Since bringing a legal case in 2011 with seven other women who were deceived, like me, into an intimate sexual relationship with an undercover police officer, I’ve learned to expect nothing from the police, and not much more from the legal establishment. Nevertheless, when a judge-led public inquiry into undercover policing was established in 2015, many of us welcomed this official investigation into what has become known as the “spy cops” scandal.
Today, John Mitting – the inquiry chair – has published his first interim report about the activities of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) from 1968-1982 which I have read with mixed feelings.
On the plus side, Mitting has accepted our arguments about the unreasonable level of intrusion into lives of members of the public and the likelihood that officers have been guilty of trespass – they entered people’s homes illegally without a warrant. He has held that this level of intrusion could never have been justified as a police tactic except to tackle serious crime such as terrorism, or to infiltrate groups that threatened the safety of the state.
The SDS, however, used the tactic to spy on progressive political groups which posed no real threat to the state. Because of this, he concludes the SDS should have been disbanded: “had the use of these means been publicly known at the time, the SDS would have been brought to a rapid end”.
For those of us campaigning to expose the human rights violations by these undercover operations, this is a major victory. It is an important acknowledgment that from the very start of its existence in the 1970s, the SDS’s spying could not be justified. And yet it continued for 40 more years.
I had hoped, however, that in addition to these devastating conclusions, the judge’s report would hold to account those responsible for establishing the unit’s misogynistic culture. One of the most shocking aspects of the SDS throughout its 40-year existence was the deception into sexual relationships of dozens – possibly hundreds – of women who did not give their informed consent. Mitting describes it as a “perennial feature of the SDS throughout the remainder of its history”. Yet there is no mention of sexism or misogyny in his report.
There is deep public concern about the institutional sexism and misogyny identified by Louise Casey in her recent report on the Met police. It would have been good if Mitting had offered some historical context to how and when this culture was established in one of its most secret and elite units. In the closing statement to the hearings in February, Charlotte Kilroy KC – representing women like me – submitted a report from 1983 establishing the Metropolitan police has known for more than 40 years about the culture of sexism, racism and homophobia at the heart of the force.
This does not feature in these interim findings. Instead, the judge has chosen to delay addressing the issue of the impact of sexual relationships undercover until the final report due in 2026.
I am disappointed not to hear Mitting feeling outraged at how women have been used and abused by members of the SDS, but the optimist in me hopes that’s being saved for the final report in three years’ time. The evidence points to nine officers having sexual relationships with members of the public during this first tranche spanning 1968-1982 and we know it only gets worse in the years ahead.
Some officers who submitted witness testimony are given the benefit of the doubt even where they have apparently forgotten things Mitting finds definitely occurred. As one of those abused by a professional liar within the police force, forgive me for being more sceptical. It is clear to me that, then and now, the police protect themselves.
What is important from Mitting’s findings, though, is that SDS deployments were unjustified. They were also illegal and undemocratic. I should never have met Mark “Cassidy” Jenner who infiltrated my life for five years and who, after disappearing, lived in my head for way too long.
As we approach the next set of hearings covering 1982-1992, scheduled for spring next year, the violation of women and privacy intrusions into the lives of members of the public becomes more egregious. It’s clear that from the 1970s onwards, women were considered commodities by the SDS (with one officer’s evidence comparing sexual relationships to “sampling the product” of a drug deal), and as the case of Vince “Miller” Harvey illustrates, some of these undercover officers went on to be promoted to senior positions in the police. Harvey admitted to having sex with four women while on duty undercover, and conceded that he had deceived “Madeleine”.
Despite this shady, undercover persona, Harvey became director of the National Criminal Intelligence Service; a career path indicative of a police culture rotten to the core.
The case of Vince Harvey begs a crucial question. We know very few of the real names of the undercover officers being investigated by the inquiry. We haven’t even been told all the cover names. Who else from these units was promoted to a well-respected and influential role?
It’s this very secrecy that allowed such a morally corrupt culture to become established. If the public is to have any faith in the Metropolitan police learning the lessons of the past, they need to come clean.
The Met needs to recognise the seriousness of Mitting’s findings and stop protecting the spy cops. Drop the secrecy; it’s time for transparency and truth.
Alison is one of eight women who first took legal action against the Metropolitan police over the conduct of undercover officers and a founder member of Police Spies Out of Lives. A core participant in the public inquiry into undercover policing, she is one of the authors of Deep Deception – The Story of the Spycop Network by the Women who Uncovered the Shocking Truth. Twitter: @AlisonSpycops
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
