Difference between revisions of "EN28"
Peter Salmon (talk | contribs) |
Peter Salmon (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==In the Undercover Policing Inquiry== | ==In the Undercover Policing Inquiry== | ||
| − | * 15 November 2018: Mitting wrote:<ref name="mitting.npoiu.mindedto3"/> | + | * 15 November 2018: Minded to refuse application to restrict real name with closed hearing on this to take place some time in 2019.<ref name="gray.ucpi.npoiu.explan.note3"/> Mitting wrote:<ref name="mitting.npoiu.mindedto3"/> |
::EN28 was a cover officer for deployed undercover officers with the Animal Rights National Index, then the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, for a substantial period of its existence. EN28's evidence is of significant interest to the Inquiry because s/he was the cover officer for a number of undercover officers whose names (cover or real or both) and activities are in the public domain and are of significant interest. The risk of physical harm to them from members of the targeted groups is, at worst, low. It must be lower for anyone, such as EN28, who had no direct interaction with them. EN28 will be of interest to the traditional and non-traditional media, because of his/her having been the cover officer for those officers; but I have seen nothing to confirm the existence of a real risk of harassment of EN28 by those targeted. My judgement is that the worst consequence of publication of EN28's real name thats/he faces is that of unwelcome, but passing, attention by both traditional and non-traditional media. The public interest in EN28 accounting for his/her dealings with the undercover officers mentioned above outweighs and justifies the interference in EN28's right to respect for private and family life w hich may result under Article 8(2) of the European Convention. | ::EN28 was a cover officer for deployed undercover officers with the Animal Rights National Index, then the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, for a substantial period of its existence. EN28's evidence is of significant interest to the Inquiry because s/he was the cover officer for a number of undercover officers whose names (cover or real or both) and activities are in the public domain and are of significant interest. The risk of physical harm to them from members of the targeted groups is, at worst, low. It must be lower for anyone, such as EN28, who had no direct interaction with them. EN28 will be of interest to the traditional and non-traditional media, because of his/her having been the cover officer for those officers; but I have seen nothing to confirm the existence of a real risk of harassment of EN28 by those targeted. My judgement is that the worst consequence of publication of EN28's real name thats/he faces is that of unwelcome, but passing, attention by both traditional and non-traditional media. The public interest in EN28 accounting for his/her dealings with the undercover officers mentioned above outweighs and justifies the interference in EN28's right to respect for private and family life w hich may result under Article 8(2) of the European Convention. | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:35, 2 January 2019
This article is part of the Undercover Research Portal at Powerbase - investigating corporate and police spying on activists
EN28 is the cipher given to a former cover officer for the Animal Rights National Index and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit. The Undercover Policing Inquiry has indicated that it is minded to release the officer's real name in due course.[1][2]
For the N cipher system see N officers page.
In the Undercover Policing Inquiry
- 15 November 2018: Minded to refuse application to restrict real name with closed hearing on this to take place some time in 2019.[2] Mitting wrote:[1]
- EN28 was a cover officer for deployed undercover officers with the Animal Rights National Index, then the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, for a substantial period of its existence. EN28's evidence is of significant interest to the Inquiry because s/he was the cover officer for a number of undercover officers whose names (cover or real or both) and activities are in the public domain and are of significant interest. The risk of physical harm to them from members of the targeted groups is, at worst, low. It must be lower for anyone, such as EN28, who had no direct interaction with them. EN28 will be of interest to the traditional and non-traditional media, because of his/her having been the cover officer for those officers; but I have seen nothing to confirm the existence of a real risk of harassment of EN28 by those targeted. My judgement is that the worst consequence of publication of EN28's real name thats/he faces is that of unwelcome, but passing, attention by both traditional and non-traditional media. The public interest in EN28 accounting for his/her dealings with the undercover officers mentioned above outweighs and justifies the interference in EN28's right to respect for private and family life w hich may result under Article 8(2) of the European Convention.
Notes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 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 National Public Order Intelligence Unit and its predecessor/successor units 'Minded to' Note 3, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 15 November 2018.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Steven Gray, Counsel to the Inquiry's Explanatory Note to accompany the third 'Minded To' note in respect of applications for restriction orders over the real and cover names of officers of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit and its predecessor/successor units, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 15 November 2018.
