Spycops apology
Scotland Yard apologies for deceitful sexual relationships and misogyny culture
Scotland Yard has apologised for the “deceitful sexual relationships” entered into by at least nine of its undercover police officers between 1983 and 1992. “The Metropolitan Police Service apologises to the women affected, and to the public, for these failings and for the wider culture of sexism and misogyny which allowed them to happen,” its counsel told a public inquiry yesterday.
The Undercover Policing Inquiry, chaired by the retired High Court judge Sir John Mitting, began a new phase of its work at a hearing centre in central London yesterday. For no very obvious reason, the press and public were denied access to the building but invited instead to watch opening statements on the inquiry’s YouTube channel.
Equally mysteriously, Peter Skelton KC, for the Metropolitan Police commissioner, addressed Mitting — sitting in what appeared to be an almost empty hearing room — from what were presumably his chambers, a few minutes’ walk away.
The inquiry was set up in 2015 to examine undercover policing across England and Wales since 1968 and provide recommendations for the future. It has divided its work into three modules. The first two modules deal with five tranches.
Tranche 1, covering the years 1968-82, was the subject of its first report, published a year ago, which attracted media coverage at the time. Tranche 2 of the inquiry’s work covers officers, managers and those affected by deployments during the period 1983-92.
Apology
“The Metropolitan Police Service wishes to acknowledge the serious wrongdoing by some Special Demonstration Squad undercover officers,” Skelton said, “and the mismanagement by Special Demonstration Squad and Metropolitan Police Service Special Branch managers that occurred in the tranche 2 period.”
Reading from a published statement, Skelton continued:
First, at least nine undercover officers in tranche 2 engaged in deceitful sexual relationships whilst they were deployed. This was completely unacceptable.
So too was the failure of their managers to identify and prevent those relationships from happening. The Metropolitan Police Service apologises to the women affected, and to the public, for these failings and for the wider culture of sexism and misogyny which allowed them to happen. It is committed to eradicating all forms of discrimination and to ensuring that undercover policing, like all other policing, is conducted and held to the highest professional standards.
Second, there was unnecessary reporting on political and social justice campaigns, family justice campaigns, community organisations and groups that were campaigning for police accountability. These groups did not present any risk of serious public disorder and were not engaged in any criminal or subversive activity.
Third, despite some examples of effective management… there was a general failure by the Special Demonstration Squad’s managers and by senior managers in Metropolitan Police Service Special Branch to lead the Special Demonstration Squad properly and effectively.
These failings extended beyond the issues of illicit sexual relationships and improper engagement with the criminal justice system. Other unprofessional behaviour by undercover officers, including inappropriate reporting and the claiming of illegitimate expenses. Such conduct was below the standards that were expected of police officers at the time.
Another significant aspect of this is welfare. Although Special Demonstration Squad managers did attempt to manage the welfare of undercover officers properly, they did not always get it right. Attempts were made to foster a culture in which those struggling with mental health and other issues as a result of their deployments could seek support. But despite this, undercover officers did not always feel they could ask for that support, or when they did it was not always effective. Some officers were undoubtedly harmed by the work they did.
There was a proper role for undercover policing during the tranche 2 period, as an effective means of gathering intelligence on individuals and groups who presented a serious risk to public order and the safety of the public. Some of the deployments undertaken by Special Demonstration Squad officers were justifiable and did produce valuable intelligence for these purposes.
Many of the undercover officers themselves did good, professional work in accordance with their training and the methods of the time. But the Metropolitan Police Service accepts that their good work was overshadowed by the indefensible conduct of some officers and the mismanagement which allowed that misconduct to flourish.
The Metropolitan Police Service recognises the seriousness of these failings.
Earlier in the day, David Barr KC, counsel to the inquiry, introduced the latest phase of its work. He noted that annual reports placed a “very heavy emphasis” on keeping the existence of the Special Demonstration Squad secret in order to avoid embarrassing the Metropolitan Police commissioner.
“Questions arise as to whether the importance accorded to security operated to the detriment of the welfare of undercover police officers, and the willingness of the Metropolitan Police Service to be open with the Home Office about what was really going on within the Special Demonstration Squad,” he observed.
The inquiry published redacted versions of seven annual reports yesterday. This extract is from a report sent by the Metropolitan Police to the Home Office in 1979:
In a witness statement running to more than 100 pages, an un-named deputy director at MI5 discusses communications between the Security Service and the Special Demonstration Squad at the time.
With every respect to Andrew Turek, let us please avoid any hint of the starting premise being that such conduct- I would say “misconduct”- is the province of the male gender only, as though those duped might be of the supposedly more susceptible feminine gender alone.
Any special privileges granted to any specialist State servants come with correspondingly special obligations. I recall vividly from my practising days the ways in which the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad were allowed whether explicitly or tacitly to play fast and loose with the “rules of the game” and to have those theoretically in authority over them turn a blind eye. The ends must never justify the means however much we might try to persuade ourselves that circumstances, the disreputable and dangerous accusations concerned and however our profound disapproval or dislike of those pursued may be. Otherwise we become - collectively- no more honourable than those pursued. What could conceivably justify the emotional damage and the futures of those used intimately in the infiltration of a group disapprobated by the police or security services in one entity or another? Also, I ponder the nature of the targets and their objectives. Why were such conscientious believers in their causes to the point of civil disruption identified as “public enemy number one”? Or are we to fear that ANY perceived inroads into our laws should be subject to similar insinuations into their personal space, hopes and endeavours? To coin a phrase, we should be told.
Am I missing something here?
The behaviour of these men was vile and deceitful but the women concerned chose to enter into sexual relationships with them. Men have in all ages lied about themselves, their marital status, and their work to obtain sexual favours.
Why and how did it become the responsibility of the Met or any other employer to supervise the sexual activities of its employees? Where does that end?