The Undercover Policing Inquiry is this week considering evidence from two of the seven families whose deceased loved ones’ identities were appropriated by undercover police officers. Their evidence follows the delivery of their opening statement last week. The full opening statement is available here.
The inquiry was established in 2015 by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, to get to the truth following revelations concerning appalling practices in undercover policing including deceiving women into sexual relationships, criminality, infiltrating justice campaigns, taking the identities of dead children and perjury.
The seven families are only a small minority of the 42 plus families impacted by the undercover unit’s practice of taking the real identities of dead children as undercover identities.[1] It is unclear how many of the other families even know that they are the victims of this practice.
The practice itself was grotesquely described in the undercover unit’s guidance manual as assuming “squatters’ rights over the unfortunate’s identity”.[2] The Home Affairs Select Committee described the practice as ‘ghoulish and disrespectful’ in March 2013.
The families, many of whom are now elderly, have struggled with what they view as procedural obstructions in the Inquiry. It is only this year, almost 10 years after the inception of the Inquiry, that the first families have had an opportunity to provide their accounts to the Inquiry.
The families each have their own experiences; their own precious memories of the loved ones they lost, their own horror at learning how the source of their families’ grief was converted into a tool for the undercover police officers to use at will, their disgust at learning what officers did in their loved ones’ identities, and their anger – that this was allowed to happen, and that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, while apologising for the impact of the practice on the families, continues to defend the practice as necessary,[3] despite it being ineffective as well as morally repugnant.
The families also share their hope, in spite of serious misgivings around the Inquiry’s process, that their questions will be answered, the practice will be rightfully condemned, and those responsible in the police, Home Office and Security Services will be made to fully account not only for this practice but for the creation and continuation of this policing unit which the inquiry found in its interim report should have been brought to a rapid end shortly after its inception.
Frank Bennett and Honor Robson, siblings of Michael Hartley, whose identity was used by HN12, an officer who has been granted anonymity in respect of his real name, said:
What galls us most is that unlike our brother, whose name is associated publicly with the awful things HN12 has done, HN12’s name has been kept a secret by this inquiry, even though he has since died. Our family will never have the chance to look him in the eye and ask him our questions, and tell him what his actions have done to us. This is a devastating thing to grapple with. It has not been easy for us lay our grief bare publicly, our families’ painful history, and the loss that devastated us, but we have done it not only to honour and reclaim our brother’s memory, but also because we know there are other families out there who haven’t been afforded that opportunity for their loved ones, who may not even know their loved ones’ names have been used, and we owe to them as much as ourselves to ensure that the truth of this awful practice comes to light – that it was wrong, unnecessary and unjustified.
Both Mr Bennett and Ms Robson have given evidence to this Inquiry in the form of written statements available here. Mr Bennett has also given evidence in an oral hearing in July 2024 which is available for viewing here.
The Lewis Family, whose brother Anthony Lewis was used by HN78, real name Trevor Morris, said:
The theft of Anthony’s identity by Trevor Morris fills us with an overwhelming sense of injustice. Our feelings turn to fury and disgust when we think about the use to which Morris put our little brother’s identity – spying on anti-fascist and anti-racist groups, and deceiving vulnerable women into sexual relationships. His implication in his evidence that because he was pretending to be my brother, he was somehow less culpable for all of this, continues to sicken us, and insult our brother’s memory.
Our elderly parents have sadly found it too painful to deal with and process the meaning of all of this. This makes it even more important for us that the Inquiry strives to get answers and accountability for them, and for all of us.
The Lewis Family has provided a witness statement to the Inquiry which is available here.
Faith Mason, mother of Neil Robin Martin, whose identity was used by HN122, an officer who has been granted anonymity in respect of his real name, said:
My heart shattered when my beautiful son, Neil, died, and shattered again when, with shock, hurt and disgust, I learnt that a police officer had stolen his identity. I felt that I was grieving him all over again, grappling with a particular pain that an adult man had taken my son’s identity, to live in a way that Neil would never have lived.
I want the truth from HN122, from his colleagues, and the managers responsible for supervising him, and I want the Inquiry to do all it can to help me and all of the families get real answers. This would help me process what has happened more than any number of empty apologies.
Ms Mason has provided a witness statement to the Inquiry which it is anticipated will be published this week. HN122 is due to give evidence to the Inquiry this week on Wednesday 18 October 2024 regarding his deployment, and his use of Neil’s identity.
Kaden Blake, sister of Matthew Rayner, whose identity was used by HN1, an officer who has been granted anonymity in respect of his real name, said:
Although the Metropolitan Police Service have now made an apology for the impact that using Matthew’s identity, and the identities of other children, had on their families, that apology does not mean much to me. It feels like an apology is only being made because they have been found out, and they want to protect their reputation. I do not understand how they can continue to say there was no alternative when it is clear from the evidence in the Inquiry that this was not the case.
I do not understand how this practice was ever justified or considered necessary. For me, the fact that all these children’s identities were used against protest and activist movements only makes this worse; it’s not as if there was any “greater good” gained from HN1 assuming Matthew’s identity. I hope that the Inquiry recognises how little that apology means as long as the practice continues to be defended. I hope that it will help mine and other families in Category F uncover the ways in which different officers intruded on the identities of the children they stole, and what they did under cover of those identities.
Ms Blake gave live evidence to the Inquiry in a hearing at 10am on Tuesday 22 October 2024. Her full witness statement is available here, and the hearing can be viewed here.
The Inquiry hearings continue this week, and are due to conclude with evidence from SDS managers in January next year. The Inquiry is currently scheduled to produce its final report by the end of 2026
The Category F Core Participants represented by Bindmans LLP are represented by Jules Carey, Khariya Ali, and Jessica Webster, with the assistance of Angel Dim, Ellie Cottrell and Elisia Reid, instructing Fiona Murphy KC and Shanthi Sivakumaran of Doughty Street Chambers.
[1] “Operation Herne: Report 1 – Use of covert identities”, at [6.3]
[2] “Tradecraft Manual”, MPS-0527597 at [3.1.1] (available here: https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MPS-0527597.pdf)
[3] Tranche 2 Phase 1 Opening Statement of the Metropolitan Police Service at [37]: “using the identities of deceased children was believed to be the only effective, practical and safe means of preserving the safety of SDS officers who undertook long-term deployments into security-conscious and often hostile organisations.22 No evidence has been discovered of alternative methods being used elsewhere at this time that ought to have been considered by the SDS” (available here: https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Commissioner-Lawyers-Opening-statement-T2P1.pdf)