HN58

This article is part of the Undercover Research Portal at Powerbase - investigating corporate and police spying on activists

---

Part of a series on undercover police officers
'HN58'
Alias:	unknown
Deployment:	unknown
Unit:	Special Demonstration Squad
Targets:	unknown

HN58 is the cipher given to a former undercover officer with the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), who as Detective Chief Inspector, headed the unit from 1997 to 2001. They are a core participant in the Undercover Policing Inquiry, where they are represented by Slater & Gordon solicitors. He is also known in an IPCC report into a controversial 1998 meeting relating to spying on the family of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence as 'N34'.

John Mitting, Chair of the Undercover Policing Inquiry, ruled on 20 February 2018, that HN58 may remain anonymous within the Inquiry, with both his real and cover names being restricted.

• For details of the N-numbers cipher system see the N officers page.

As an officer with the SDS

Though his real and cover names are not known, the officer appears under his ciphers in a number of related documents.

Inquiry Chair, John Mitting noted HN58 was both an SDS undercover and was later Detective Chief Inspector, in charge of the unit from 1997 to 2001 (considered a managerial position).

MPS risk assessment:

On recruitment as UCO: "There was a lot of secrecy about the SDS and N58 states that people didn't talk unnecessarily. N58 had no idea of the existence of the SDS when N58 first went to Special Branch. N58 gradually became aware because people N58 knew 'disappeared' for a number of years before returning." On being recruited into the SDS he received a home visit where he was assured of lifetime anonymity. He used the identity of a dead child. He also attended twice-weekly meetings with his supervisors while undercover.

As an SDS manager

Ellison Review: As N58 they are mentioned in the Stephen Lawrence Independent Review by Mark Ellison. There, they are described as the head of SDS in August 1998 as Detective Chief Inspector, when he received Lambert's report on the meeting between N81 and Richard Walton. In response, he commented: "An excellent meeting and a good example of the strides N81 has made over the last 12 months" (Ellison, page 229). He was also author of an SDS Intelligence Update in September 1998, titled 'Extremist involvement in the Stephen Lawrence Campaign' where he wrote: "N81’s unique insight into the behind-the-scenes machinations of the Lawrence campaign has also proved invaluable to A/DI Walton who is currently attached to the Stephen Lawrence review team" (Ellison, page 229).

Ellison is unsure about its authorship, writing: 'It appears that this update was prepared by SDS Detective Chief Inspector N58 quite early in September 1998'. The text of the Update partly overlaps with Lambert’s File Note, so it may have been a document drafted by Lambert, to be signed of by N58. That makes sense knowing Lambert was 'acting DCI' in that period, acting as the Squad Detective Chief Inspector, essentially leading the SDS as, for reasons as yet unknown, the actual head of the SDS was not able to full fill his role.

IPCC Investigation: HN58 was one of those investigated for gross misconduct by the IPCC following formal referral by the MPS in the wake of the 2014 Ellison Review's criticism of the meeting between Richard Walton and N81. In this investigation, HN58 was given the cypher N34 and it was noted he was "responsible for the management of officers deployed within Special Branch, including officers deployed within the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) who worked undercover" (para.148). The report stated that HN58 was promoted to Detective Chief Inspector rank in 1997 and transferred to SDS in mid-1998, with Det. Insp. Bob Lambert working under him (para. 152, 194). In this, he answered to Detective Superintendent 'N35', who oversaw 'S Squad' which included the SDS (para. 190). He retired in 2001 (para. 152). HN58 was aware of the meeting between Walton and N81, and did not consider it inappropriate at the time (para. 158, 194).

During the IPCC investigation, HN58 was interviewed but declined to answer questions, though later provided a written statement (para. 151). The IPCC subsequently said there was not enough documentary or witness evidence (para. 217) to proceed with misconduct hearings against HN58, so on balance of probabilities there was no case to answer in respect of authorising the meeting between Lambert and N81, though there was retrospective knowledge of it. However, the author of the report did state:

With such a close working relationship between Robert Lambert and N34, it is inconceivable that Robert Lambert would have been able to make the arrangements for this meeting to take place without some knowledge on the part of N34. (para. 214)

The author also noted that the meeting was initiated within the SDS itself, which leaves HN35, and his two superiors N34 and Colin Black in the frame (para. 219, 220).

• See also N81: Meeting with the Lawrence Review Team.

Restriction order application (procedural history)

In March 2016, HN58's solicitors, Slater & Gordon, applied for fully anonymity over his real and cover names. This was backed by a similar application from the Metropolitan Police in July 2017 (not made public until August 2017).

Initially Mitting was 'minded to' restrict both cover and real name (Aug 2017). This position changed to considering publishing both cover and real name by separating the two; further submissions invited (Oct 2017). This changed again in November 2017, with the then minded-to suggesting publishing real name but not cover name - with further submissions invited and possibly a short closed hearing to take place. Following the hearing of 21st November, Mitting said a closed hearing would take place before he made a ruling. This hearing had taken place by 20 December 2017, when Mitting stated he was 'minded-to' restrict both the real and cover name of HN58.

Directions were also issued on 20 December 2017 that core participants opposing the restriction over HN58's real and cover names should make submissions by 18 January 2018.

In August 2017 open applications from the MPS & HN58's lawyer to restrict cover and real names were published and accompanied by a personal statement, expert medical report & additional threat assessments. Mitting in his 'Minded-To' indicated he would accept both applications, stating (Aug 2017, para. 4):

The publication of any details about the deployment would give rise to some risk to HN58's personal safety. Further, in a report dated 18 January 2017 Professor Fox states that the publication of the cover name creates a slight risk of causing a stress reaction recognised in the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. It is is not necessary to fulfil the Inquiry's terms of reference to run these risks. What matters is the evidence which HN58 can give about the discharge of HN58's managerial duties and evidence which can be given by others about it. The identity of HN58 is known to those who can do so. The cogency of HN58's evidence and theirs will not be diminished by the use of a cypher. It is likely that HN58 will have to give evidence from behind a screen. Closed reasons supplement this paragraph."

In October 2017, Mitting noted submissions from other non-police core participants and wrote:

The principal reason supporting the decision which I was minded to make to restrict publication of both real and cover names was concern for the safety of HN58, arising out of the deployment of HN58 as an undercover officer. It is possible that this concern could be met if evidence about the discharge of managerial duties by HN58 was given in the real name and evidence about HN58’s activities as an undercover officer was given entirely in closed session. Not much of public value would be lost thereby.

I invite submissions from all concerned with this issue, including HN58 on this alternative course. A short closed hearing may be required after open submissions have been made.

HN58's application was heard at the hearing of 21 November 2017 where discussion revolved around the fact that HN58 was important both as an undercover officer and also a manager of the SDS at the time of the spying on the Stephen Lawrence campaign. This has caused a tension for the Inquiry Chair over how to apply the principles he has set out whereby senior officers involved with the spying on the Lawrences should give evidence in their real name but for undercovers, generally cover name only should be released if there is a risk. There were closed reasons also affecting Mitting's reasonings. On 5 December 2017, Mitting said a closed hearing would take place before ruling on the application.

The closed hearing was heard by 20 December 2017, following which the UCPI stated in a press release that Mitting was 'minded-to' grant the application restricting both HN58's real and cover names, saying:

HN 58 was a manager of the Special Demonstration Squad, but had also been an undercover officer and the Chairman is of the view that there is a risk arising from the undercover deployment should HN58’s real name be made public. In making this second ‘minded to’ decision the Chairman has stated that HN58 is to give evidence about his managerial duties in full view of members of the public and in his natural voice, adopting measures to conceal his true identity in as far as it does not prevent members of the public from observing his demeanour.

In the accompanying 'Minded-To' note, Mitting stated in relation to HN58's application for anonymity:

2. ...He has important evidence to give about a number of topics which the Inquiry must explore to fulfil its terms of reference. They include the deployment of HN81 into a campaigning group which sought to associate itself with the Stephen Lawrence campaign, the meeting between HN81 and Acting Detective Inspector Walton, authorisation of the participation of an officer in the commission of a serious crime, the handling of problems created by the deployments of DC [Peter] Francis, HN123, DC [Jim] Boyling, HN16 and HN26, and by the discharge fo his management duties by DI [Bob] Lambert. But for the considerations referred to below, he would have been required to give evidence about the performance of his managerial duties in his real name.

3. He was, however, deployed as an undercover earlier in his career. The deployment created some risk to his personal safety. A small, but real, risk would recur if his real name were to be published. The source of the risk - in other words, the identity of the group or groups against which he was deployed - cannot be identified publicly without giving rise to the risk. If hsi real name were to be published, there would be a real risk that his cover name and details of deployment would be discovered by those interested in doing so.

5. Any evidence about his deployment will be provided to or given in a closed session. Because there is no known allegation of misconduct against him when deployed as an undercover officer and because the nature of his deployment and what is known of his personal and family life make it unlikely that it would be necessary to investigate possible misconduct even if details of his deployment were made public. What matters to the Inquiry and to the public and many core participants is the performance of his duties as a manager. The course which I am minded to take provides the best opportunity for the Inquiry to fulfil its terms of reference in respect of that important issue.

6. For those reasons, it is unnecessary and unjustified to take the risk to the safety of HN58 which would be created by publication of his real name.

The issue of excessive redaction of material relating to HN58 by the Inquiry / police was also raised by the non-police/state core participants in their submissions of 11 January 2018, and responded to in the Counsel to the Inquiry's note of 31 January 2018. HN58's restriction order application was heard again at the 5 February 2018. On 20 February 2018, Mitting made a final determination, ruling that neither real or cover name would be published, providing for him one of his more substantive set of reasonings for granting a restriction order in the Inquiry, stating:

My judgement is that it is far more important to examine in public his conduct of his managerial duties than his conduct of his deployment. It is possible that his own experience influenced his view of the conduct of officers deployed while he was in operational charge of the Special Demonstration Squad, but it cannot have been the cause of it. The information available to the Inquiry, thus far, suggest that such conduct occurred long before his deployment and was occurring when he took up office as Detective Chief Inspector. What matters to the Inquiry is what he knew about it and what, if anything, he did about it.

March 2016 application material: open application, draft order, personal statement (gisted) & risk assessment (gisted).

August 2017 application material: open application for restriction order, open supplementary application for restriction order, open risk assessment (David Reid), medical statement (Prof. G. C. Fox; fully redacted)

November 2017 additional submissions: material submitted by other parties ahead of hearing of 20 November relating to HN58, included on behalf of Peter Francis, the Non-Police/State Core Participants, a Supplementary 'Minded To' of 20 October 2017 from Mitting,, with follow up NPSCP submissions in response to the Supplementary Minded To note, and Peter Francis.

January 2018 submissions ahead of hearing of 5 February 2018 was submitted on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, the Non-Police/State Core Participants, The Guardian newspaper and Peter Francis. The issue of excessive redaction of material relating to HN58 by the Inquiry / police was also raised by the non-police/state core participants in their submissions of 11 January 2018. and responded to in the Counsel to the Inquiry's note of 31 January 2018.