Skip to content

Police officers participating in crime and stealing the identities of dead children: an overview of legal principles and a view on unprincipled practices

February 9, 2013

“Secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government” Jeremy Bentham

Mark Kennedy, the undercover police officer who infiltrated environmental protest groups in the East Midlands almost certainly participated in crime whilst doing so. Last week it emerged that some undercover police officers used the details of dead children as the basis for an alias or legend that was straight from the pages of Frederick Forsyth novel, the Day of the Jackal.

One of the questions that arises from this what the status of police officers acting as Covert Human Intelligence Sources and participating in crime is and if it is allowed what are the permissible limits of this? Why is it ok for example for Kennedy to commit acts described in Sir Christopher Rose’s report into the events as including aggravated trespass but not murder? There are several references in Sir Christopher’s report to Kennedy being an “authorised” participating source.

In fact, it may come as a surprise but there is no ability to authorise criminality by sources under the legislation governing the conduct of covert human intelligence sources, even if Sir Christopher, the Chief Surveillance Officer, uses the term with worrying casual ease in his report. Indeed the Home Office has made clear that section 27 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (the 2000 Act) which provides in express terms for matters authorised in connection with the use and conduct of a source will be “lawful for all purposes” is limited to the requirement of legality under the European Convention on Human Rights not the criminal law, specifically Article 8.

Ambiguously, the former Code of Practice issued under the 2000 Act to provide guidance on such matters said criminal conduct could be authorised “in a very limited range of circumstances”. The present Code says simply that there is nothing in the 2000 Act that “is intended to affect the existing practices and procedures surrounding criminal participation of CHIS”. This is a little difficult to reconcile. Reference is made to authorisation under the 2000 Act to participate, yet the Code implies arrangements to do so pre-date the legislation that is cited as the basis for such authorisation.

Participation in criminality is part of undercover work. Its legitimacy has been recognised time and time again by the most senior courts. In Looseley in 2001 Lord Hoffmann acknowledged that “undercover officers who infiltrate conspiracies to murder, rob or commit terrorist offences could hardly remain concealed unless they showed some enthusiasm for the enterprise”. Reference was made to the operation being “properly supervised and authorised”. In the respected text, Human Rights and Criminal Justice (1st Edition) authors Ben Emmerson QC and Andrew Ashworth QC note that previously participating sources were governed by guidelines from the Home Office (1969) and later the Association of Chief Police Officers (1984). Further Codes of Practice have been issued that are not publicly available so it is not known what they say but it is clear they have nothing to do the legislation that otherwise governs the activities of covert human intelligence sources.

English law does not allow crime committed by sources to be authorised in advance although it can be justified subsequently either through establishing before a jury that there is a defence that prevents the Crown from proving the case or by persuading the Crown that it is not in the public interest to bring a prosecution.  It is possible for the police and prosecution to reach an understanding in advance that providing the undercover officer remains within agreed limits of criminality it would not be in the public interest to prosecute. This does not “authorise” participation in criminality it simply approaches the issue practically and with a realism that reflects the challenges that certain types of crime priority represents. This presumably is what is meant by “authorisation” to those of us not in the privileged position of having access to the instrument that purports to allow it.

The problem with this is the lack of transparency surrounding the authorisation process and was precisely the issue in the prosecutions that followed Kennedy’s deployment. It imbibes it with an unjustifiable secrecy that cannot be sustained once the decision to prosecute has been made. Sir Christopher concluded his report by criticising the police for not disclosing the authority to the prosecutor and the prosecution for not interrogating the police about its existence. This flowed from the starting point of the undercover team who said at the outset that the officer could not form part of the “evidential chain”. This is and Sir Christopher subsequently held was not open to the police to negotiate.

If participation reflects the harsh and unpleasant realities of a more sophisticated and difficult to detect criminal element, police using the identities of dead children does not. There was not at the time, is not now and never has been an operational need for undercover officers of any kind to adopt such extreme approaches to their cover story. Take it to its logical end: if criminals wish to investigate the credentials of a source and discover he or she is in fact deceased it will result in compromise far quicker than could ever be the case with an entirely false identity being created with all of the computer generated documents possible supporting this. Using the details of dead children is unoriginal, unnecessary and ghoulish.

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

3 Comments
  1. “English law does not allow crime to be authorised in advance ”

    Aactually,the Intelligence Services Act 1994 *does* do so, for MI5 Security Service, MI6 Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ investigations or “actions” regarding national security or “serious crime”

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/crossheading/authorisation-of-certain-actions

    A warrant is required ,signed (usually but not always) by a Secretary of State (e.g. Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary)

    N.B. none of this applies to CHIS undercover police officers

    • Thank you for the comment.
      You are quite right that this legislation, like Part III of the Police Act 1997, provides in effect that incidental crime committed in the pursuance of the authorised activities is lawful where it would otherwise be unlawful but as you also note it does not apply to sources, the subject to which the blog post relates.

  2. 1) If the stolen Identities of the dead children were used to apply for, or even to renew a Passport, then this would be a “false application” and under the current Identity Documents Act 2010

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/40/crossheading/false-identity-documents-etc/enacted

    or the previous Identity Cards Act 2006 (commenced from June 2006, after the cock up by the Home Office whereby the previous legislation (Section 5, subsection (5)(f) and (fa) and subsections (9) to (11) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 ) was repealed before the new powers were brought into force)

    http://press.mu.no2id.net/2006-06/home-office-spectacular-cock-up-cock-up-corrected-without-apology/

    The penalty under this legislation is up to 10 years in prison and / or an unlimited fine i.e. a much more serious crime than the alleged crimes that the police infiltrators were supposedly investigating amongst peace camp and environment groups etc.

    2) The current Police investigations are deliberately focussed on washing their hands of “previous” undercover Covert Human Intelligence Source practices involving the identities of dead children.

    What about WItness Protection schemes, which are also run by Police Forces ?

    Will the new UK Protected Persons Service

    http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/features/2012/national-witness-protection-scheme-announced

    investigate the current and past Witness Protection arrangements and reveal if these too have abused the identities of dead children ?

    3) What about other non-Police Force undercover CHIS i.e. the intelligence agencies and HMRC and the armed forces ?

    c.f.
    Identity Theft by the State – Police should not have stolen the identities of dead children
    http://spyblog.org.uk/ssl/spyblog/2013/02/03/identity-theft-by-the-state.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: