Difference between revisions of "EN officers"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
{{UCPI_sidebar|Name=N Officers list|Description=A list of N & HN cyphers used to designate individual officers in the Inquiry and by Operation Elter}}
+
{{UCPI_sidebar|Name=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.<ref name="ucpi.wp.v1">[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180122-witness-statement-protocol-v1.0.pdf Witness Statement Protocol (v.1.0)], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 22 January 2018 (accessed 22 January 2018).</ref> For more details see under [N officers].
 
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.<ref name="ucpi.wp.v1">[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180122-witness-statement-protocol-v1.0.pdf Witness Statement Protocol (v.1.0)], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 22 January 2018 (accessed 22 January 2018).</ref> For more details see under [N officers].
Line 66: Line 66:
 
| ''resticted''
 
| ''resticted''
 
| cover officer
 
| cover officer
| Seconded NPOIU 2009-2011, where cover officer for two undercovers. Mitting wrote: "For  
+
| 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  
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."<ref name="mitting.npoiu.mindedto3"/>
 
given."<ref name="mitting.npoiu.mindedto3"/>
 
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
 
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
Line 74: Line 73:
 
| Temporary head of undercover operations 2003-2004.
 
| Temporary head of undercover operations 2003-2004.
 
| 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)."<ref name="mitting.npoiu.mindedto3"/>
 
| 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)."<ref name="mitting.npoiu.mindedto3"/>
 +
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
 +
| EN291
 +
| ''restricted''
 +
| Authorising officer, not with NPIOU
 +
| Application to restrict real name granted. Mitting wrote:<ref name="mitting.npoiu.mindedto3"/>
 +
::EN291 was not seconded to the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, but did write authorisations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for the deployment of EN327 (HN66) and performed cover officer dut ies 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 remainsunchanged.
 +
:: 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 w ill give evidence in public, albeit under his/her cypher. EN291 's d uties for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit did not require him/hr 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).<ref name="mitting.npoiu.mindedto3"/>
 +
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
 +
| EN407
 +
| ''to come''
 +
| cover officer
 +
| Application to restrict real name refused. Mitting wrote:<ref name="mitting.npoiu.mindedto3"/>
 +
:: 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.
 +
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
 +
| EN506
 +
| ''restricted''
 +
| unknown
 +
| Application to restrict real name refused. Mitting wrote:<ref name="mitting.npoiu.mindedto3"/>
 +
:: 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 w ho 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. Further,even if Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention are not engaged (an issue upon which it is not necessary to rule) , Article 8 is. Interference with the right of EN506 to respect for an aspect of private and family life - physical integrity - would not be justified under Article 8(2).
 +
 +
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
 +
| EN508
 +
| ''cover name to come''
 +
| undercover
 +
| Application to restrict cover name refused; real name will be restricted. 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:<ref name="mitting.npoiu.mindedto3"/>
 +
:: "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.
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
 +
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
 
<references />
 
<references />

Revision as of 20:14, 1 January 2019


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
EN26 to come unknown Application to restrict real name refused. Reasons set out in closed note.[2]
EN28 unknown cover officer Application to restrict real name refused. Cover officer for ARNI & NPOIU.[2]
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.[2]
EN30 restricted cover officer Cover officer for over six years, including deployments of interest to the Inquiry. Real name will be restricted.[2]
EN31 to come cover officer Cover officer for approximately six years, including for Mark Kennedy and EN34 Application to restrict real name refused.[2]
EN32 Rod Richardson Undercover Real name will be restricted.[2] Also given as N596.
EN49 resticted cover officer 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".[2]
EN50 to come cover officer 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."[2]
EN51 resticted cover officer 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)."[2]
EN52 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.[2]
EN53 resticted cover officer 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."[2]

EN54 to come Temporary head of undercover operations 2003-2004. 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)."[2]
EN291 restricted Authorising officer, not with NPIOU Application to restrict real name granted. Mitting wrote:[2]
EN291 was not seconded to the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, but did write authorisations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for the deployment of EN327 (HN66) and performed cover officer dut ies 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 remainsunchanged.
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 w ill give evidence in public, albeit under his/her cypher. EN291 's d uties for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit did not require him/hr 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).[2]
EN407 to come cover officer Application to restrict real name refused. Mitting wrote:[2]
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 Application to restrict real name refused. Mitting wrote:[2]
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 w ho 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. Further,even if Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention are not engaged (an issue upon which it is not necessary to rule) , Article 8 is. Interference with the right of EN506 to respect for an aspect of private and family life - physical integrity - would not be justified under Article 8(2).
EN508 cover name to come undercover Application to restrict cover name refused; real name will be restricted. 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:[2]
"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.


Notes