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/2014/jul/02/met-spy-undercover-police-damages-court
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Met must respond to spy allegations in undercover police case, court rules | Met must respond to spy allegations in undercover police case, court rules |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| The Metropolitan police cannot use its policy of "neither confirm nor deny" in response to damages claims brought by women who claim they were tricked into forming relationships with undercover officers. | The Metropolitan police cannot use its policy of "neither confirm nor deny" in response to damages claims brought by women who claim they were tricked into forming relationships with undercover officers. |
| The five are among a number of people who want compensation for emotional trauma allegedly caused by officers infiltrating environmental activist groups. | The five are among a number of people who want compensation for emotional trauma allegedly caused by officers infiltrating environmental activist groups. |
| Their claims for deceit, assault, negligence and misfeasance in public office arise out of long-term and intimate sexual relationships they had with four men who unknown to them were members of the special demonstration squad (SDS) between 1987 and 2007. | Their claims for deceit, assault, negligence and misfeasance in public office arise out of long-term and intimate sexual relationships they had with four men who unknown to them were members of the special demonstration squad (SDS) between 1987 and 2007. |
| Last month their lawyers told Mr Justice Bean at the high court in London that although the Met had issued a general denial and asserted that it was not liable, it had provided no defence to any of the allegations but instead asserted a policy of neither confirm nor deny (NCND). | Last month their lawyers told Mr Justice Bean at the high court in London that although the Met had issued a general denial and asserted that it was not liable, it had provided no defence to any of the allegations but instead asserted a policy of neither confirm nor deny (NCND). |
| On Wednesday the judge said the force would not be entitled to rely on the policy in relation to whether an individual "is or was an undercover officer" in order to avoid pleading to either the allegations generally – that Met officers, as part of their work, used false identities to engage in long-term intimate sexual relationships with those whose activities they wished to observe – or the specific allegations made by three of the women in respect of two officers known to them at the time as Jim Sutton and Bob Robinson. | On Wednesday the judge said the force would not be entitled to rely on the policy in relation to whether an individual "is or was an undercover officer" in order to avoid pleading to either the allegations generally – that Met officers, as part of their work, used false identities to engage in long-term intimate sexual relationships with those whose activities they wished to observe – or the specific allegations made by three of the women in respect of two officers known to them at the time as Jim Sutton and Bob Robinson. |
| The judge said the Met should not be required to admit or deny whether either of two others, named as Mark Cassidy and John Barker, was an undercover officer or had the real name alleged. | The judge said the Met should not be required to admit or deny whether either of two others, named as Mark Cassidy and John Barker, was an undercover officer or had the real name alleged. |
| In March the Met withdrew its application to have the claims thrown out – on the basis that its NCND policy meant it could not properly defend itself – after the home secretary announced a public inquiry into undercover policing. | In March the Met withdrew its application to have the claims thrown out – on the basis that its NCND policy meant it could not properly defend itself – after the home secretary announced a public inquiry into undercover policing. |
| The judge said he did not accept there was now any legitimate public interest entitling the police force to maintain NCND in respect of the general allegation. | |
| "The claims relate to alleged activities of officers of the SDS prior to its disbandment in 2008. It is not suggested that the use of long-term sexual relationships of this kind as a police tactic is continuing. It is also not argued that it would be appropriate now, nor that – if it did occur – it was appropriate then." | |
| He added that the chief constable conducting the Operation Herne investigation into allegations of misconduct by SDS officers had expressed the view that if this did happen it was a "gross abuse". | |
| "I believe that most people would agree with him," said the judge. "Whether the facts set out by the claimants, if proved, establish one or more of the pleaded causes of action as a matter of law is of course a different issue, and a matter for argument at the trial." | |
| In relation to the specific allegations about individual officers, all had been named publicly: via the media, self-disclosure, or official confirmation. | |
| "Jim Sutton" had been publicly named as an undercover officer by the [Met] commissioner in person and in the two cases involving him, reliance on NCND to avoid admitting he was such was 'simply unsustainable'." | |
| NCND could also not be relied on in the case of Bob Robinson, as he had not only self-disclosed – using his real name of Bob Lambert – but had been named by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) as a former Met officer and was no longer in the service. | |
| In the cases of Cassidy and Barker, neither had self-disclosed nor been officially confirmed as an undercover officer, although each has been named in the media. | |
| The judge said the Met would have 28 days in which to amend its defence in order either to admit or deny that undercover officers using false identities engaged in long-term intimate relationships with those whose activities it wished to observe, that this was authorised or acquiesced in by senior management and that Sutton and Robinson were such officers. If the Met failed to deal with the allegations within this period, it would be taken to admit them. | |
| Lawyers for the women later described the ruling as a "devastating blow" for the Met. | |
| Harriet Wistrich, of the law firm Birnberg Peirce & Partners, said: "The police have been on notice of this case for three and a half years and until this judgment, they have wilfully refused to engage in any meaningful way with the most serious allegations put to them. | |
| "Their ongoing refusal in the face of an overwhelming body of evidence in the public domain has greatly aggravated the distress caused to my clients, who want answers from the police as well as justice and accountability." |