Difference between revisions of "HN127"
Peter Salmon (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==In the Undercover Policing Inquiry== | ==In the Undercover Policing Inquiry== | ||
| + | |||
| + | 23 October 2017: directed that any application for anonymity should be submitted no later than 31 October.<ref>John Mitting, [https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/20171023-directions-anonymity-and-ROA-1974.pdf (1) The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and its impact on the Inquiry’s work (2) 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'', 23 October 2017 (accessed via UCPI.org.uk, 23 October 2017).</ref> | ||
An application to restrict publication of HN127's real name was made by the Metropolitan Police. The Inquiry Chair, John Mitting, responded in November 2017, saying:<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> | An application to restrict publication of HN127's real name was made by the Metropolitan Police. The Inquiry Chair, John Mitting, responded in November 2017, saying:<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> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 19: | ||
Mitting then refused the application:<ref name="mitting.mindedto2.14Nov17"/> and made a final ruling on 20 February 2018, where he stated:<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> | Mitting then refused the application:<ref name="mitting.mindedto2.14Nov17"/> and made a final ruling on 20 February 2018, where he stated:<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> | ||
| − | : [HN127] was the recipient of information given to him by a deployed officer about a relationship conducted during the deployment and knew of at least one other. He was the author of a memorandum dated 20 October 2000 which is of significant interest to the Inquiry. He was the recipient of information provided by other officers about matters concerning the Stephen Lawrence campaign. He can provide valuable evidence to the Inquiry and should, in principle, do so in public and in his own name, unless to do so would cause significant harm to him and/or to his family. There is no known risk to his or their safety. His evidence is likely to be of significant public interest and will attract media attention. This will, no doubt, be unwelcome to him and his family members. The interference which this will cause to his and their right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention is outweighed by the public interest in him accounting for his actions and giving evidence about those of others in public and in his own name. A closed note supplements these reasons. | + | :: [HN127] was the recipient of information given to him by a deployed officer about a relationship conducted during the deployment and knew of at least one other. He was the author of a memorandum dated 20 October 2000 which is of significant interest to the Inquiry. He was the recipient of information provided by other officers about matters concerning the Stephen Lawrence campaign. He can provide valuable evidence to the Inquiry and should, in principle, do so in public and in his own name, unless to do so would cause significant harm to him and/or to his family. There is no known risk to his or their safety. His evidence is likely to be of significant public interest and will attract media attention. This will, no doubt, be unwelcome to him and his family members. The interference which this will cause to his and their right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention is outweighed by the public interest in him accounting for his actions and giving evidence about those of others in public and in his own name. A closed note supplements these reasons. |
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:12, 21 July 2018
This article is part of the Undercover Research Portal at Powerbase - investigating corporate and police spying on activists
HN127 is the cipher given to a former sergeant in the Special Demonstration Squad where they were a cover officer for Carlo Neri, HN15 and others.
- For the N cipher system see N officers page.
As an SDS manager
Sergeant with SDS 1997-2001[1] where he was a cover officer for Carlo Neri, HN15 and others.[2]
They provided a statement, reported in the Stephen Lawrence Independent Review by Mark Ellison, which stated that HN127 did not recognise Peter Francis's allegations regarding spying on the Lawrence family. They also received Lambert's memo on the N81 / Richard Walton meeting (Ellison, p.229). N81 told Ellison: …I was informed, at the height of the Macpherson inquiry, that my reporting was going straight to Sir Paul Condon’s desk each morning via N24, and N127 (SDS Sgt) passed on to me from N24 congratulations from the Commissioner for your excellent reporting…' (Ellison 212, 229 & 232).[3]
In the Undercover Policing Inquiry
23 October 2017: directed that any application for anonymity should be submitted no later than 31 October.[4]
An application to restrict publication of HN127's real name was made by the Metropolitan Police. The Inquiry Chair, John Mitting, responded in November 2017, saying:[1]
- Between 1997 and 2001 HN127 was a cover officer for deployed undercover officers, some of whose activities are likely to be the subject of detailed investigation by the Inquiry. With one significant proviso, addressed below, public investigation of HN127’s performance of his duties in his real name can be undertaken without posing a risk to HN127’s safety or interfering with the right to respect for private and family life of HN127. It is unavoidable, for reasons explained in the closed note which accompanies these reasons, that part of HN127’s evidence will be given in closed session.
Mitting then refused the application:[1] and made a final ruling on 20 February 2018, where he stated:[2]
- [HN127] was the recipient of information given to him by a deployed officer about a relationship conducted during the deployment and knew of at least one other. He was the author of a memorandum dated 20 October 2000 which is of significant interest to the Inquiry. He was the recipient of information provided by other officers about matters concerning the Stephen Lawrence campaign. He can provide valuable evidence to the Inquiry and should, in principle, do so in public and in his own name, unless to do so would cause significant harm to him and/or to his family. There is no known risk to his or their safety. His evidence is likely to be of significant public interest and will attract media attention. This will, no doubt, be unwelcome to him and his family members. The interference which this will cause to his and their right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention is outweighed by the public interest in him accounting for his actions and giving evidence about those of others in public and in his own name. A closed note supplements these reasons.
Notes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 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)
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 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 Special Operations Squad and the Special Demonstrations Squad - Ruling, Undercover Policing Inquiry, 20 February 2018 (accessed 4 March 2018).
- ↑ Mark Ellison, Possible corruption and the role of undercover policing in the Stephen Lawrence case, Stephen Lawrence Independent Review, Vol. 1, Gov.UK, March 2014
- ↑ John Mitting, (1) The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and its impact on the Inquiry’s work (2) 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, 23 October 2017 (accessed via UCPI.org.uk, 23 October 2017).
