Peter Salmon at 12:51, 12 July 2018

2018-07-12T12:51:33Z

Peter Salmon: Created page with "{{Undercover_Police_Officer_sidebar|Name='HN40'|Alias=unknown|Series=undercover police officers|Image=Male_silhouette.png |Unit=Special Demonstration Squad|DatesDeployed=2000s..."

2018-03-09T22:27:26Z

Created page with "{{Undercover_Police_Officer_sidebar|Name='HN40'|Alias=unknown|Series=undercover police officers|Image=Male_silhouette.png |Unit=Special Demonstration Squad|DatesDeployed=2000s..."

New page

{{Undercover_Police_Officer_sidebar|Name='HN40'|Alias=unknown|Series=undercover police officers|Image=Male_silhouette.png |Unit=Special Demonstration Squad|DatesDeployed=2000s|Targets=unknown}}

'''HN40''' is the cipher given to a former [[Special Demonstration Squad]]] undercover officer, deployed in the last decade of that unit

For the N cipher system see [[N officers]] page.

==As an SDS officer==

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).<ref name="herne.2">Mick Creedon, [http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Documents/About-Us/Herne/Operation-Herne---Report-2---Allegations-of-Peter-Francis.pdf Operation Herne: Report 2 - Allegations of Peter Francis], ''Metropolitan Police Service'', March 2014.</ref>

==In the Undercover Policing Inquiry==

In November 2017, the Inquiry Chair, John Mitting, indicated that he was planning to restrict both real and cover name. In support of this position he stated:<ref name="mitting.mindedto2.14Nov17">[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/20171114-SDS-anonymity-Minded-to-2.pdf 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)</ref>
:: 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.

However, it was not until 4 January 2018 that the restriction order application for both HN40's real and cover name was published along with supporting documents. These were: [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20171221-HN40-Restriction-Order.pdf Open application for restriction order], [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180103-HN40-Risk-Assessment.pdf Open risk assessment], [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20171221-HN40-Medical-Report.pdf Open medical evidence (gisted)], [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20171221-HN40-Impact-Statement-December-2015.pdf Open impact statement (Dec. 2015)] and [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20171221-HN40-Impact-Statement-August-2017.pdf 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. Also:<ref>Brian Lockie, [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180103-HN40-Risk-Assessment.pdf N40 Risk Assessment (open version)], ''Metropolitan Police'', 15 October 2017 (accessed via ucpi.org.uk).</ref>
:: 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 of August 2017, 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 since having given his initial statement in December 2015.<ref>'N40', [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20171221-HN40-Impact-Statement-August-2017.pdf Impact Statement update], ''Metropolitan Police'', August 2017 (accessed via ucpi.org.uk).</ref>

The restriction order application was heard in open hearing on 5 February 2018.<ref name="ucpi.pr.15Jan2018">[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180115-press-notice-Feb-hearing.pdf 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).</ref> and on 20 February 2018, Mitting ruled in favour of restricting both real and cover name, stating:<ref name="mitting.ruling.20Feb18">Sir John Mitting, [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/20180220-ruling-SDS-anonymity.pdf 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 - Ruling], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 20 February 2018 (accessed 4 March 2018).</ref>
:: If the true identity were to be discovered by members of [the group infiltrated] HN40 would be at real risk of serious violence by them or their associates....Ms Sikand, on behalf of Peter Francis, submits that HN40 (like HN23) may have been authorised to participate in acts of violence while deployed which cannot satisfactorily be investigated without publication of the cover name. I disagree. The issue can be addressed in two ways: on the specific facts with HN40 and with the managers of HN40, in closed session; and on the giving or otherwise of such authorisation generally, with the managers, in open session.

Additional material relating to HN40 for the hearing of 5 February 2018 was submitted by the [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/20180201-MPS-submissions-for-hearing-on-5-Feb-2018.pdf Metropolitan Police], [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180118-GNM-subs-HN23-HN40-HN241-HN322-HN348.pdf The Guardian], [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180119-Francis-subs-HN23-HN40-HN241-HN322-HN348.pdf Peter Francis] and the [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/20180122-NPNSCPs-subs-HN23-HN40-HN241-HN322-HN348.pdf NPSCPs].

==Notes==

<references />

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Undercover_Police_Officer_sidebar|Name='HN40'|Alias=unknown|Series=undercover police officers|Image=Male_silhouette.png |Unit=Special Demonstration Squad|DatesDeployed=2000s|Targets=unknown}}
-'''HN40''' is the cipher given to a former [[Special Demonstration Squad]]] undercover officer, deployed in the last decade of that unit
+'''HN40''' is the cipher given to a former [[Special Demonstration Squad]]] undercover officer, deployed in the last decade of that unit. The Chair of the Undercover Policing Inquiry, John Mitting, has ruled that both the cover or real name of the officer would be restricted by the Inquiry.<ref name="mitting.ruling.20Feb18"/>
 For the N cipher system see [[N officers]] page.
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :: 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.
-However, it was not until 4 January 2018 that the restriction order application for both HN40's real and cover name was published along with supporting documents. These were: [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20171221-HN40-Restriction-Order.pdf Open application for restriction order], [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180103-HN40-Risk-Assessment.pdf Open risk assessment],  [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20171221-HN40-Medical-Report.pdf Open medical evidence (gisted)], [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20171221-HN40-Impact-Statement-December-2015.pdf Open impact statement (Dec. 2015)] and [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20171221-HN40-Impact-Statement-August-2017.pdf Open impact statement (Aug. 2017)], the latter two both heavily redacted.
+The restriction order application for both HN40's real and cover name was published along with supporting documents were made public on 4 January 2018. These were: [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20171221-HN40-Restriction-Order.pdf Open application for restriction order], [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180103-HN40-Risk-Assessment.pdf Open risk assessment],  [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20171221-HN40-Medical-Report.pdf Open medical evidence (gisted)], [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20171221-HN40-Impact-Statement-December-2015.pdf Open impact statement (Dec. 2015)] and [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20171221-HN40-Impact-Statement-August-2017.pdf 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. Also:<ref>Brian Lockie, [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180103-HN40-Risk-Assessment.pdf N40 Risk Assessment (open version)], ''Metropolitan Police'', 15 October 2017 (accessed via ucpi.org.uk).</ref>

HN40 - Revision history

Peter Salmon at 12:51, 12 July 2018

Peter Salmon: Created page with "{{Undercover_Police_Officer_sidebar|Name='HN40'|Alias=unknown|Series=undercover police officers|Image=Male_silhouette.png |Unit=Special Demonstration Squad|DatesDeployed=2000s..."