National Undercover Working Group

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

---

Part of a series on Undercover Policing Organisations
National Undercover Research Group
Alias:	NUWG
Description:	National body for setting standards and frameworks for undercover policing in the UK
Parent organisations:	Association of Chief Police Officers, College of Policing
Dates:	1990s to present (2015)

The National Undercover Working Group (NUWG) works with the College of Policing to set national standards and provide a framework for undercover policing across the United Kingdom.

Existing since the 1990s and chaired by an officer of Assistant Chief Constable level, the Working Group originally sat within the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Following a reorganisation of policing structures it has been transferred to the College of Policing, and tasked with providing "strategic leadership and direction in this sensitive area of police work."

Little is known about the Group, other than what was revealed in Stephen Otter's 2014 report for HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, An inspection of undercover policing in England and Wales Numbers in parenthesis below refer to specific paragraphs in that report.

The NUWG came under heavy criticism in Otter's report, which said it suffered from poor leadership. It had taken a year to adopt recommendations of a 2012 report from the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) (now also part of the College of Policing), while the implantation was far from complete.(8.19) The 2014 report also highlighted a significant number of problems with the framework under which undercovers were deployed, as well as a lack of standards and processes. These problems included inconsistent training and psychological assessment, authorising and decision-making, and compliance.

In the wake of the scandal surrounding Mark Kennedy and revelations about other undercover officers the College of Policing created the National Undercover Scrutiny Panel 'to providing greater transparency and review of undercover policing'.

Organisation ownership

The NUWG started of as a working group established by the Chief Constables' Council, which was the highest decision-making level of the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Council was 'responsible for coordinating operational policing needs and leading the implementation of national standards set by the College of Policing or the government.' (7.9).

For a long time ACPO, was one of the leading police organisation in England and Wales, providing many national functions, though it's structure as a private company brought it in for criticism. One of its most important divisions was the Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee (ACPO TAM), which oversaw the domestic extremism units, and thus the undercover police targetting protest groups. Following the exposure of one of it's undercovers, Mark Kennedy, the domestic extremism units were transfered to the Metropolitan Police. In 2013, an independent review by General Sir Nick Parker recommended that ACPO be replaced by a new body in the interests of greater transparency and cost effectiveness. On the basis of these recommendations two new organisations were formed, the National Police Chief's Council and the College of Policing, with the latter taking over some of ACPO's functions but also those of the National Policing Improvement Agency.

For a while the transition period lead to a situation with chief police officers running portfolios and business areas in both ACPO and the College of Policing. The 2014 HMIC report tried to explain the situation at that point in time (7.10-7.13):

• There are 12 national policing business areas that provide the direction and development of policing policy and practice in specific areas. The chief constables who lead these business areas are members of both the College’s Professional Committee and the Chief Constables’ Council. Within each business area, there are a number of portfolios and working groups led by chief police officers who act as national policing leads for specific issues. The Crime Business Area has responsibility for the development of undercover policing policy and practice, and this is delegated to the Organised Crime Portfolio...
• Supporting the work of the Organised Crime Portfolio are 14 themed-based working groups, one of which is the National Undercover Working Group.
• The National Undercover Working Group iwhich is the highest decisions a multi-agency group which works with the College of Policing to set national standards in the area of undercover policing. It also helps chief constables to provide strategic leadership and direction in this sensitive area of police work. The Working Group is led by a chief officer and comprises trained and experienced officers and related specialists, who provide advice and their expertise to ensure that its guidance is relevant and accurate.
• The members of the Working Group meet every six months. A police officer or equivalent from every area or region of law enforcement in the United Kingdom with an undercover capability sits on the Working Group. Organisations that have a direct interest in its work, such as the College of Policing, are also represented.

In 2012 and 2013, the NUWG was still part of the ACPO Crime Business Area's Serious and Organised Crime Portfolio; with the transfer to the College of Policing started in the latter year.

Activities and internal organisation

The 2014 HMRC report also described the work of the National Undercover Working Group (7.19 - 7.21):

• To raise standards and to improve the way in which the police and law enforcement agencies use the tactic of undercover policing. Address issues concerning: the deployment of undercover officers; the psychological support that officers receive; the accreditation and registration of undercover units; the identification, development and promotion of best practice; and the development and production of policies and procedures.
• With the College of Policing, to be at the forefront of developments concerning national training and accepted practice.
• Co-ordinate all matters of an international nature in the world of undercover policing, primarily by liaising with the International Working Group on Undercover Police Activities.

On paper, the Group is further divided into seven sub-groups, each led by a senior police officer and helped by practitioners with a specific knowledge. The sub-groups would cover issues such as training; legal issues and standards; the role of the cover officer and welfare issues; the role of the undercover covert manager; legend-building for undercover officers; undercover online policing; and the use of technical equipment. However, according to the HMIC report, a number of these subgroups appear to have fallen by the wayside, while others lacked certainty around purpose and objectives. (7.36)

Finding out more about the current activities of the Group is difficult, and has to be collected from occasional mentions in other reports.

For instance, in July 2012, in the wake of the Mark Kennedy exposure and the collapse of Ratcliffe-on-Soar case, all parties involved with undercover policing signed a memorandum of understanding to improve their cooperation.(7.104)

The Annual Report of the Chief Surveillance Inspector (2013-2014) shows that the Secretary and Chair of the NUWG have occasional meetings with the Office of Surveillance Commissioners. Another section of the Annual Report indicates that these meetings are used to address the Office's findings on shortcomings found during inspections. The Report mentions lack of clarity in relation to the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, in the day to day management and oversight of undercover operatives. Updates on longer-running operations suffer from "cut and paste" content, where collateral intrusion is mentioned in particular as 'all too often a formulaic entry, month after month'.

Accreditation of undercover officers

Accreditation of training courses for undercover officers is currently done via the College of Policing using the work of the NUWG. Thus, the National Undercover Working Group has approved the training course for officers seeking advanced undercover work offered by Metropolitan Police Service, Greater Manchester Police and the Serious Organised Crime Agency (now the National Crime Agency). (8.61)

All police officers seeking to be trained as undercover officers must be approved in an interview with a 'national assessment panel'. This panel:

'consists of two senior officers with responsibility for an accredited undercover unit and an experienced undercover covert operations manager appointed by the chair of the National Undercover Working Group.

The NUWG also accredited the Special Project Teams (SPT) of the four Counter Terrorism Units for undercover work. The SPTs had taken over responsibility for undercover infiltration in relation to counter-terrorism and domestic extremism.

By June 2013, the NUWG was in the process of developing a national training course for Authorising Officers (those with the necessary training and rank to authorise the deployment of an undercover officer), which was to be finalised over the next 12 months. '[U]ntil then, there is still no formal training provision for ACPO authorising officers.'

This training course appears to have been subsequently rolled out, by the College of Policing and the Metropolitan Police, while a number of private companies are offering similar training.

National guidance on undercover policing

The NUWG authors the main police guidance on the training and use of undercover policing and help sets national professional standards. In particular, it prepared the section on Undercover Policing of the Authorised Professional Practice (APP). Formerly under the aegis of ACPO, but now with the College of Policing, the APP is the national source of professional guidance on policing in England and Wales. According to a HM Inspectorate of Constabulary 2012 report:

To this end, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) National Undercover Working Group (NUWG) developed guidance that set out the necessary control measures by which managers assure themselves and the courts that the undercover officer has conducted themselves correctly. This guidance also provides a definition of undercover officers

The 2012 HMIC report also states:

... the main source of operational advice on the use of the undercover tactic is the ACPO guidance. These guidelines set out mandatory control measures for all UK law enforcement bodies that deploy undercover officers. The procedures were written in June 2003 and require updating in order to reflect changes in the past eight years and to provide clearer guidance in relation to specific issues. HMIC is aware that the National Undercover Working Group (NUWG)... is currently working on producing updated guidance.

Of this guidance, HMIC said in relation to undercover policing: 'The guidance is not comprehensive, and, as a result, not of great use to those responsible for managing undercover deployments or for those who are actually deployed.' (para. 5.70).

The College of Policing stated in June 2013, in response to the HMIC 2013 review, that it was was working with the NUWG to review existing guidelines on undercover police work and was taking into account the recommendations of the 2012 HMIC report. The updated guidelines were published in summer 2015 on the College of Policing's website as part of the Authorised Professional Practice.

Placement of undercovers

As well as the working groups, there is also hints of its ongoing role in the placement of undercover officers from a 2012 job advert:

G4S Policing Solutions are currently recruiting for a Covert Policing Tactical Advisor. The successful applicant will be required to supervise undercover officers, provide expertise on covert policing techniques and develop an effective covert policing capability within the Eastern Region Special Operations Unit (ERSOU) as part of the National Undercover Working Group structure. To contribute to achieving the Force vision, purpose and values. Key responsibilities include the following: To provide expertise on covert policing techniques including tactical advice and guidance to senior investigating officers managing undercover operations To undertake the administration, co-ordination and facilitation of undercover operations including the provision of expert tactical advice to relevant parties in aspects of covert law enforcement in general and undercover operations in particular To assist with asset procurement and maintenance of all ERUU covert assets and infrastructure. To supervise undercover officers working for and on behalf of ERSOU thus providing the best possible support to the region and outside agencies. To ensure appropriate and safe use of ERUU undercover officers for both legend building and deployment for other units as part of the National Undercover Working Group structure. To maintain and where necessary establish close working arrangements with other professional bodies and agencies at the appropriate level. To maintain effective liaison with, Force and Regional officers including LPC/ BCU (Basic Command Unit) at the appropriate level in determining the services that can be provided and to ensure the appropriate service/support is provided. To deputise when directed for the ERUU Detective Sergeants. To ensure all ERUU undercover officers receive suitable training, guidance and direction. To maintain an awareness of national, regional and force developments in the areas of covert policing, relevant legislation and changes in the requirements of the Criminal Justice System. To represent the ERUU undercover officer where relevant, as part of the National Undercover Working Group structure

Criticism

The 2014 HMIC report wrote:

52. Overall, we found that the Working Group is not working effectively, and that it has not done so for some time. Those to whom we spoke had little confidence in the Working Group’s ability to provide policy and guidance that should then be adopted across all forces. There was also a perception that the Working Group did not have sufficient support from chief officers to give it the influence that it needed to make sure that forces complied with the national standards in a consistent way. Too often, it relied too heavily on the views of its influential and experienced members to make decisions, rather than taking a more objective approach based on sound evidence and good analysis....

and

7.51 Recent work by the College of Policing in support of the National Undercover Working Group is encouraging, but we believe that root and branch reform of the way the Working Group operates is needed

Recommendation 11 The chief constable with lead responsibility for Organised Crime Portfolio should take immediate steps: to reconstitute the National Undercover Working Group with people who represent all the interests relevant to effective undercover policing; to set clear and published terms of reference and objectives; and to hold the Working Group to account for the effective achievement of those objectives.

It was also noted that awareness of the Authorised Professional Practice's guidance on undercovers was little known among the undercover units. (7.69)

Following interviews with those who managed or oversaw undercover operations, the report concluded:

7.28 Overall, their general feeling was that the Working Group is not working effectively, and that it has not done so for some time. Those to whom we spoke had little confidence in the Working Group’s ability to provide policy and guidance that should then be adopted across all forces. There was also a perception that the Working Group did not have sufficient support from chief officers to enable it to have the influence that it needed in order to make sure that forces complied with the national standards in a consistent way. Too often, it relied too heavily on the views of its influential and experienced members to make decisions, rather than taking a more objective approach based on sound evidence and good analysis.

7.30 There were also concerns expressed to us about the failure of the Working Group to communicate effectively with the undercover community – the community for which it was established to provide leadership and direction.

The report authors commented on the attitude of the 'undercover community', saying:

7.33 A view that "the undercover community has been nailed shut for years" accorded with our own conclusion that there is a reluctance in some quarters to embrace change or to accept challenge or criticism.

This lack of scrutiny went to the senior levels also:

7.49 We found that the leadership of undercover policing at a national level lacks clarity of purpose. This materially inhibits the way that the National Undercover Working Group goes about contributing to the setting of national standards and being a conduit for sharing good practice. The absence of scrutiny and challenge by either the Organised Crime Portfolio or the National Crime Business Area increases the risk of new ideas being missed and poor practice not being identified.

In response to the criticism in the 2014 report, Jon Boutcher, then Chair of the NUWG responded, defending undercover policing as a tactic despite 'unacceptable behaviour by a number of undercover officers in the past'. He also stating that reforms were already underway, including the establishment of an oversight group. This group is believed to be the National Undercover Scrutiny Panel (also known as the National Oversight Group).

Other recommendations from the Otter report included:

Recommendation 7 – The National Undercover Working Group should clarify the precise role of the operational head (more commonly referred to as the senior investigating officer) with regard to the briefing of undercover officers and set out clear guidance regarding which officer (however he or she may be described) is responsible for what. (p.33)

Recommendation 18 – The National Undercover Working Group, with oversight from the chief constable with responsibility for the National Crime Business Area, should establish a blueprint for the regionalisation of undercover policing resources for forces which wish to bring their resources together in this way. Its overarching aim should be to ensure that those investigations that would benefit most from deploying undercover police officers are appropriately resourced, no matter which force in the region hosts the investigation.(p.34)

Recommendation 19 – The National Undercover Working Group should devise a standard results analysis check-sheet and require the appropriate managers to complete it after each undercover deployment is concluded. Issues that may have national implications or relevance should be brought to the attention of the National Undercover Working Group. (p.34)

Recommendation 20 – The College of Policing should issue guidance to all those who are able to deploy undercover officers concerning any deployment for intelligence-only purposes, to reinforce the fact that every officer deployed in every circumstance may be required to give evidence in court about their conduct or use, and about the evidence that they obtained during their deployment.(p.35)

Recommendation 21 – The National Undercover Working Group should work with representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service to review the memorandum of understanding between them and other law enforcement agencies to require consultation prior to the grant of any authority to deploy undercover police officers.(p.35)

Recommendation 42 – The National Undercover Working Group should establish and circulate detailed guidance on retaining records connected to a request for the authorisation to deploy an undercover officer. The records should include those applications which are refused and those which are subsequently amended and resubmitted for approval. (p.37)

Recommendation 46 – The National Undercover Working Group should establish and promulgate clear guidance setting out the circumstances in which inspectors from the Office of Surveillance Commissioners should be able to visit covert premises.(p.37)

Members

Chairpeople

The Chair of the NUWG appears to be synonymous with being the 'national policing lead for undercover policing'.

• Trevor Pearce: Director General of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and Director of Specialist Operations for its successor organisation, the National Crime Agency. He spent five years as chair of the NUWG. In 2011 he was asked to conduct a review of the activities of undercover officer Jim Boyling who had infiltrated protest groups in London. He also chaired the National Source Working Group, and was a member of the Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee. He has been vice-chair and chair of the International Working Group on Undercover Activities. A former Kent Special Branch officer, his previous role in the National Crime Squad places him close to the units that would be come the National Domestic Extremism units and ran undercovers such as Lynn Watson and Mark Kennedy. His role as head of SOCA also provided him with oversight of that agency's role in the European Coordination Group on Undercover Activities.

• Patricia Gallan, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police; Chair of NUWG 2006 to 2012. She was asked by Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe to establish Operation Herne (then Operation Soisson) in the wake of the Mark Kennedy exposure. She had stepped down by January 2013 due having too many other duties. However, it was on the base of these previous role It was capacity she stated to Parliament that the use of identities of dead children by undercover officers had stopped by 2012. Previously she had served as 'Assistant Chief Constable with the National Crime Squad in January 2005, taking command of a wide and varied portfolio including undercover policing operations, informants and witness protection,' and had been a Detective Supterintendent with Criminal Investigations Branch (SO11), working in covert policing. It is also known that she also served as ACPO Lead and Chair of the National Source Working Group while an ACC at Merseyside Police. She had previously been Director of Intelligence and Operations Support (from January 2005) with the National Crime Squad under Trevor Pearce.

• Richard Martin, Commander, Head of Intelligence and Covert Policing in the MPS Specialist Crime and Operations division. He replaced Patricia Gallan in January 2013 as Chair of the NUWG. In 2013 Martin, as the person with 'responsibility for the oversight of intelligence and covert policing in the MPS', and in his capacity as NUWG chair gave two statements supporting the police's position around the controversial 'Neither Confirm Nor Deny' policy of not revealing the identities of former undercover officers in the case brought by eight people who had relationships with undercovers sent into protest movements. He stepped down as NUWG chair in August 2014, though he denied it was in advance the HMIC report (passim) which came out in October that year, which criticised poor leadership in the NUWG. He remained as a member of the NUWG. His successor, Jon Boutcher, stated:

Commander Richard Martin made a decision in August 2014 that, as undercover policing is such an important issue, the working group would benefit from the leadership of a more senior police officer with a greater influence nationally... Richard Martin is still providing a valuable contribution to the working group and has done an outstanding job in designing the programme of work that is now delivering the improvements that the report recommends.

• Jon Boutcher, Deputy Chief Constable of Bedforshire Police. Replaced Richard Martin as Chair of the NUWG in August 2014. He had previously been National Co-ordinator PURSUE, and is also National Policing lead for the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. He was still chair in June 2015 when he was involved in the National Undercover Scrutiny Panel. He also oversees the Eastern Region Special Operations Unit noted in the job advert above, and has a noted career first as an officer with the Metropolitan Police's Flying Squad, the National Crime Squad, and then as a senior investigator in counter-terrorism.

Other members

• Kevin O'Leary: 2002 to 2010 was Head of Operations (Specialist Crime) for the Metropolitan Police. In 2012, as Detective Chief Superintendent, was 'responsible for all detective, intelligence and forensic operational teams' during the 2012 Olympics. Of his work he has written:

I created a strategic ethics committee in 2008 to provide an additional layer of governance in the use of intrusive methods of investigation. I recruited academics, lawyers and senior people from NGOs to provide a sounding board for proposed operations, taking external views and feedback on the proportionality of covert policing methods.
I led the national training & development working group, modernising the selection, recruitment, training and continuing professional development of specialist officers. This was a significant project, negotiating with and influencing representatives from all UK police forces and other law enforcement agencies to accept and adopt proposals for radical reforms and modernisation, now embedded as 'Authorised Professional Practice' within the College of Policing.
I was elected as the chair of an international working group for two years in 2009, leading a network of colleagues sharing in good practice and specialist investigative techniques in more than 40 countries.
Commended for leadership of the unit by Commander, Covert Policing, New Scotland Yard in 2010.

He can be identified as the K O'Leary, author of the 2010 A final report from the National Undercover Working Group Training and Development sub-group.</ref>Stephen Otter (lead author), An inspection of undercover policing in England and Wales, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, 2014, cited as restricted in note 135 on page 110.</ref>

• Del Mehat. From August 2010 - September 2011, was a Detective Chief Inspector managing the Covert Operations Unit (SCD10) in the Metropolitan Police. According to a profile, during this time he was:

• chair of the national training subgroup for the NUWG;
• represented UK police at the International Working Group on Undercover Policing; and
• was the national lead on recruitment, selection and training of undercover officers.

Previously, from April 2003 to September 2008, he represented the MPS at the NUWG while leading two teams of covert police for SCD10/11, and describes this time as:

I was also instrumental in the development of a new Infiltration Unit for the MPS using my experience from a similar project whilst I was employed at the National Crime Squad. In addition, I was the course director of the National Undercover Training and Assessment Course and responsible for developing training for Baltic Nations.
I ensured that all undercover training nationally was accredited to ensure interoperability and I developed an innovative method of infiltrating communities through working with local commanders and local authorities to fight crime using covert methods at a local level.
Key responsibilities:

• Enhanced the use of the "Ethics Committee" to scrutinise undercover operations from an independent viewpoint.
• Course Director for the National Undercover Training Course
• Branch lead on diversity to recruit, retain and progress minority groups.
• Developed a diversity strategy which was rolled out to other departments.

• Frankie Flood, QPM: listed as a representative of the National Undercover Working Group at the June 2015 meeting of the National Undercover Scrutiny Panel. Detective Superintendent, Head of Covert Governance and Intelligence Compliance for the Metropolitan Police in 2015. As head of the Covert Standard Unit in the Metropolitan Police he is also the secretary of the NPCC's National Operational Security Working Group.

• Kingsley Hyland: Solicitor-Advocate and Head of the Complex Casework Unit for Crown Prosecution Service North East. Member of the Peer Review Group of the inter-agency review of RIPA. Also described as:

the CPS representative on National Source Working Group and on the National Undercover Working Group, the CPS lead tutor on covert law enforcement issues.

• Jon Murphy: Chief Constable of Merseyside, where he had previously served under Bernard Hogan-Howe and alongside Pat Gallan as an Assistant Chief Constable. It was Murphy who spoke out on behalf of ACPO when the Mark Kennedy undercover policing scandal broke in 2011. As head of the Crime Business Area, he has also spoken on behalf of the NUWG in College of Policing meetings in 2015 where he reported:

5.1 Members noted progress made by the National Undercover Working Group and the College to implement the undercover action plan which was recently submitted to the Home Secretary and published in the House of Commons Library.

5.2 The consequences of rescinding licences and accreditation for undercover policing units and officers was also discussed.

2001 to 2004 he had been Assistant Chief Constable (Operations) for the National Crime Squad, where he had served under Trevor Pearce.

See also

• National Undercover Scrutiny Panel
• Covert Policing Ethics Committee
• National Public Order Intelligence Unit
• Serious Organised Crime Agency
• European Cooperation Group on Undercover Activities
• International Working Group on Undercover Activities

External Resources

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary reports:

• 2014: An inspection of undercover policing in England and Wales
• 2013: A review of progress made against the recommendations in HMIC’s 2012 report on the national police units which provide intelligence on criminality associated with protest
• 2012: A review of national police units which provide intelligence on criminality associated with protest

Notes