N officers 1

From Powerbase
Revision as of 20:33, 9 February 2018 by Peter Salmon (talk | contribs)

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 & HN cyphers used to designate individual officers in the Inquiry and by Operation Herne (Part 1)

Police officers cited in the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI) are generally designated by a cypher / nominal starting with N or HN followed by a number. The practice of assigning these cyphers was begun in by the Metropolitan Police inquiry Operation Herne which investigated the activities of the Special Demonstration Squad undercovers. It was subsequently adopted by Mark Ellison for his Review and the UCPI, both of which draw heavily on the material assembled by Operation Herne. The practice was also taken up by Operation Elter, investigating the National Public Order Intelligence Unit. The system appears to have changed in 2017, when the 3 August 2017 rulings and direction of the new Inquiry Chair, John Mitting, began using the 'HN' label, though the associated numbers appear to be unchanged.[1]

Due to the number of offices and associated details, the list has been split into several pages. This is page 1, covering N officers with cypher number up to 99.

  • Updated 27 January 2018

N Officers (1 - 99)

Cypher Name Status Notes
HN1 Likely to be Matt Rayner (alias) Minded-To: real name cannot be published.[2] Deployed against animal rights groups 1992-1997; cover name already in public domain and there 'are allegations about his conduct which require to be publicly ventilated to permit the Inquiry to fulfil its terms of reference. Publication of his real name is not necessary to permit this to be achieved. It would carry significant risks to his physical safety and well-being and the well-being of his family.' This would interfere with Article 8 Right and if the risk did materialise the result would be 'substantial'. Even if the risk didn't materialise, the 'interference would still be significant'. Mitting also said full reasons could not be set out openly and a closed note expanding on them would also be provided.[2]
HN2 unknown Full name and cover name to be published as no application for restriction order made.[2][3]

It had previously been noted that the UCPI needed further details before making a decision and had been awaiting NH2 to appoint a legal representative.[1][4]

SDS UCO. Application from MPS over restriction on publishing real name only; officer not in position to confirm whether wider restriction is to be sought over the cover name, and open version of material relating to HN2 has yet to be agreed.[5]
Mentioned in Herne 1 as a former SDS undercover and later a cover officer, now retired:[6]
  • 3.4: "According to N2 efforts would be made to research the existence of close family members. Names that were too unusual or too common would be discounted, as too would cases where the deceased had died in unusual or memorable circumstances. In preference, children were chosen that would have died between four (4) and eight (8) years of age and would be of broadly the same age as the UCO."
  • 4.4: "... he found himself in a situation where he had penetrated an organisation and was then asked by the group to help trace a mole among them."
HN3 unknown Jan 2018: more time granted 'to provide the Chairman with information in order for him to make a decision'.[7][8]
N5 John Dines (a.k.a. John Barker) Confirmed.[9] SDS UCO
HN7 unknown Subject to final restriction order on real and cover name, made on 4 Sept 2017.[1].[3] SDS UCO. Deployed in the late 1980s and early 1990s to three groups. Unconnected with his undercover deployment he sustained a significant head injury while a police officer. This injury and an unrelated condition have caused significant mental and personal problems, subject to a report by Prof. George Fox - who concludes there is a 'significant' ('highly likely to occur') risk of suicide if HN7's real or cover name were published.[10]

A separate ruling without hearing granted HN7 anonymity, based on medical evidence.[1] "[Mitting] has therefore made a final determination based on medical evidence which cannot be properly disputed."[5] Mitting in his ruling on anonymity states the risk to suicide is one he is not prepared to take, and even if that risk were not to materialise, notes "the mental distress which would be occasioned to him would amount to a significant interference in with his right to respect for his private life" under Article 8 human rights and "The need to arrive at that truth in relation to his deployment is unlikely to provide that justification. There is likely to be a good deal of other open evidence of similar and contemporaneous deployments from which conclusions can be drawn".[10] See also Open application for restriction order for HN7 and the NPSCP's objection in response to the granting of the order

N9 unknown 15 Jan 2018, granted further time to provide the Inquiry with information being sought in relation to their restriction order application.[11][12] An SDS officer mentioned by N81 in his interview: "N9 later told me that it was quite usual for SDS management to arrange meetings between operatives and outside persons at the management’s homes. This was because such persons would not be able to attend SDS safe houses." (Ellison, p. 232).[13]
N10 Bob Lambert Confirmed.[14] SDS UCO & manager. Role in meeting between Richard Walton and N81 discussed in Herne II[15] and the Ellison Review.[16]

In March 2016 a restriction order application and supporting documents were filed on his behalf seeking some restriction on personal details being released by the Inquiry: Open Application, Personal Statement (open version), Draft Order. In October 2016, Pitchford issued a 'Minded-To' indicating he was willing to grant most of the order sought. Objections were to be received by 3 November 2016, but no final order is readily found on the Inquiry website.

Core participant; represented by Slater & Gordon.

HN12 unknown Minded-to (25 Jan 2018): grant restriction over real name; no application to restrict their cover name submitted which will be published once pre-publication checks have been made.[7][8] SDS UCO 1982-85, when deployed into two left wing groups successively. During this time he was arrested, prosecuted and fined for a minor offence under his cover name. Had a 'fleeting sexual encounter with a female activist'. According to Mitting, his deployment was unremarkable and gave rise to no known allegation of misconduct.[8]

Currently in 60s and married. According to a January 2018 Minded To from Mitting, HN12 and his wife have serious health conditions; concerned that an intermittent condition he suffers from may be triggered or exacerbated if his real name is published, and is also concerned that such publication may have an impact on his wife. Mitting states that publication of real name is not necessary, and 'publication of his cover name, which will occur, will suffice to prompt evidence from those with whom he interacted, if they have any to give'. While publication of his real name would interfere with his Article 8(2) rights to private and family life.[8]

HN13 unknown 15 Jan 2018: 'Minded-to' grant restriction order over real name; no application in relation to cover name which will be published in due course.[11] SDS UCO. Deceased. Infiltrated the Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist) from 1974 to 1978. Twice prosecuted for public order offences in his cover name and convicted once. No known allegation of misconduct.[12]

Survived by widow, now in early 70s. She claims her husband was assured of lifelong confidentiality and would not have become an undercover officer otherwise. She wishes that her husband's memory, she and her family should be left in peace, and that a restriction order granted in both real and cover name. Mitting however notes there is a 'sterile corridor' preventing HN13's real name being discovered from his cover name and even if it was breached the risk to the widow etc. is negligible. Thus is no good reason preventing publishing of the cover name which may may permit those he targeted to come forward. As some risk of interference in private life of widow if real name published, that shall be restricted.[12]

N14 Jim Boyling Confirmed.[14] SDS UCO. In March 2016 a restriction order application and supporting documents were filed on his behalf seeking some restriction on personal details being released by the Inquiry: Open Application, Draft Order. In October 2017, Pitchford issued a 'Minded-To note indicating he would grant the order. Objections were to be received by 3 November 2016, but no final order is readily found on the Inquiry website. Mentioned in passing in Herne 1 (para. 2.1).[6]

Core participant; represented by Slater & Gordon.

HN15 unknown Mitting minded to refuse restriction orders over real & cover names. Closed hearing to be held to consider this.[2] Previously, it was noted that the UCPI needed more details before making a decision.[1][4] On 20 December 2017, Mitting noted, that following closed hearings: 'The application for a restriction order in respect of HN15's real and cover names is refused. Reasons will be published in due course.'[17] SDS UCO. Mentioned by Lambert as an SDS UCO who 'would have involvement in Stephen Lawrence campaign issues' (Ellison page 214).[16]

No application from MPS, but in March 2016 NH15's lawyer submitted an application to restrict real and cover names. The lawyers have since notified the Inquiry that a supplement to the application may be made on receipt of a final risk assessment from the MPS. The Inquiry has also received additional evidence, but is awaiting the further application before publishing anything.[5] March 2016 application documents: personal statement (gisted), open application, draft order and risk assessment (gisted).

In November 2017, Mitting noted:[2]

I am minded to refuse to make a restriction order in respect of either real or cover name. A closed hearing is required to permit HN15 to make submissions in support of either or both applications. If I were to state the reasons for the decisions which I am minded to make openly and/or if HN15 were to make submissions openly it would so undermine the applications as to deprive them of purpose.

The closed hearing in relation for this was held by the 20 December 2017; an Inquiry press release stated that Mitting had decided to refuse the application to restrict the release of both cover and real names of the officer and a ruling to this effect would be released in the New Year.[18]

Represented by Slater & Gordon.

HN16 unknown Ruling: cover name to be released; real name to be restricted.[19] SDS UCO

N16 is a core participant and represented by Slater & Gordon.

N17 unknown Minded-to: neither real or cover name can be published.[2] SDS UCO, targeting right wing groups.[2] Mentioned by Lambert as a contemporary of Peter Francis (early/mid 1990s) who infiltrated far right groups (Ellison, p. 214).[16]

Mitting stated in his Minded-To:[2]

HN17 is no longer a serving police officer. HN17 was deployed against a number of groups in the last 15 years of the existence of the SDS. If the true identity were to be discovered by members of them HN17 would be at real risk of serious violence by them or their associates. Nothing in the nature of the deployment or of what is known of HN17’s conduct of it could justify running that risk.
For reasons which can only be, and are, explained in the closed note accompanying these reasons, publication of the cover name would be likely eventually to lead to the discovery of the real name [emphasis added]. That is not a risk which I am prepared to run. Even if Article 3 of the European Convention is not, on the facts, engaged, Article 8 is; and the interference with HN17’s right to respect for private and family life which would be occasioned by both the risk and occurrence of violence would not be justified under Article 8(2).
Careful thought will, in the future, need to be given to the manner in which the evidence of HN17 will be received by the Inquiry.

An application for restriction order over real and cover names had been made; supporting evidence supplied to Inquiry,[3] but has not been published.

HN19 unknown Minded-to (25 Jan 2018): grant restriction over real name; no application to restrict their cover name submitted which will be published once pre-publication checks have been made.[7] SDS UCO, from 1981 to 1985 he was deployed into two left wing groups which no longer exist 'as such'. Was arrested and cautioned for unlawful bill posting during deployment. No known allegation of misconduct during his deployment, which appears otherwise unremarkable according to Mitting. Was newly married when deployed. In 60s and married.[8]

Mitting states in his Jan 2018 'Minded To', that publication of real name is not necessary, and publication of his cover name will suffice to prompt any whom he interacted with to come forward to give evidence about his deployment. Has no concerns for his physical safety, but 'is concerned to avoid the intrusion into his and his wife's private and family life which might result from publication of his real name. Thus, in Mitting's view publication of his real name would interfere with his Article 8(2) rights to private and family life.[8] [8]

HN20 unknown 11 January 2018, directions issued for any application for restriction orders to be submitted by 30 & 31 January 2018 for MPS and Designated Lawyers Team respectively.[20]
HN21 unknown 11 January 2018, directions issued for any application for restriction orders to be submitted by 30 & 31 January 2018 for MPS and Designated Lawyers Team respectively.[20]
HN23 unknown Minded-To: Neither real or cover names can be released (Nov 2017).[2] The Restriction order application is listed to be heard in open hearing on 5 February 2018.[21] SDS UCO in 1990s.

According to Mitting (Nov 2017):[2]

HN23 was deployed against one group and reported on other groups in the 1990s. The nature of the deployment gave rise to risks to HN23's life and safety which, to an extent which cannot be precisely quantified, remain. They are more fully set out in the closed note which accompanies these reasons. Nothing short of anonymity in respect of real and cover name could obviate the risks. I would not be justified in running them. It is unavoidable that the evidence which HN23 can give will be given in a closed session.

An application for restriction order over real and cover names had been made; supporting evidence supplied to Inquiry,[3] and published on 4 January 2018: Open application for restriction order Open risk assessment and a heavily redacted Open impact statement.

The Risk Assessment reveals that N23 is not a core participant in the Inquiry, and that he has previously been the subject of a misconduct investigation, which concluded with no case to answer. He says he has not been in sexual relationships. 'There was always an assumption of anonymity, but never a formal guarantee or assurance.' The increased risk of the cover or real name confirmed is assessed to be 'critical ... resulting in a life threatening injury, and more likely death, and the only security measure left would be immediate extraction and re-location.'

In their Impact Statement, N23 says he is not on any form of social media and has actively avoided being on it as a consequence of his role withing the SDS. He is also trying to prevent any photograph being put online leading back to his family and himself. He is worried the press will turn up, and worried what friends and family will think about the fact that he could not talk about the work he was doing:

I am worried that they will not understand the reasons for this and will see it as a betrayal which will affect both friendships and relationships with family. Had I believed that there was a risk of my identity becoming known, I would not have taken on the role.

Material relating to HN23 for the hearing of 5 February 2018 was submitted by the Metropolitan Police, The Guardian, Peter Francis and the [NPSCPs https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/20180122-NPNSCPs-subs-HN23-HN40-HN241-HN322-HN348.pdf].

N24 unknown Extension sought to be deal with in a future tranche.[3] SDS Management. N81 stated to Op. Herne: 'I was informed, at the height of the Macpherson Inquiry, that my reporting was going straight to Sir Paul Condon’s desk each morning via N24, and N127 (SDS Sgt) passed on to me from N24 congratulations from the Commissioner for your excellent reporting...' (Ellison, p. 232).[16]
HN25 unknown 11 January 2018, directions issued for any application for restriction orders to be submitted by 30 & 31 January 2018 for MPS and Designated Lawyers Team respectively.[20]
HN26 unknown Ruling: restrict real name, release cover name (Dec 2017).[19] SDS UCO (early/mid 1990s).

They were a Special Branch officer prior to being recruited to SDS and 'promised lifelong anonymity along with personal safety assurances'.[22] According to the 1994/1995 SDS annual review, cited by Herne I, N26 was the first officer to obtain a completely fictitious identity with the practice of using identities of deceased children being phased out starting November 1994 (5.4).[6]


An application for full anonymity for HN26 had been made in March 2016:[5] In August 2017, the Metropolitan Police applied to restrict HN26's real name only [23] while HN26's solicitors (S&G) applied for both cover and real names to be subject to a restriction order.[24] HN26 has not cooperated with the risk assessment, refusing to meet the risk assessor and providing information only through their lawyer.[22]

A closed session for on HN26's restriction order applications was to be held 'due to sensitivity of material being considered'[1] / 'detailed factors particular to this officer's circumstances'[4] and Mitting directed that NH26 should be present or at least contactable throughout the hearing.[25] This hearing took place by 14 November, with legal representatives for HN26 (S&G), the MPS and the Inquiry in attendance.[3]

Following this closed hearing taking place, Mitting said he was minded-to release the cover name and restrict HN26's real name,[26][2] (Oct 2013):[27]

It is necessary to permit the Inquiry’s terms of reference to be fulfilled that HN26’s cover name be published. The activities in which HN26 participated during deployment are matters of legitimate public concern. Others, not belonging to the Special Demonstration Squad, could, if alerted to the cover name of HN26 give evidence of potential value about them and about HN26’s participation in them. Unless the cover name is published, there is a real risk that the Inquiry would be deprived of such evidence. No practical means exists of obtaining such evidence from them unless the cover name of HN26 is published by the Inquiry. The Article 8(2) European Convention rights of HN26 are engaged, but the public interest identified above justifies the interference with them identified in the closed reasons which accompany this note.
Publication of the real name of HN26 by the Inquiry is not necessary to permit the terms of reference of the Inquiry to be fulfilled. Given that it is not necessary, it would be disproportionate to do so.

An unpublished closed note was stated to provide more detailed reasons.[27]. See also the NPSCP submissions of 5 October 2017.

The accompanying press release noted also:[26]

The undercover police deployments of all three of these individuals [HN16, HN26, HN81] are of real interest to the Inquiry and the Chairman is of the view that there is no means of getting to the truth without the cover names being made public.

Issues raised in the supplementary 'minded to' were addressed in [1].

HN26's application was heard at the hearing of 21 November 2017[28] and Mitting ruled in favour of releasing the cover name but restricting the real name on 5 December 2017. Mitting stated that at this point it was not necessary for the Inquiry to fulfil its terms to release HN26's real name, though additional reasons for the decision were also set out in the closed reasons of 23 October 2017.[19] The Restriction Order was released on 8 December 2017.


March 2016 material: open application, S&G application, personal statement (gisted), draft order, and risk assessment (gisted).

August 2017 material: MPS have applied to MPS application to restrict real name (MPS), application to restrict both cover and real names (S&G), expert medical evidence (Dr Walter Busuttil, fully redacted), personal statement (fully redacted) & risk assessment (Graham Walker, mostly redacted).

Core participant; represented by Slater & Gordon.

N27 unknown SDS Undercover. Ellison cites Lambert's interview with Operation Herne as saying: "N27 (also deployed into a different left-wing group) and would have come across Peter Francis, certainly both were at Welling…" (Ellison, p. 214).[16]
HN33 unknown Extent of restriction sought unclear; MPS to clarify.[3]
HN35 unknown Jan 2018: more time granted 'to provide the Chairman with information in order for him to make a decision'.[7][8]
HN34 unknown Real name to be published.[3] SDS Management / back office staff. No restriction order application made.[3]
N40 unknown Minded-To: Neither real name or cover name to be published (Nov 2017).[2] The Restriction order application is listed to be heard in open hearing on 5 February 2018.[21] SDS UCO. Mentioned in relation to how information from the SDS, particularly on the identities of protestors, was passed on to the rest of the police (Herne II, 13.4, 24.1.3).[15]

In November 2017, Mitting stated:

HN40 was deployed against two groups in the last decade of the existence of the SDS [1998-2008]. If the true identity were to be discovered by members of them HN40 would be at real risk of serious violence by them or their associates. Nothing in the nature of the deployment or in what is known of HN40’s conduct of it could justify running that risk.
For reasons which can only be, and are, explained in the closed note accompanying these reasons, publication of the cover name would be likely eventually to lead to the discovery of the real name. That is not a risk which I am prepared to run. Even if Article 3 of the European Convention is not, on the facts, engaged, Article 8 is; and the interference with HN40’s right to respect for private and family life which would be occasioned by both the risk and occurrence of violence would not be justified under Article 8(2). Careful thought will, in the future, need to be given to the manner in which the evidence of HN40 will be received by the Inquiry.

Documents published 4 January 2018: Open application for restriction order, Open risk assessment, Open medical evidence (gisted), Open impact statement (Dec. 2015) and Open impact statement (Aug. 2017), the latter two both heavily redacted.

The Risk Assessment reveals that HN40 is not a core participant in the Inquiry and that there is no evidence of misconduct.

N40 was given assurances as regards anonymity, and was also given an assurance of a favourable posting after N40s deployment. To N40's mind, these assurances were absolute and made in the presence of a family member.
Members of the group(s) and/or their associates were involved in serious violent crime during the deployment.
The deployment included one occasion when N40 was prosecuted in cover name.
N40 gave examples of where images of N40 while deployed are likely to exist.

In their Impact Statement, N40 gives a detailed account of what he was promised, how isolated the SDS deployment was from any other police work, and how the MPS let him down afterwards. N40 is diagnosed with PTSD and says his health has deteriorated significantly between the two Impact Statements (Dec 2015 and Aug 2017).

Material relating to HN40 for the hearing of 5 February 2018 was submitted by the Metropolitan Police, The Guardian, Peter Francis and the [NPSCPs https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/20180122-NPNSCPs-subs-HN23-HN40-HN241-HN322-HN348.pdf].

HN41 unknown Minded-to (25 Jan 2018): restriction order over both real and cover names.[7] SDS UCO deployed against two groups in the 1970s and 1980s, of which the principle target group no longer exists. No known allegation of misconduct, and according to Mitting 'given the nature of the deployment and the personal circumstances of HN41, it is very unlikely any plausible allegation of misconduct could be made'. In 60s and married.[8]

Mitting also notes that there was a 'real, but unquantifiable risk to the personal safety of HN41 if the real or cover name were to be published', and it would 'be neither necessary or proportionate to run that risk.' HN41 was apparently also promised lifetime anonymity to which Mitting also states: 'HN41 was entitled to rely on that promise when undertaking the deployments referred to. In this case, it is a relevant factor.'[8]

Mitting also added that open evidence from HN41 can be provided under his cypher, and protective measures used if they are required to give open oral evidence. Publication of real or cover name would interfere with the private life / physical integrity of HN41 so not justified under Article 8(2).[8]

N43 Peter Francis Confirmed. SDS UCO, active 1993-1997 in Youth against Racism in Europe and Militant / Socialist Party.

Mentioned in Herne I (3.5, 3.6) though not by real name; his identity can be inferred as he was the only former undercover who provided a video interview to the Guardian.[6] Peter Francis confirmed this was his cypher in a tweet of 23 January 2018.[29]

On 25 January 2018, the Inquiry revealed that Francis had used three cover identities, 'Peter Johnson', 'Peter Daley' and 'Peter Black'. This was the first public revealing of the alias 'Peter Johnson', a name taken from that of a dead child. The Inquiry noted that it ' has been in touch with Peter Johnson’s close relatives who have made it very clear that they want the media to respect their privacy and not to seek to contact them by any means'.[30]

N45 unknown Minded-To: cover name can be published, but not real name (Nov 2017).[2] SDS UCO & Management. Currently in 70s they were deployed against groups in the 1970s, from which there is no known allegation of misconduct. Later had an administrative role in SDS in 1982-1983 which involved collation & internal distribution of intelligence reports, but 'not the tasking of undercover officers or target group selection.'[2]

Mitting noted (Nov 2017):[2]

Only immediate family members are aware of HN45’s deployment. They are concerned about the damage to HN45’s reputation which might result from association in the real name with other now notorious undercover officers and from lies which might be told by others about HN45. HN45 undertook the role of an undercover officer in the expectation that identity would not be revealed. In respect of real identity, this expectation should be fulfilled unless it is in the public interest that it should be set aside – for example, if it were necessary to do so to permit an accusation of misconduct to be determined. It is not. Further, reputation is an aspect of HN45’s private life to which respect must be shown. Interference with it is not necessary to fulfil the terms of reference of the Inquiry.
The same considerations do not apply to the cover name. I accept, as claimed, that HN45 understood that the cover name would not be revealed publicly. I also accept, as contended, that it is unlikely that any member of any of the groups encountered by this officer, will be able to give evidence about the deployment because of the elapse of time and the death of the principal target. I cannot, however, exclude the possibility that disclosure of the cover name may prompt such evidence and that it may be necessary to receive it to fulfil the terms of reference of the Inquiry. I am satisfied on the basis of the risk assessment dated 10 July 2017 that the risk that disclosure of the cover name would lead to the identification of HN45 by real name is nil or negligible. In those circumstances, the balance of factors requires that the cover name is published.

Closed reasons were also provided. On 4 January 2018 Open application for restriction order was released, but not Impact statement or Risk Assessment.

HN48 unknown 11 January 2018, directions issued for any application for restriction orders to be submitted by 30 & 31 January 2018 for MPS and Designated Lawyers Team respectively.[20]
N52 unknown SDS sergeant, who in 1998 received the memo from Bob Lambert on the meeting between Richard Walton and N81 (Ellison Review, p. 229).[16]
N53 unknown Jan 2018: more time granted 'to provide the Chairman with information in order for him to make a decision'.[7] SDS Management. Authored a series of internal memos in 2002 in relation to a joint operation with the National Criminal Intelligence Service known as Op. Wisdom - in relation to the use of the 'Jackal run' process of using a deceased person's identity to obtain passports. "N53 explained that he believed that between 1968 and 2002 there had been one hundred and two (102) SDS officers who had been provided with covert identities. N53’s documentation stated that the majority of these UCO’s would have used a deceased child’s identity." (Herne I, 5.4 & 6.2).[6] Mentioned as an ex-SDS Detective Inspector in relation to material being passed onto other units: Another ex-Detective Inspector, N53, told Herne: "The SDS retained nothing that would betray its identity" (Ellison, p. 201).[16] Briefly mentioned in relation to computerisation of SDS / Special Branch records circa 1998 (Herne II, 13.1).[15]
HN56 unknown Extent of restriction sought unknown; MPS to clarify.[3]
HN58 unknown Fluid situation. Currently Mitting minded-to restrict both real and cover names.[18]

Initially Mitting minded to restrict both cover and real name (Aug 2017).[1] This position changed to considering publishing both cover and real name by separating the two; further submissions invited (Oct 2017).[26] This changed again in November 2017, with the then minded-to suggesting publishing real name but not cover name - with further submissions invited and possibly a short closed hearing to take place.[3]. Following the hearing of 21st November, Mitting said a closed hearing would take place before he made a ruling.[19] This hearing took place by 20 December 2017, after which Mitting stated he was 'minded-to' restrict both the real and cover name of HN58.[18][17]

SDS UCO & manager - was DCI in charge of unit 1997-2001 (considered a managerial position). Now aged over 60.[31][4] Further details of their applications, etc. may be found on the HN58 page.
HN59 unknown Real name to be given 'when evidence relating to them is published before hearings'.[7] Back office staff. No application to restrict real name was made.[8]
HN60 unknown Jan 2018: more time granted 'to provide the Chairman with information in order for him to make a decision'.[7][8]
HN61 unknown Minded-To: real name to be published (15 Jan 2018)[11] SDS back office staff / manager only.[11] No application for a restriction order was made.[12]
HN64 unknown Minded-To: restrict both cover & real names (Nov 2017)[2] SDS UCO in the 1990s where they were deployed against one group and reported on others.[2]

Mitting noted in Nov 2017:[2] The deployment posed risks to HN64’s life and safety which, to an extent which cannot be precisely quantified, remain. The risks are explained in the closed note which accompanies these reasons. Nothing short of anonymity in respect of both real and cover names could obviate those risks. I would not be justified in running them. It is unavoidable that the evidence of HN64 will be given in closed session.

HN66 unknown 15 Jan 2018, granted more time to provide the Inquiry with information in relation to their restriction order application.[11] Full application delayed so minded to decision cannot yet be reached.[12]
N67 unknown SDS UCO (1981-1984). Used dead child identity; said at time of deployment there was no training manual but there was a 'best practice' reference folder (Herne I, 7.4 & 7.5).[6]
HN68 unknown Ruling (Dec 2017): real name cannot be published, cover name to be released.[19] SDS UCO & managerial; deceased. Deployed against groups from 1968 to 1974. Managerial position in SDS 1982-84.[4]

Cover name to be published, however, Mitting states: "As in the case of the living officers cited it is unlikely that the publication of his real name would prompt the giving or production of evidence necessary to permit the Inquiry to fulfil its terms of reference. Evidence about the discharge of his managerial duties can be given by reference to his cypher. The identity of HN68 is known to those who can give such evidence. Publication of his real name would be likely to interfere with the right of his widow to respect for her private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the European Convention’). It is unlikely that such interference would be justified under Article 8(2). The possibility that disclosure of his cover name might interfere with her right is nil or negligible. Closed reasons accompany this note."[4]

The MPS have submitted an application to restrict N68's real name, a witness statement from his widow and an open risk assessment (Mark Veljovic). The above information on N68 comes from Mitting's 'Minded-To' note, and does not appear in the risk assessment.

The restriction order application over HN68's real name was heard at the hearing of 21 November 2017,[28] and the restriction order issued on 8 December 2017. In granting the order, Mitting followed the reasons set out in his minded-to note of 3 August 2017.[19]

As he deceased, HN68 is not a core participant.

N69 unknown SDS Chief Inspector (1986-1987). In his statement to Op. Herne stated '…new recruits were instructed on how to go about obtaining false birth certificates. They would obtain details of a deceased person of a similar age from Somerset House and then use those details to go about creating their legend.' (Herne I, 3.1)[6]
HN71 unknown Minded-to (25 Jan 2018): restriction order over both real and cover names.[7] SDS UCO deployed against two groups in 1990s and 2000s.

Mitting states that if HN71's true identity was to be discovered then HN71 would be at 'real risk of serious violence by them or their associates. Nothing in the nature of the deployment or in what is known of HN71's conduct of it could justify running that risk.' There is some risk release of the cover name could lead to the real name. '[T]he intereference with HN71's right to respect for private and family life which would be occassioned by both the risk and occurance of violence would not be justified'.[8]

HN72 / N72 unknown Extension sought to deal with in a future tranche.[3] SDS. Provided evidence that N81's tasking to spy on the Lawrence family came from Commissioner Stevens (Ellison, p. 253; Herne II, 21.1.15 & 21.2).[15] Operation Herne told Ellison that N72 did not serve with SDS until after the Macpherson Inquiry so his account should be treated as hearsay; Stevens also denied this (Ellison, p. 253).[16]
N78 unknown Extent of restriction sought unclear; extension sought for MPS to supply application.[3] SDS UCO. Joined Special Branch in 1986 and SDS in 1991. Deployed as an undercover into left-wing groups Summer 1991 to 1995, including some near the Lawrence campaign; had left the SDS by 1996 (Herne II, 12.2; Ellison, 6.4). Aware of Peter Francis' role; said he heard nothing indicating material to smear the Lawrences was being sought (Herne II, 21.1.14; Ellison, 6.3(p), 6.4). Considerable material from him covered in section 6.4 of the Ellison Review (Vol.1).[15]
HN81 / N81 unknown Ruling: Real name cannot be published, cover name and group targeted will be done in time.[19] SDS UCO. Referred to extensively in the Ellison Review in relation to the targeting of the family of Stephen Lawrence.

On joining the SDS he received a home visit from two officers who affirmed he would have anonymity for the rest of their career. During his time undercover he would have twice-weekly meetings with his handlers, and following the end of his deployment he returned to Special Branch.[32]

Details of N81's restriction order applications can be found at the N81 in the Undercover Policing Inquiry page.

N81 is a core participant and is represented by Slater & Gordon.

N85 Roger Pearce Confirmed.[33] SDS UCO & manager. Head of Special Branch and Director of Intelligence for Metropolitan Police Service. See under profile for mentions of him in Herne I and the Ellison Review.
N86 unknown Extent of restriction sought unclear; extension sought for MPS to supply application.[3] SDS Head from 1993 to 1996, as Detective Chief Inspector; responsibilities included SDS recruitment & tasking. Author of a dcocument of 24 Sept 1993 referring to a 'new, violent anti-fascist group forming within Youth Against Racism'. Also authored the 1993/1994 SDS Annual Report which discussed left-wing campaigning around the death of Stephen Lawrence.
Left SDS for another post on 11 April 1996. On 21 April 1997 he took temporary control for six months of S Squad (the division which contained the SDS) due to illness of its Suptintendent.
Refused to provide a statement to Operation Herne. However, as he is central to the claims of Peter Francis regarding racism in the SDS and the tasking against the Lawrence family, N86 provided a statement for the Ellison Review in which he denied much of what Francis said. (Ellison 6.5 & 6.9(c)-(d); Herne II, 26.1.19)[16][6]
HN82 unknown 11 January 2018, directions issued for any application for restriction orders to be submitted by 30 & 31 January 2018 for MPS and Designated Lawyers Team respectively.[20]
HN83 unknown 11 January 2018, directions issued for any application for restriction orders to be submitted by 30 & 31 January 2018 for MPS and Designated Lawyers Team respectively.[20]
N88 unknown Minded-To (Nov 2017): cover name to be published (application to restrict refused), real name to be restricted.[3] SDS UCO. Deployed against community-based support groups in 1980s.[3]

Application to restrict both cover and real names made with accompanying risk assessement and personal impact statement (all unpublished).[3]

Mitting noted (Nov 2017): [2]

One of the issues which the Inquiry must explore is whether or not the deployment was justified and what, if anything, of legitimate interest to the police occurred during the deployment. It is unlikely, due in part to the passage of time, that HN88 will be able to give detailed evidence about the deployment. In that event, and in any event, the Inquiry will wish to obtain, if possible, evidence from those against whom HN88 was deployed. This task will be at least impeded if the cover name is not published.
Publication of HN88’s real name is not necessary to permit this to occur. It would give rise to an interference with private and family life, including HN88’s economic activity which would not be justified under Article 8(2) of the European Convention or fair to the officer. HN88 is concerned that if the cover name is published the real name might be identified. I am satisfied that the risk is so small as not to amount to a real risk and have therefore discounted it.

A closed note was also issued setting out further details.[2]

N89 unknown SDS UCO; infiltrated far right in 1990s and 'involved in public order situations where left and right attended'; contemporary of Peter Francis who would confide in N89.[16]
HN89 unknown Minded-to (Nov 2017): real & cover name to be published.[3] SDS UCO. Deceased and no application made to restrict details.

Note from URG: Not clear if this is the same person as N89, mentioned in Ellison.

HN95 unknown 11 January 2018, directions issued for any application for restriction orders to be submitted by 30 & 31 January 2018 for MPS and Designated Lawyers Team respectively.[20]
HN96 unknown 11 January 2018, directions issued for any application for restriction orders to be submitted by 30 & 31 January 2018 for MPS and Designated Lawyers Team respectively.[20]
HN99 unknown Real name to be published[3] SDS Management / back office. No application for restriction made.[3]

Notes

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Press Release: 'Minded to' note, ruling and directions in respect of anonymity applications relating to former officers of the Special Demonstration Squad, Undercover Policing Public Inquiry (UCPI.org.uk), 3 August 2017 (accessed 3 August 2017).
  2. 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 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 Special Operations Squad and the Special Demonstrations Squad ‘Minded to’ note 2, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 14 November 2017 (accessed 15 November 2017)
  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 3.17 3.18 3.19 Counsel to the Inquiry's Explanatory note to accompany the 'Minded-To' Note (2) in respect for restrictions over the real and cover names of officers of the Special Operations Squad and the Special Demonstration Squad, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 14 November 2017 (accessed 15 November 2017).
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 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 Special Operations Squad and the Special Demonstrations Squad ‘Minded to’ note, Undercover Policing Public Inquiry (UCPI.org.uk), 3 August 2017 (accessed 5 August 2017).
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 David Barr & Kate Wilkinson, Counsel to the Inquiry's explanatory note to accompany the 'Minded to' note in respect of applications for restrictions over the real and cover names of officers of the Special Operations Squad and the Special Demonstration Squad, Undercover Policing Public Inquiry (UCPI.org.uk), 3 August 2017 (accessed 5 August 2017).
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 Mick Creedon, Operation Herne Report 1: Covert Identities, Metropolitan Police Service, July 2013.
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 Press Notice: Decisions relating to anonymity applications: Special Demonstration Squad, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 25 January 2018 (accessed 25 January 2018).
  8. 8.00 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.09 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 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 Special Operations Squad and Special Demonstration Squad - 'Minded To' Note 4, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 25 January 2018 (accessed 25 January 2018).
  9. No anonymity sought for N5, Undercover Policing Public Inquiry (UCPI.org.uk), 20 December 2017 (accessed 5 August 2017).
  10. 10.0 10.1 John Mitting, In the matter of section 19(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 Application for restriction order in respect of HN7 Ruling (Ruling in respect of HN7), Undercover Policing Public Inquiry (UCPI.org.uk), 3 August 2017 (accessed 5 August 2017).
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Press notice - ‘Minded-to’ anonymity: Special Demonstration Squad Officers (HN13, HN296, HN304, HN339, HN340, HN354, HN356/124, HN61, HN819, HN109, HN9, HN66), Undercover Policing Inquiry, 15 January 2018 (accessed 15 January 2018).
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Sir John Mitting, Applications for restriction orders in respect of the real and cover names of officers of the Special Operations Squad and the Special Demonstration Squad: 'Minded to' note 3, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 15 January 2018 (accessed 15 January 2018).
  13. Mark Ellison, The Stephen Lawrence Independent Review - Volume 1: Possible corruption and the role of undercover policing in the Stephen Lawrence case, Gov.UK, March 2014.
  14. 14.0 14.1 The Chairman’s ‘Minded to’ note on applications for restriction orders in respect of two former undercover police officers, Undercover Policing Public Inquiry (UCPI.org.uk), 20 October 2016 (accessed 5 August 2017).
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Mick Creedon, Operation Herne: Report 2 - Allegations of Peter Francis, Metropolitan Police Service, March 2014.
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8 16.9 Mark Ellison, Possible corruption and the role of undercover policing in the Stephen Lawrence case, Stephen Lawrence Independent Review, Vol. 1, Gov.UK, March 2014
  17. 17.0 17.1 Sir John Mitting, Directions following closed hearings for HN15, HN58 and HN104, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 20 December 2017 (accessed 3 February 2018 via UCPI.org.uk).
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 Press Notice: Decisions relating to anonymity applications: Special Demonstration Squad - HN15, HN58 and HN104 "Carlo Neri", Undercover Policing Inquiry", 20 December 2017.
  19. 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 Sir John Mitting, Applications for restriction orders in respect of the real and cover names of officers of the Special Operations Squad and the Special Demonstration Squad: Ruling, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 5 December 2017 (accessed 9 December 2017).
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 Applications for restriction orders in respect of the real and cover names of officers of the Special Operations Squad and the Special Demonstrations Squad: Directions, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 11 January 2018 (accessed 11 January 2018).
  21. 21.0 21.1 15 January 2018 Press notice: Hearing on restriction orders in respect of HN23, HN40, HN241, HN322 and HN348, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 15 January 2018 (accessed 15 January 2018).
  22. 22.0 22.1 Graham Walker, HN26 - Open risk assessment, Metropolitan Police Service, 24 July 2017 (accessed via UCPI.org.uk).
  23. Open application for a restriction order (anonymity) re: N26, Metropolitan Police Service, 30 July 2017 (accessed via UCPI.org.uk).
  24. Open revised supplemental application on behalf of N26 for restriction orders, Slater & Gordon LLP (solicitors), 21 July 2017 (accessed via UCPI.org.uk).
  25. 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 Special Operations Squad and the Special Demonstrations Squad Directions (Directions arising out of the 'Minded-To'), Undercover Policing Public Inquiry (UCPI.org.uk), 3 August 2017 (accessed 5 August 2017).
  26. 26.0 26.1 26.2 Supplementary ‘Minded to’ note on anonymity, updated and additional hearing dates, directions to the Metropolitan Police Service, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 23 October 2017 (accessed 23 October 2017 via UCPI.org.uk).
  27. 27.0 27.1 Sir John Mitting, Supplementary 'Minded-To', Undercover Policing Inquiry, 23 October 2017 (accessed 23 October 2017 via UCPI.org.uk).
  28. 28.0 28.1 Transcript of hearing of 21 November 2017, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 21 November 2017.
  29. Peter Francis, I really do hope I actually was a #Spycops or all those years of counselling were a total waste of money! Wow just imagine if it turns out I wasn't!! My totally unwanted Police anonymity number was N43, Twitter.com, 23 January 2018 (accessed 23 January 2018).
  30. Press notice: No restriction sought over cover identities of Peter Francis, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 25 January 2018 (accessed 28 January 2018).
  31. Sir John Mitting, On the application of HN58 for a restriction order in respect of real and cover name, Undercover Policing Inquiry", 20 December 2017.
  32. David Reid, HN81 - Open Risk Assessment (redacted), Metropolitan Police Service28 June 2017 (accessed via UCPI.org.uk).
  33. No anonymity sought for Roger Pearce, Undercover Policing Public Inquiry (UCPI.org.uk), 29 March 2017 (accessed 3 August 2017).
,