EN41

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
'EN41'
Alias:	unknown
Deployment:	unknown
Role:	undercover

EN41 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 the Inquiry will restrict the officers real and cover name in the Inquiry.

• For the EN cipher system see EN officers page.

As a police officer

Prior to joining the NPOIU, EN41 was deployed (as a foundation level undercover) targeting a drugs gang, resulting with some of them being imprisoned.

Following their time with the NPOIU, EN41 continued to be deployed as an undercover and cover officer. This includes a 'number of undercover deployments and acting as a cover officer for investigations into a diverse range of serious crime investigations including drugs supply, prostitution, rape, child sexual exploitation, professional standards, organised crime and other sensitive areas of policing'.

They stated:

Given the nature of my work, I always believed that my identity would never be revealed. Anonymity is assured even for low level drugs infiltrations... It is therefore a natural assumption that, for the high level undercover work, my identity would never be revealed. I have placed myself at great risk due to my undercover role with the expectation that my identity would never be disclosed.

EN41 believes that if either real and NPOIU cover name were released their life would be at risk from an organised crime group they targeted and that they and their family would have to enter the witness protection programme. Their risk assessment wrote:

The risk assessor believes that the individuals that featured within EN41’s operations whilst seconded to the National Public Order Intelligence Unit pose a low threat and risk of harm, from a physical point of view, towards EN41. However, the opposite can be said of the groups and individuals infiltrated by EN41 following EN41’s National Public Order Intelligence Unit secondment, which carry a high threat and risk of harm.

In the Undercover Policing Inquiry

• 29 July 2017: application to restrict real and cover names made.

• 2 May 2018: Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names, 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 would be likely to prompt evidence from others who may have encountered EN41, it would amount to a disproportionate interference with that right and would not be justified under Article 8(2) of the European Convention."

• 9 July 2018: Inquiry releases gisted versions of the restriction order application, witness statement and risk assessment for the officer and Mitting directed that any submissions in response to these applications were to be made by 20 July 2018.

• 30 Oct 2018: Mitting rules to restrict both real and cover names, writing:

I remain satisfied that the publication of EN41 '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 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.