EN42

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
'EN42'
Alias:	unknown
Deployment:	unknown
Role:	undercover

EN42 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

EN42 had been an undercover officer for a number of years before joining the NPOIU. This included working as a Test Purchasing Officer for drug operations. After his secondment to the NPOIU, they continued doing undercover working and at the time of making their application for anonymity in the Inquiry (2017) they were active on an undercover operation. They have given evidence in a number of trials, always using anonymity techniques to protect their identity.

EN42 makes the point that if their NPOIU cover name was revealed it could lead to his real identity also being discovered so putting them at risk from organised crime gangs that they targeted as an undercover.

On their secondment to the NPOIU:

EN42 states that at all times there was an advance agreement that his/her details would never be disclosed. EN42 states that without this agreement, EN42 would never have taken part in this or any other operations.There was a constant assurance given to EN42 that if required to give evidence, EN42 would do this with the protection of special measures/screens. This was discussed on the National Public Order Intelligence Unit course. EN42 has said that he/she had no relationships and engaged in no other behaviour that may be subject to criticism.

In the Undercover Policing Inquiry

• 23 August 2017: application made by the Metropolitan Police Service to restrict real and cover names on grounds there is a physical risk of harm to EN42 and others if they were made public.

• 2 May 2018: Mitting minded to restrict real and cover names, writing:

EN42 is a serving police officer who 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.

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

• 30 October 2018: Sir John Mitting notes difficulties to be resolved in handling of evidence in relation to this officer's deployment and its management. However, he rules to restrict both real and cover names, writing:

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.

• 25 January 2019: EN42 mentioned at judicial review relating to the Inquiry) were it was stated that the application for anonymity was under review due to new (unknown) information having emerged.