of political groups re-examining whether one particular undercover officer, known only as EN42, should be given anonymity at the inquiry after new (unknown) evidence emerges., Twitter.com, 25 January 2019, accessed 31 January 2019.