EN39

From Powerbase
Revision as of 11:37, 22 October 2019 by Peter Salmon (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{NPOIU_Police_Officer_sidebar|Name='EN39'|Alias=unknown|Series=National Public Order Intelligence Unit|Image=Male_silhouette.png|DatesDeployed=unknown|Role=undercover}} '''E...")

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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
National Public Order Intelligence Unit
'EN39'
Male silhouette.png
Alias: unknown
Deployment: unknown
Role:
undercover

EN39 is the cipher given to a former undercover officer of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit who was deployed in the 2000s against unknown targets. Since leaving the NPOIU they remain a police officer working undercover for other operations. Sir John Mitting, chair of the Undercover Policing Inquiry, has ruled that it will restrict the officers real and cover name in the Inquiry.[1][2]

As a police officer

Has targeted both activist and serious organised crime groups as an undercover officer:[3]

When I volunteered and applied to become an undercover officer, it was on the understanding that my true identity would always be protected. I was assured, when I started the role, that there were policies in place to ensure the protection of my identity and, by extension, my safety. I understood that, in all deployments that I undertook, I would be acting pursuant to a lawful authority to gain intelligence and evidence of criminality. It was made clear to me that, at all times during undercover deployments, I would be using a cover identity. I was also assured that, in any court proceedings that flowed from the deployments I had been involved in, I would be afforded anonymity. These promises were reiterated to me throughout my career.
I believe that the groups that I infiltrated, particularly those that are serious organised criminals would, if furnished with my details, be able to locate me and there is a real risk that they would target me. The groups that I have infiltrated are not averse to using violence and will do so in respect of those that have betrayed them. I believe that, were I to be exposed as having infiltrated the groups as an undercover officer, they would feel very betrayed. By virtue of taking on the role of an undercover officer, I had to, as part of the creation of and maintenance of my legend, associate with those that I infiltrated. Members of criminal groups will have trusted me, revealed secrets to me and opened their homes to me. They will not, I know, take kindly to finding out that I was an undercover officer and that the trust they placed in me was misplaced and may have led to criminal justice proceedings and significant custodial sentences being passed on members of their families or associates. These groups are not afraid of using violence to target those who have displeased them. They also would be keen to target me as an undercover officer, as they resent law enforcement and the way law enforcement officers have and will continue to impede their criminal activity.


In Undercover Policing Inquiry

  • 2 May 2018: Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names,[4] writing:[5]
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.
  • 21 May 2018: application to restrict real and cover names made by National Crime Agency. It notes that the Inquiry had indicated it would determine the applicatoin without a risk assessment.[6]
In their application EN39 makes a number of arguments for anonymity stating that if their cover name was released, it would also expose other cover identities used for non NPOIU work which would also put them at risk, particularly as there is also 'at least one on-going threat related to an individual suspected of murder'.[9]
  • 30 Oct 2018: Mitting ruled to restrict both real and cover names, writing:[10]
I have not given weight to a generic argument about legend building.
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.


Notes

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 'EN39', Personal statement in support of the restriction order application (anonymity application) made by EN39 pursuant to Section 19(2) of the Inquiries Act 2005, National Crime Agency, undated (released 9 July 2018 via ucpi.org.uk).
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Andrew Connor, QC, Open application for restriction orders (anonymity) in respect of officers EN39 and EN74, National Crime Agency, 21 May 2018 (released via ucpi.org.uk 9 July 2018.
  7. NPOIU 'Minded to' officer's list of documents - published 09 July 2018, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 9 July 2018. See also associated press note: Publication of documents relating to anonymity applications: National Public Order Intelligence Unit & Special Demonstration Squad, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 9 July 2018.
  8. Sir John Mitting, Applications for restriction orders in respect of real and cover names of officers of the Special Operations Squad and the Special Demonstration Squad and of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit - Directions, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 3 July 2018.
  9. 'EN39', Second personal statement in support of the restriction order application (anonymity application) made by EN39 pursuant to Section 19(2) of the Inquiries Act 2005, National Crime Agency, undated (released 9 July 2018 via ucpi.org.uk).
  10. 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.