HN59 - Revision history

Peter Salmon at 16:46, 7 January 2019

2019-01-07T16:46:12Z

Peter Salmon at 10:28, 11 August 2018

2018-08-11T10:28:23Z

Peter Salmon: Created page with "{{Undercover_Police_Officer_sidebar|Name='HN59'|Alias=unknown|Series=undercover police officers|Image=Male_silhouette.png |Unit=Special Demonstration Squad|DatesDeployed=late..."

2018-07-17T15:36:57Z

Created page with "{{Undercover_Police_Officer_sidebar|Name='HN59'|Alias=unknown|Series=undercover police officers|Image=Male_silhouette.png |Unit=Special Demonstration Squad|DatesDeployed=late..."

New page

{{Undercover_Police_Officer_sidebar|Name='HN59'|Alias=unknown|Series=undercover police officers|Image=Male_silhouette.png |Unit=Special Demonstration Squad|DatesDeployed=late 1980s / early 1990s|Targets=n/a}}

'''HN59''' is the cipher given to a former [[Special Demonstration Squad]] officer who performed back office duties for the unit in the late 1980s and early 1990s.<ref name="mitting.mindedto9.23May2018">[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-conatent/uploads/2018/05/20180523-Minded_to_note_9_and_ruling_8.pdf 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 9 and Ruling 8], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 23 May 2018.</ref> They had applied for a restriction order over their real name in the Undercover Policing Inquiry but this was refused by the Inquiry Chair, John Mitting.<ref name="ucpi.pr.23May2018">[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/201805223-PN_SDS_MT_9.pdf 'Minded to' decisions relating to anonymity applications: Special Demonstration Squad Ruling on HN122], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 23 May 2018.</ref>

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

==In the Undercover Policing Inquiry==

* 11 Dec 2017: directed any application to be made by 20/22 December 2017.<ref>[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/20171211-directions-SDS-anonymity.pdf 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 December 2017.</ref>

* 25 Jan 2018: No application to restrict real name made.<ref name="mitting.mindedto4.25Jan2018">Sir John Mitting, [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180125-December-tranche-impact-led-and-HN353-minded-to-sanitised.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 Special Demonstration Squad - 'Minded To' Note 4], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 25 January 2018.</ref> so HN59's real name was to be given 'when evidence relating to them is published before hearings'.<ref name="ucpi.pr.25Jan18">[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180124-December-minded-to-press-note.pdf Press Notice: Decisions relating to anonymity applications: Special Demonstration Squad], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 25 January 2018.</ref>

* 23 May 2018: an application to restrict real name appears to have been made as it was refused,<ref name="ucpi.pr.23May2018">[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/201805223-PN_SDS_MT_9.pdf 'Minded to' decisions relating to anonymity applications: Special Demonstration Squad Ruling on HN122], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 23 May 2018.</ref> with Mitting writing:<ref name="mitting.mindedto9.23May2018"/>
:: It is not contended the performance of those duties has exposed HN59 to any risk to safety; nor, sensibly, could they have done so. HN59 has chronic health problems, but there is no suggestion or evidence that the disclosure of the real name would exacerbate them. HN59 maintains that, if informed that the real name might be published when invited to join the SOS, HN59 would have refused to join. I accept that, if HN59 had realised that where would be public interest in and concern about the SOS, that might have been the case; but I do not accept that HN59 had any cause to be concerned about disclosure of the real name in connection with SOS back office duties, when recruited; and I do not therefore accept HN59's contention.
:: HN59 is understandably concerned about media interest and the possibility of intrusion into private and family life. Given the nature of the duties performed by HN59, these concerns are, I believe, misplaced. It is likely that HN59 will have some evidence to provide to the Inquiry which will assist it to fulfil its terms of reference. It is possible that the evidence which HN59 can provide can be given in the form of a witness statement only. That will depend upon its content.
:: The submissions made to me by and on behalf of HN59 do not establish that the starting point that, in the public interest of openness, no restriction order will be made is displaced by the need to protect HN59 from harm. A short closed note, dealing with a discrete question, accompanies these reasons.

==Notes==

<references />

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 :: The submissions made to me by and on behalf of HN59 do not establish that the starting point that, in the public interest of openness, no restriction order will be made is displaced by the need to protect HN59 from harm. A short closed note, dealing with a discrete question, accompanies these reasons.
 ==Notes==
 <references />

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 * 11 Dec 2017: directed any application to be made by 20/22 December 2017.<ref>[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/20171211-directions-SDS-anonymity.pdf 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 December 2017.</ref>
-* 25 Jan 2018: No application to restrict real name made.<ref name="mitting.mindedto4.25Jan2018">Sir John Mitting, [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180125-December-tranche-impact-led-and-HN353-minded-to-sanitised.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 Special Demonstration Squad - 'Minded To' Note 4], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 25 January 2018.</ref> so HN59's real name was to be given 'when evidence relating to them is published before hearings'.<ref name="ucpi.pr.25Jan18">[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180124-December-minded-to-press-note.pdf Press Notice: Decisions relating to anonymity applications: Special Demonstration Squad], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 25 January 2018.</ref>
+* 25 Jan 2018: No application to restrict real name made by Metropolitan Police's Commissioner Legal Team<ref name="mitting.mindedto4.25Jan2018">Sir John Mitting, [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180125-December-tranche-impact-led-and-HN353-minded-to-sanitised.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 Special Demonstration Squad - 'Minded To' Note 4], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 25 January 2018.</ref><ref name="ucpi.explan.note.30July2018">Kate Wilkinson, [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/20180730_SDS_anonymity_updated_explanatory_note.pdf Counsel to the Inquiry's Explanatory Note to accompany the Chairman's 'Minded To' Note 12 in respect of applications for restrictions over the real and cover name of officers of the Special Operations Squad and the Special Demonstration Squad - Update as at 30 July 2018], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 30 July 2018.</ref> so HN59's real name was to be given 'when evidence relating to them is published before hearings'.<ref name="ucpi.pr.25Jan18">[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180124-December-minded-to-press-note.pdf Press Notice: Decisions relating to anonymity applications: Special Demonstration Squad], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 25 January 2018.</ref>
-* 23 May 2018: an application to restrict real name appears to have been made as it was refused,<ref name="ucpi.pr.23May2018">[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/201805223-PN_SDS_MT_9.pdf 'Minded to' decisions relating to anonymity applications: Special Demonstration Squad Ruling on HN122], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 23 May 2018.</ref> with Mitting writing:<ref name="mitting.mindedto9.23May2018"/>
+* 23 May 2018: an application to restrict real name was made by the MPS 'Designated Lawyers Team', but was refused following a closed hearing,<ref name="ucpi.pr.23May2018">[https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/201805223-PN_SDS_MT_9.pdf 'Minded to' decisions relating to anonymity applications: Special Demonstration Squad Ruling on HN122], ''Undercover Policing Inquiry'', 23 May 2018.</ref><ref name="ucpi.explan.note.30July2018"/> with Mitting writing:<ref name="mitting.mindedto9.23May2018"/>
 :: It is not contended the performance of those duties has exposed HN59 to any risk to safety; nor, sensibly, could they have done so. HN59 has chronic health problems, but there is no suggestion or evidence that the disclosure of the real name would exacerbate them. HN59 maintains that, if informed that the real name might be published when invited to join the SOS, HN59 would have refused to join. I accept that, if HN59 had realised that where would be public interest in and concern about the SOS, that might have been the case; but I do not accept that HN59 had any cause to be concerned about disclosure of the real name in connection with SOS back office duties, when recruited; and I do not therefore accept HN59's contention.
 :: HN59 is understandably concerned about media interest and the possibility of intrusion into private and family life. Given the nature of the duties performed by HN59, these concerns are, I believe, misplaced. It is likely that HN59 will have some evidence to provide to the Inquiry which will assist it to fulfil its terms of reference. It is possible that the evidence which HN59 can provide can be given in the form of a witness statement only. That will depend upon its content.
-:: The submissions made to me by and on behalf of HN59 do not establish that the starting point that, in the public interest of openness, no restriction order will be made is displaced by the need to protect HN59 from harm.    A short closed note, dealing with a discrete question, accompanies these reasons.
+:: The submissions made to me by and on behalf of HN59 do not establish that the starting point that, in the public interest of openness, no restriction order will be made is displaced by the need to protect HN59 from harm. A short closed note, dealing with a discrete question, accompanies these reasons.