This article is from the source 'bbc' 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.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/world-16049886

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Failings over Mark Kennedy undercover officer case Failings over Mark Kennedy undercover officer case
(about 4 hours later)
By Dominic Casciani Home affairs correspondentBy Dominic Casciani Home affairs correspondent
A prosecutor is facing disciplinary action after a report criticised the handling of two climate protest trials involving an undercover officer. Failures by police and prosecutors led to the collapse of a controversial trial involving an undercover police officer, a report has said.
Twenty protesters were cleared at the Court of Appeal earlier this year after the role of Mark Kennedy was revealed. The case failed when it emerged that the officer, Mark Kennedy, had infiltrated and potentially entrapped environmental activists.
A report cleared the Crown Prosecution Service of deliberately withholding information about the officer but said the trials were wrong. A further 20 activists had their convictions quashed on appeal following the officer's unmasking.
Mr Kennedy spent seven years underground, infiltrating green groups. A prosecutor is now facing disciplinary action over his alleged failings.
In December 2010, 20 protesters, part of the movement Mr Kennedy had infiltrated, were convicted over an alleged plot to shut down the massive coal-powered Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station near Nottingham. href="http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/assets/uploads/files/rose_report_on_ratcliffe_-_on_-_Soar_case.pdf" >In a report into the affair, retired judge Sir Christopher Rose said that if the Crown Prosecution Service's reviewing lawyer, Ian Cunningham, had fully understood Mark Kennedy's role, nobody would have been tried.
But a second trial of six more protesters collapsed after it emerged that the officer wanted to use his secret recordings to help the defence. He said Mr Cunningham had "relied too heavily" on what police told him about the undercover officer, who was managed by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit.
Kennedy had permission to break the law as part of his cover - but the collapse of the Ratcliffe case led to allegations of entrapment and triggered inquiries into the affair and the role of undercover police officers. Mark Kennedy spent years underground, infiltrating green groups involved in high profile climate change protests.
href="http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/assets/uploads/files/rose_report_on_ratcliffe_-_on_-_Soar_case.pdf" >In his report for the CPS into whether prosecutors had suppressed evidence, Sir Christopher Rose said Mr Kennedy's activities and his secret recording were "never effectively distributed between all relevantly interested police officers or to the CPS", even though they undermined the prosecution. In 2009, Nottinghamshire Police arrested more than 100 people from a group that Kennedy had infiltrated. Twenty of them were convicted in December 2010 of plotting to shut down the massive coal-powered Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station near Nottingham.
The former judge said that if the CPS reviewing lawyer, Ian Cunningham, had fully understood Kennedy's role, nobody would have gone on trial. But a second proposed trial of six more protesters collapsed after it emerged that the officer wanted to use his secret recordings to help the defence.
But he said Mr Cunningham, had "relied too heavily" on what police told him about the undercover officer, who was managed by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit. The collapse of the trial led the Court of Appeal to href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1885.html" >quash the convictions of the first 20 protesters - but also triggered inquiries into the affair and the role of undercover police officers.
"[Mr Cunningham's] statutory responsibility to keep disclosure under review meant that he should have continued asking... questions," said the report. In his report into whether prosecutors had suppressed evidence, Sir Christopher Rose said Mr Kennedy's activities and evidence were "never effectively distributed between all relevantly interested police officers or to the CPS", even though they clearly undermined the prosecution.
"[Reviewing lawyer Ian Cunningham's] statutory responsibility to keep disclosure under review meant that he should have continued asking... questions," said the report.
"All those involved in [managing] the case were well aware, or should have been if relevant guidance had been consulted, of what they needed to do.""All those involved in [managing] the case were well aware, or should have been if relevant guidance had been consulted, of what they needed to do."
The former judge criticised several senior police officers. Although the report cleared the Crown Prosecution Service of deliberately or dishonestly withholding information, the former judge criticised senior police officers in Nottinghamshire Police and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit.
He said a note of a meeting between senior officer three days after the 2009 arrests described Mr Cunningham as "danger - environmentally friendly." He said an early case note between senior police officers described Mr Cunningham as "danger - environmentally friendly" and that the lawyer was not even initially told about the existence of Kennedy.
Furthermore, leading officers in both Nottinghamshire and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit did not initially reveal Mark Kennedy's existence to the detective managing the case. Sir Christopher said: "I accept that the [senior NPOIU officer] was entitled to do all he properly could to protect his asset. But at the disclosure stage, he was not entitled to withhold from the Senior Investigating Officer, the deputy SIO or Mr Cunningham material... they needed to know."
The report said: "I accept that the [senior NPOIU officer] was entitled to do all he properly could to protect his asset. But at the disclosure stage, he was not entitled to withhold from the Senior Investigating Officer, the deputy SIO or Mr Cunningham material... they needed to know."
But he added: "Nothing I have seen or heard suggests that, at any stage of this prosecution, there was deliberate - still less dishonest - withholding of information which the holder believed was disclosable".
Ben Stewart, one of the 20 protesters whose convictions was quashed, denounced the report as "the whitest of whitewashes".Ben Stewart, one of the 20 protesters whose convictions was quashed, denounced the report as "the whitest of whitewashes".
Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer confirmed Mr Cunningham now faced disciplinary proceedings. But the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer, said: "I take very seriously the findings of individual failings on the part of the CPS, including failures properly to comply with disclosure obligations, failure to ask questions of the police and failure to oversee the case effectively."
"What happened in this case cannot be allowed to happen again," said Mr Starmer. "It has to be seen as a watershed in the way cases involving undercover officers are dealt with. Mr Starmer said he had written to the Association of Chief Police Officers, saying that in future cases police must disclose everything about undercover officers as soon as prosecutions are being considered.
"I take very seriously the findings of individual failings on the part of the CPS, including failures properly to comply with disclosure obligations, failure to ask questions of the police and failure to oversee the case effectively." The Independent Police Complaints Commission is still investigating Nottinghamshire Police's actions in the case. A separate report by the inspectorate of constabulary has been delayed until the New Year.
Mr Starmer said he had written to the Association of Chief Police Officers saying that in future cases police must disclose everything about undercover officers as soon as prosecutions are being considered.
The IPCC is still investigating Nottinghamshire Police's actions in the case. A separate report by the inspectorate of constabulary has been delayed until the New Year.