This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/16/theresa-may-public-inquiry-undercover-police

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Theresa May outlines scope of public inquiry into undercover police Convictions of 83 political campaigners in doubt over undercover police failings
(about 4 hours later)
A public inquiry will examine how undercover police spied on political and social justice campaigners for more than four decades, the home secretary, Theresa May, announced on Thursday. The criminal convictions of another 83 political campaigners could be overturned because the involvement of undercover police was hidden from their trials, an official review has revealed.
Outlining the remit of the inquiry, she said that it would “examine the motivation for, and the scope of, undercover police operations in practice and their effect upon individuals in particular and the public in general”. The home secretary, Theresa May, said the safety of the convictions was causing concern and described the withholding of crucial evidence by undercover police as an “appalling practice”.
The inquiry – to be headed by Lord Justice Pitchford – will also review the oversight and regulation of the undercover operations. The report by Mark Ellison QC showed that the undercover officers had operated in such tight secrecy that they routinely concealed their activities from prosecutors and other police officers.
She added that the inquiry – which is expected to run for up to three years – will “investigate the role of, and the contribution made by undercover policing towards the prevention and detection of crime”. Ellison found that undercover officers deployed to infiltrate political groups had appeared in trials using their false personas, deceived lawyers about their true identities and allowed evidence they knew to be false to be presented in court by prosecutors.
May said: “Undercover policing is an essential tactic in the fight against crime but any allegation that the police misused this power must be taken seriously. The actions and behaviour of corrupt police officers can easily undermine public confidence. In recent years, 57 environmental protesters have had their convictions quashed or prosecutions against them dropped because key evidence gathered by undercover officers was concealed from their trials.
“This inquiry will not only look at historical failings but make recommendations to ensure those unacceptable practices are not repeated in the future.” The new cases of potentially unjust convictions came to light on Thursday as May announced details of the remit of a public inquiry intoundercover infiltration of political groups since 1968.
The inquiry was set up following a stream of revelations. It has been disclosed that undercover officers spied on the family of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence and other grieving families, formed long-term relationships with female campaigners and withheld evidence from court cases. She said the inquiry into the failings of the undercover police – to be headed by Lord Justice Pitchford – is expected to be completed within three years.
May set up the inquiry following a series of revelations which included how undercover officers had spied on the family of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence and other grieving families, and formed long-term relationships with female campaigners.
The inquiry will scrutinise how the undercover officers “targeted individuals and groups such as political and social justice campaigners” during deployments that typically lasted five years, she said.
Pitchford will “examine the motivation for, and the scope of, undercover police operations in practice and their effect upon individuals in particular and the public in general”, she added.
The inquiry will also look at the oversight and regulation of the undercover operations, and how much ministers and Whitehall officials knew about the covert missions.
May said the inquiry will also scrutinise the convictions of campaigners to see if they should be quashed, as the independent report she had commissioned from Ellison was released.
Ellison said that sometimes the undercover officers had been working in their secret role when activists they were infiltrating had been arrested and later prosecuted. However, the undercover police knew that parts of the prosecution case against the activists were false but did not alert the court.
On other occasions, the undercover spies were arrested and prosecuted but appeared in court using their fake identities.
Ellison said that inevitably the spies deceived other police officers who had made the arrests, prosecutors and the lawyers representing the campaigners who were being prosecuted.
He added that the undercover officers gathered evidence in prosecutions of campaigners but failed to disclose it to prosecutors as the legal rules governing fair trials require.
The QC said that at least 26 officers had been arrested in their undercover roles on 53 occasions, but gave no details.
May, who said Ellison’s report had “shone a spotlight on this police tactic”, has set up a panel, consisting of senior prosecutors and police, to continue examining possible miscarriages of justice.
No details of the 83 new cases were published by Ellison, who said they were being examined by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the official agency that looks at potential wrongful convictions.
“No decisions have been made by the CCRC or the CPS as to whether they should be referred to the courts. Nevertheless the cases provide some further insight as to the types of issues being raised, and the spectrum of behaviour of concern to the safety of convictions.”
Ellison made it clear that there were a large number of convictions where he could not identify if they were unjust, because the records of the undercover operations were no longer available.
He quotes one senior undercover officer who said: “We did our best to make it difficult for anyone to understand/reveal our work”, and another saying : “We were part of a ‘black operation’ that absolutely no one knew about and only the police had actually agreed that this was all OK.”
Some individuals and groups who were spied on by the undercover police welcomed the scope of the inquiry, but warned that it must not be a whitewash.