REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS

  THE REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS ACT 2000 IS ROUTINELY ABUSED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES, COUNCILS AND POLICE

JESUS WEPT - This is an act that is used by councils to cover their tracks when they have broken the law. In many cases it involves covering up their tracks by conspiring with police to bully those questioning council corruption, when the person asking for a council or police force to be investigated become a target. In many cases to be discredited and stitched up by whatever means possible, to make black appear white on their copy books.

Believe it or not, such cover ups, the most famous of which is the post office scandal, are ministerial policy. They'd rather ruin the life of 700 - 1000 people, sending many to prison, than admit to a mistake. Hundreds of people lost their homes, and gained criminal convictions such that they could never work in a trusted position again.

As usual, the ministers responsible were given honour by the State. Yes, you read that right. They received a gong for their part in hiding the truth, and conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

This is the hallmark of many police medals and golden handshakes from councils to departing officers. To be added to the cost of convictions and prisons, and probation staff and so on. All of which falls to the taxpayer. At the end of the day, you are paying for them to convict innocent people. And not just peanuts. You are paying through the nose.

TO BE CLEAR & FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT

It is unlawful for a local authority to spend more money investigating a matter than may be recovered. That then becomes a vindictive use of public funds, or a vendetta, but in any event a Malicious Prosecution where there is in any measure a cover up, or in the case of Council Tax (Rates) any failure to provide services that are being charged for. That then becomes fraud. Fraud is where anyone gains a pecuniary advantage by deception. Of for not doing carrying out a function where they owe a fiduciary duty - being in a position of trust.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) (RIP or RIPA) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, not so much regulating the powers of public bodies to carry out surveillance and investigation, and covering the interception of communications, but rather giving them a free hand to pursue vendettas, in the quest to prove water flows uphill.

In the case of the Horizon Sub-Postmaster affair, the Post Office would spend £300,000 chasing £30,000, and still not provide the information requested to enable their victims to mount any kind of criminal defence.

It was introduced by the Tony Blair (War Criminal) Labour government ostensibly to take account of technological change such as the growth of the Internet and strong encryption.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 9 February 2000 and completed its Parliamentary passage on 26 July.

Critics claim that the spectres of terrorism, internet crime and paedophilia were used to push the act through and that there was little substantive debate in the House of Commons. The act has numerous critics, many of whom regard the RIPA regulations as excessive and a threat to civil liberties in the UK. Campaign group Big Brother Watch published a report in 2010 investigating the improper use of RIPA by local councils. Critics such as Keith Vaz, the chairman of the House of Commons home affairs committee, have expressed concern that the act is being abused for "petty and vindictive" cases. Similarly, Brian Binley, Member of Parliament (MP) for Northampton South has urged councils to stop using the law, accusing them of acting like comic strip detective Dick Tracy.

The Trading Standards Institute has been very critical of these views, stating that the use of surveillance is critical to their success (see TSI press release Archived 3 November 2014 at the Wayback Machine).

The "deniable encryption" features in free software such as FreeOTFE, TrueCrypt and BestCrypt could be said to make the task of investigations featuring RIPA much more difficult.

Another concern is that the Act requires sufficiently large UK Internet Service Providers to install technical systems to assist law enforcement agencies with interception activity. Although this equipment must be installed at the ISPs' expense, RIPA does provide that Parliament will examine appropriate funding for ISPs if the cost burden became unfairly high.

ACCUSATION OF OPPRESSIVE USE

In April 2008, it became known that council officials in Poole put three children and their parents under surveillance, at home and in their daily movements, to check whether they lived in a particular school catchment area. Council officials carried out directed surveillance on the family a total of 21 times. Tim Martin, the council's head of legal services, had authorised the surveillance and tried to argue that it was justified under RIPA, but in a subsequent ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal – its first ever ruling – the surveillance was deemed to be unlawful. The same council put fishermen under covert surveillance to check for the illegal harvesting of cockles and clams in ways that are regulated by RIPA.

David Smith, deputy commissioner at the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) stated that he was concerned about the surveillance which took place in Poole.

Other councils in the UK have conducted undercover operations regulated by RIPA against dog fouling and fly-tipping. In April 2016, 12 councils said that they use unmanned aerial vehicles for "covert operations", and that such flights are covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Despite claims in the press that local councils are conducting over a thousand RIPA-based covert surveillance operations every month for petty offences such as under-age smoking and breaches of planning regulations, the Office of Surveillance Commissioners' last report shows that public bodies granted 8,477 requests for Directed Surveillance, down over 1,400 on the previous year. Less than half of those were granted by Local Authorities, and the commissioner reported that, "Generally speaking, local authorities use their powers sparingly with over half of them granting five or fewer authorisations for directed surveillance. Some sixteen per cent granted none at all."

In June 2008, the chairman of the Local Government Association, Sir Simon Milton, sent out a letter to the leaders of every council in England, urging local governments not to use the new powers granted by RIPA "for trivial matters", and suggested "reviewing these powers annually by an appropriate scrutiny committee".

Especially contentious was Part III of the Act, which requires persons to (allegedly) self-incriminate by disclosing a password to government representatives. Failure to do so is a criminal offence, with a penalty of two years in jail or five years in cases involving national security or child indecency. Using the mechanism of secondary legislation, some parts of the Act required activation by a ministerial order before attaining legal force. Such orders have been made in respect of the relevant sections of Part I and Part II of the RIP Act and Part III. The latter became active in October 2007. The first case where the powers were used was against animal rights activists in November 2007.

IDENTIFICATION OF JOURNALISTS' SOURCES

In October 2014, it was revealed that RIPA had been used by UK police forces to obtain information about journalists' sources in at least two cases. These related to the so-called Plebgate inquiry and the prosecution of Chris Huhne for perversion of the course of justice. In both cases, journalists' telephone records were obtained using the powers of the act in order to identify their sources, bypassing the usual court proceedings needed to obtain such information.

The UK newspaper The Sun made an official written complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to seek a public review of the London Metropolitan Police's use of anti-terror laws to obtain the phone records of Tom Newton Dunn, its political editor, in relation to its inquiry into the "Plebgate" affair. The Sun’s complaint coincided with confirmation that the phone records of the news editor of the Mail on Sunday and one of its freelance journalists had also been obtained by Kent police force when they investigated Chris Huhne's speeding fraud.

Journalists' sources are usually agreed to be privileged and protected from disclosure under European laws with which the UK complies. However, by using RIPA an investigating office just needs approval from a senior officer rather than the formal approval of a court hearing. Media lawyers and press freedom groups are concerned by the use of RIPA because it happens in secret and the press have no way of knowing whether their sources have been compromised. Responding to The Sun's complaint Sir Paul Kennedy, the interception of communications commissioner, launched a full inquiry and urged Home Office ministers to accelerate the introduction of promised protections for journalists, lawyers and others who handle privileged information, including confidential helplines, from such police surveillance operations. He said: "I fully understand and share the concerns raised by the protection of journalistic sources so as to enable a free press. Today I have written to all chief constables and directed them under section 58 (1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to provide me with full details of all investigations that have used Ripa powers to acquire communications data to identify journalistic sources. My office will undertake a full inquiry into these matters and report our findings to the prime minister".

On 12 October 2014, the justice minister, Simon Hughes, confirmed on Sky News's Murnaghan programme that the UK government will reform RIPA to prevent the police using surveillance powers to discover journalists' sources. He said that the police's use of RIPA's powers had been "entirely inappropriate" and in future the authorisation of a judge would be needed for police forces to be given approval to access journalists' phone records in pursuit of a criminal investigation. The presumption would be that if a journalist was acting in the public interest, they would be protected, he added. Hughes further said that if the police made an application to a court he would assume a journalist would be informed that the authorities were seeking to access his phone records. More than 100,000 RIPA requests are made every year for access to communications data against targets including private citizens. It is not known how many have involved journalists' phones.

PROSECUTIONS UNDER RIPA

A number of offences have been prosecuted involving the abuse of investigatory powers. Widely reported cases include the Stanford/Liddell case, the Goodman/Mulcaire Royal voicemail interception, and Operation Barbatus.

Cliff Stanford, and George Nelson Liddell pleaded guilty to offences under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in 2005. They were found to have intercepted emails at the company Redbus Interhouse. Stanford was sentenced to six months' imprisonment suspended for two years, and fined £20,000. It was alleged Stanford had intercepted emails between Dame Shirley Porter and John Porter (Chairman of Redbus Interhouse). In 2007, News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman was sentenced to four months in jail for intercepting the voicemail of members of the Royal Family. His associate Glenn Mulcaire received a six-month sentence.

In 2007, Operation Barbatus exposed a sophisticated criminal surveillance business organised by corrupt police officers. A former Metropolitan Police officer, Jeremy Young, was jailed for 27 months for various offences including six counts of conspiracy to intercept communications unlawfully. A second former policeman, Scott Gelsthorpe, was sentenced to 24 months for offences including conspiracy to intercept communications unlawfully. 3 other former police officers and a private detective were also jailed for their part in running a private detective agency called Active Investigation Services.

In 2008, four people were cautioned for 'Unlawful intercepting of a postal, public or private telecommunications scheme', under S.1(1), (2) & (7). The circumstances of the offences are not known at the time of writing. Three people were tried for 'Failure to disclose key to protected information' under S.53 (of which 2 were tried). One person was tried for 'Disclosing details of Section 49 Notice' under S.54.

In August 2009 it was announced that two people had been prosecuted and convicted for refusing to provide British authorities with their encryption keys, under Part III of the Act. The first of these was sentenced to a term of 9 months' imprisonment. In a 2010 case, Oliver Drage, a 19-year-old takeaway worker being investigated as part of a police investigation into a child exploitation network, was sentenced, at Preston Crown Court, to four months imprisonment. Mr Drage was arrested in May 2009, after investigating officers searched his home near Blackpool. He had been required, under this act, to provide his 50-character encryption key but had not complied.

In a further case in 2010 Poole Borough Council was accused of spying unfairly on a family. Although the Council invoked powers under RIPA to establish whether a family fell into a certain school catchment area, when taken before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal it was found guilty of improper use of surveillance powers.

AMENDMENTS

In October 2020 the Government introduced the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill which would permit, in certain circumstances, to authorise security, intelligence and police agencies to participate in criminal conduct during their operations. This Bill would amend the RIPA where required.

It rather makes a nonsense of the law, and sends all the wrong signals to police and council officials, that they may with state permission, break the law. Then what is the point of having the law. For sure, law enforcement officers will not investigate councils who have broken the law. And we are not just talking about misdemeanors. We are talking about long term conspiracies to pervert the course of justice for gain. Hence, fraud. Fraud includes causing a loss to others but officers not doing their job. They owe a fiduciary duty to every citizen not to cause loss. Hence, in agreeing not to refer a deemed planning application to (for example) the County Archaeologist for historical assessment, and then arguing the site in question has no history to consider. That constitutes fraud. The aim of the council concerned being to deprive the property owner of a reasonable and beneficial use.

Planning blight, using positions of trust to deprive persons of lawful uses is illegal.

INVESTIGATORY POWERS TRIBUNAL

The 2000 Act established the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to hear complaints about surveillance by public bodies. The Tribunal replaced the Interception of Communications Tribunal, the Security Service Tribunal, and the Intelligence Services Tribunal with effect from 2 October 2000.

Between 2000 and 2009 the tribunal upheld only 4 out of 956 complaints.

BANKRUPTCY DEFINITION - When an organisation is unable to honour its financial obligations or make payment to its creditors, it files for bankruptcy. A petition is filed in the court for the same where all the outstanding debts of the company are measured and paid out if not in full from the company's assets. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy can stay on a credit report for up to 10 years from the date the bankruptcy was filed, while a Chapter 13 bankruptcy will fall off a report seven years after the filing date. After the allotted seven or 10 years, the bankruptcy will automatically fall off your credit report.

Obviously, those responsible for creating the bankruptcy, must not be allowed back into office for at least seven, but more like ten years. And if found guilty of procurement fraud, should be banned for life from any political position of trust, involving public funds. The alternative, is constant monitoring of any politician's assets and accounts, using anti money laundering computer algorithms. And totally independent policing, not involving local constabularies, who are themselves corrupt in many cases.

UK UNDERCOVER POLICING RELATIONSHIPS SCANDAL

Around the end of 2010 and during 2011, it was disclosed in UK media that a number of undercover police officers had, as part of their 'false persona', entered into intimate relationships with members of targeted groups and in some cases proposed marriage or fathered children with protesters who were unaware their partner was a police officer in a role as part of their official duties.

Various legal actions followed, including eight women who took action against the Metropolitan Police and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), stating they were deceived into long-term intimate relationships by five officers, including Mark Kennedy, the first officer to be identified as such, who was publicly identified on 21 October 2010 as infiltrating social and environmental justice campaigns, and Mark Kennedy himself who claimed in turn that he had been incompetently handled by his superiors and denied psychological counselling. According to The Guardian, Kennedy sued the police for ruining his life and failing to "protect" him from falling in love with one of the environmental activists whose movement he infiltrated.

Although the units had been previously disbanded, other cases continued to emerge. In 2015 the public Undercover Policing Inquiry under a senior judge was announced. In November 2015 the Metropolitan Police published an unreserved apology in which it exonerated and apologised to those women who had been deceived and stated the methodology had constituted abuse and a "gross violation" with severely harmful effects, as part of a settlement of their cases. In 2016 new cases continued to come to light.

BACKGROUND

Mark Kennedy (also known as Mark Stone and Flash) is a former London Metropolitan Police officer who, while attached to the police service's National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), infiltrated many protest groups between 2003 and 2010 before he was unmasked by political activists as an undercover policeman on 21 October 2010. In January 2011, it was reported that Kennedy worked for several years as an undercover infiltrator for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit with seven years work in the environmental protest movement.

During this time he had entered into intimate relationships on false grounds, which came to light during 2010 as being part of a systemic pattern of exploitation and manipulation of women in such movements. It also emerged that some of these undercover police relationships had resulted in children whose fathers later "vanished" when their role was completed.

OTHER RELATED UNDERCOVER CONTROVERSIES

It later emerged that Kennedy had previously undertaken criminal acts as part of his role for other countries, including Denmark where he stated that, in the guise of an environmental activist, he was used by the police forces of 22 countries and was responsible for the closing down of the Youth House community centre in Copenhagen, and in Germany, for German police, including arson. German MP Andrej Hunko raised questions in the German Bundestag concerning what the German authorities knew about Kennedy's activities among the Berlin protest movement. Kennedy had been arrested in Berlin for attempted arson, but was never brought to trial. Hunko also asked: "How does the federal government justify the fact that [Mark Kennedy], as part of his operation in Germany, did not only initiate long-term meaningful friendships but also sexual relationships, clearly under false pretenses?" The German government refused to answer all questions relating to Kennedy.

The use of undercover officers also caused the collapse of trials and led to the revelation of unlawful withholding of evidence by the Crown Prosecution Service. The trial of six activists accused of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass at Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station collapsed following the revelation of undercover police involvement, in which the police were described as having been not just observers, but agent provocateurs: "We're not talking about someone sitting at the back of the meeting taking notes - he was in the thick of it."

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) barrister Felicity Gerry was forced to withdraw the case against the activists after Kennedy confessed to the set-up, evidence of which the CPS had withheld from the defence. The CPS also withheld the fact that Kennedy was giving testimony under the false name Mark Stone using a false passport supplied by the police. Secret tapes "that could have exonerated six activists, known as the "deniers" because they claimed not to have agreed to join the protest" and "evidence gathered by the Guardian now suggests it was the Crown Prosecution Service rather than the police that withheld the tapes." CPS lawyer Ian Cunningham faced dismissal after a report by Sir Christopher Rose criticised Cunningham for failing to ask questions about Kennedy's involvement in the Ratcliffe plot.

IMPACT, INQUIRY AND AFTERMATH OF DISCLOSURES

As of 2016 the legal cases continue. In November 2015 the Metropolitan Police force apologised to seven women "tricked into relationships" over a period of 25 years by officers in the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU). The officers involved had eventually "vanished", leaving questions and deceit behind, described by victims as "psychological torture". Financial settlements estimated at £3 million for the seven claimants were also made as part of the settlement.

The disclosures also led to the closing of the units concerned, and a public inquiry, the Undercover Policing Inquiry, concerning the conduct of police in undercover operations. The inquiry is headed by senior judge Lord Justice Pitchford, a Lord Justice of Appeal and member of the Privy Council. One group representing victims of such practices is the Undercover Research Group, whose website provides alternative coverage and comments on the inquiry.

As of April 2018 the inquiry has confirmed that undercover police had infiltrated the following groups and movements:

Anarchist groups, Animal Liberation Front, Anti-Apartheid Movement, Anti-Fascist Action, Big Flame, Black Power movement, Brixton Hunt Saboteurs, Colin Roach Centre, Dambusters Mobilising Committee, Dissent!, Earth First!, Essex Hunt Saboteurs, Friends of Freedom Press Ltd, Globalise Resistance, Independent Labour Party, Independent Working Class Association, International Marxist Group, International Socialists, Irish National Liberation Solidarity Front, London Animal Action, London Animal Rights Coalition, London Boots Action Group, London Greenpeace, Militant, No Platform, Antifa, Operation Omega, Reclaim the Streets, Red Action, Republican Forum, Revolutionary Socialist Students Federation, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, South London Animal Movement (SLAM), Tri-Continental, Troops Out Movement, Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, West London Hunt Saboteurs, Workers Revolutionary Party, Young Haganah, Young Liberals, Youth against Racism in Europe.

Former policeman Andy Coles was elected in 2015 as a Conservative councillor on Peterborough City Council and appointed a deputy to the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Commissioner in 2016. After a mention in his younger brother Richard Coles' autobiography, he was accused of having deceived a 19-year-old political activist into a sexual relationship while he was a 32-year-old undercover police officer in the 1990s. In February 1995 the then Detective Sergeant Coles wrote the "Tradecraft manual for undercover police". He resigned as deputy commissioner on 15 May 2017 but remains a councillor and school governor.

Eventually at least 12 women received compensation from the police in the High Court of Justice, though the police avoided making internal documents about the relationships public.

INVESTIGATORY POWERS TRIBUNAL TRIAL

Kate Wilson, one of the women who had sued the police in the high court over the relationship with undercover officer Mark Kennedy, started a case in 2018 at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, alleging the police had infringed her human rights in five ways. In court documents, the police admitted that Kennedy's line manager and other officers were aware of the sexual relationship, stating "sexual relationship with [Wilson] was carried out with the acquiescence of his cover officers and line manager". Previously the police had suggested such relationships were not officially sanctioned.

SCOPE FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES

Rape in English law is defined as "unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who 

(a) at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and 

(b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she consents to it." The basis of a prosecution therefore revolves around whether or not consent is given in law, or its absence was ignored.

The CPS statement clarified that misrepresenting identity, and obtaining sexual consent due to a false identity, was not generally a crime in UK law, other than in specific situations such as impersonating a person's partner, or deceit as to gender. Other than in specific limited situations set out in statute, the general rule in UK law is that deceit only creates a case of rape (known as "rape by deception" or "rape by fraud") if "the act consented to was not the act undertaken". Crown Prosecutors declined to bring charges against any police officers or their supervisors, including charges for rape and other sexual crimes (covering sex under false pretences, unconsented sexual acts, and other potential offences), on the basis that rape charges would be unlikely to succeed. For similar reasons, indecent assault, procurement for sexual intercourse by false pretences, and misconduct in office were also felt to lack sufficient basis for a conviction.

A leading case on "rape by fraud" is R v Linekar, in which the Court of Appeal had previously held that very narrow restrictions should apply to such cases of deceit in the context of rape prosecutions. (The reasoning being that otherwise rape could be alleged following any minor broken promise or any misrepresentation with sexual activity, and would risk no longer being a uniformly serious offence.)

POLICE RESPONSE

In November 2015, the Metropolitan Police Service issued the following statement:

...

Thanks in large part to the courage and tenacity of these women in bringing these matters to light it has become apparent that some officers, acting undercover whilst seeking to infiltrate protest groups, entered into long-term intimate sexual relationships with women which were abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong. ... Firstly, none of the women with whom the undercover officers had a relationship brought it on themselves. They were deceived pure and simple. I want to make it clear that the Metropolitan Police does not suggest that any of these women could be in any way criticized for the way in which these relationships developed.

Second, at the mediation process the women spoke of the way in which their privacy had been violated by these relationships. I entirely agree that it was a gross violation and also accept that it may well have reflected attitudes towards women that should have no part in the culture of the Metropolitan Police.

Third, it is apparent that some officers may have preyed on the women’s good nature and had manipulated their emotions to a gratuitous extent. This was distressing to hear about and must have been very hard to bear.

Fourth, I recognise that these relationships, the subsequent trauma and the secrecy around them left these women at risk of further abuse and deception by these officers after the deployment had ended.

Fifth, I recognize that these legal proceedings have been painful distressing and intrusive and added to the damage and distress. Let me make clear that whether or not genuine feelings were involved on the part of any officers is entirely irrelevant and does not make the conduct acceptable.

...

In light of this settlement, it is hoped that the Claimants will now feel able to move on with their lives. The Metropolitan Police believes that they can now do so with their heads held high. The women have conducted themselves throughout this process with integrity and absolute dignity.

—  Statement by Metropolitan Police Service, 20 November 2015. 

[No police force that engages in such activities can ever hold their heads high. The same applies to council officers and members. They are what is wrong with Britain. That the Crown condone such actions is shameful. That any Member of Parliament would be party to such Gestapo like treatment of British subjects, is de-facto Nazism. A violation of the human rights of every voter, if if they are not personally affected.]

In January 2011, it was reported that Kennedy was one of the first officers to work as an undercover infiltrator for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit and had spent seven years within the environmental protest movement.

In a Channel 4 interview broadcast on 14 November 2011, Kennedy stated that, in the guise of an environmental activist, he was used by the police forces of 22 countries. He also claimed he was instrumental in the closing down the original Youth House community centre in Copenhagen.

Kennedy said he was hired by German police between 2004 and 2009 and allegedly committed two crimes on their behalf, one of which was arson. German MP Andrej Hunko raised questions in the German Bundestag concerning what the German authorities knew about Kennedy's activities amongst the Berlin protest movement. Kennedy had been arrested in Berlin for attempted arson but was never brought to trial. Hunko also asked: "How does the federal government justify the fact that [Mark Kennedy], as part of his operation in Germany, did not only initiate long-term meaningful friendships but also sexual relationships, clearly under false pretenses?" The federal government refused to answer all questions relating to Kennedy.

Kennedy was involved in several environmentalist campaigns in Ireland, such as Shell to Sea. He allegedly encouraged protestors to attack police during the May Day 2004 protests in Dublin.

In February 2010, while still serving as a police officer, he set up Tokra Ltd, a private company at the same address as a security firm that works for the energy company E.ON, the owners of Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station. Later in 2010, he set up Black Star High Access Ltd, based in east London.

He manipulated several women into having sexual relationships with him, with the knowledge of his superiors.

Kennedy said in an interview, arranged through his PR agent Max Clifford, that he suffered a version of Stockholm syndrome. According to The Guardian, Kennedy sued the police for ruining his life and failing to "protect" him from "falling in love" with one of the environmental activists whose movement he infiltrated.

KATE WILSON

Kate Wilson, one of the women who had sued the police in the high court, started a case in 2018 at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, alleging the police had infringed her human rights in five ways. In court documents, the police admitted that Kennedy's line manager and other officers were aware of the sexual relationship, stating "sexual relationship with [Wilson] was carried out with the acquiescence of his cover officers and line manager". Previously the police had suggested such relationships were not officially sanctioned. The tribunal found that Kennedy had “invaded the core of her private life”, “caused her mental suffering" and that he had “interfered” with her “sexual autonomy” and showed “a profound lack of respect” for her “bodily integrity and human dignity.” It found that his actions were an “abuse of the highest order.” In January 2022 the tribunal found that Kennedy had “grossly debased, degraded and humiliated” his victim and awarded her £229,000 in compensation. The tribunal described Kennedy as a "highly unreliable narrator" and stated "we do not consider we can put any weight on statements and comments he has made".

RATCLIFFE POWER STATION TRIAL

The case against six activists accused of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass at Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station collapsed following the revelation of Kennedy's activities as an undercover policeman.

Danny Chivers, who was one of the six successful defendants in the case, said Kennedy was not just an observer, but an agent provocateur. "We're not talking about someone sitting at the back of the meeting taking notes - he was in the thick of it."

In a taped conversation obtained by BBC Newsnight and broadcast on 10 January 2011, Kennedy told an activist he was "sorry" and "wanted to make amends". Kennedy admitted he had been a serving police officer at the time of the Ratcliffe arrests, but said he was not one now. He also told the activist "I hate myself so much I betrayed so many people...I owe it to a lot of good people to do something right for a change ... I'm really sorry."

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) barrister Felicity Gerry was forced to withdraw the case against the activists after Kennedy confessed to the set-up, evidence of which the CPS had withheld from the defence. The CPS also withheld the fact that Kennedy was giving testimony under the false name Mark Stone using a false passport supplied by the police. Secret tapes recorded by Kennedy were also withheld by the CPS. The Guardian reported that "Kennedy's tapes were secret evidence that could have exonerated six activists, known as the "deniers" because they claimed not to have agreed to join the protest" and "evidence gathered by the Guardian now suggests it was the Crown Prosecution Service rather than the police that withheld the tapes". CPS lawyer Ian Cunningham faced dismissal after a report by Sir Christopher Rose criticised Cunningham for failing to ask questions about Kennedy's involvement in the Ratcliffe plot.

MEDIA

Kennedy is one of several now-exposed undercover police officers profiled in the book Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police (2012). A planned television drama series is based on the story of the undercover officers.

The play Any Means Necessary is based on the infiltration of the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station protest. It was the staged at Nottingham Playhouse in February 2016.

Andy Whittaker produced a series of podcasts for BBC Sounds about Kennedy. Whittaker looked at the effect the officer's actions had on the groups, friends and partners he became acquainted using his false identity. Called 'Undercover' it was released 23 January 2024.

UNDERCOVER: THE TRUE STORY OF BRITAIN'S SECRET POLICE

Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police is a 2012 book by The Guardian journalists Rob Evans and Paul Lewis.

SYNOPSIS

The book investigates the infiltration of political activist groups in the United Kingdom by police forces, such as the Metropolitan Police. Groups targeted included those of the revolutionary left, far-right, and apolitical community campaigners. One police infiltrator, Bob Lambert was accused by a Member of the House of Commons of participating in a firebombing on a retailer selling fur. Lambert has also admitted fathering a child whilst undercover. Police stole the identities of deceased persons, often children, and created fake passports, licences and bank accounts.

RECEPTION

Critical reception for Undercover has been positive. Alan White in the New Statesman wrote "Undercover compels the reader throughout, which is a testament to the investigative and writing skills of Evans and Lewis" and noted "the result is an example of the kind of classic, long-haul journalism that has, over recent years, produced scoops that have rattled the establishment, provoked multiple police inquiries and offered up an extraordinary series of revelations. The work of these authors is one of the best arguments in favour of a free press you’ll ever read." Marc Hudson in Peace News advised "activists really must read this book. They should share it, discuss it and learn from it".

The book was also featured in a piece in the London Review of Books.

VICTIM'S ONGOING CONCERNS

In January 2016, further cases continued to come to light. A complainant stated that they sought disclosure of the cover names of officers who were engaged undercover in this way, and their supervising officers, so that those who had been deceived into relationships, and potentially suffered thereby, would be able to discover the fact.

CHANGES TO UK UNDERCOVER POLICING PRACTICES

At present, the inquiry is in process and the final report not yet created; the sole known impact on police practice is the above statement combined with the alleged disbanding of the units involved.

 See our CORRUPTION A - Z or just roll over and accept SLAVERY