Public Interest Law Centre

public law | human rights | legal action

22Feb 2023

UCPI Tranche 1 Closing Statement

22nd February 2023|

On Monday 20th February 2023, the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI) began hearing the Tranche 1 closing statements from state and non-state legal teams. Tranche 1 which covers the period 1968 to 1982.

The Public Interest Law Centre is representing a number of Core Participants (CP) in Tranche 1. This includes former members of the Troops Out Movement, the International Marxist Group and former leading members of the Socialist Workers’ Party. We have played an active role throughout the Inquiry.

PILC Legal Team – closing submissions

Today, Wednesday 22nd February 2023 we are publishing our closing submissions to Tranche 1 of the Inquiry. The submissions can be viewed here.

In these closing submissions we argue that :

  1. The deployment of undercover officers into political campaigns and parties was not simply an intelligence gathering exercise. It was designed, with the knowledge and approval of Special Branch managers and MI5, to undermine a democratic organisations. We highlight how this was done to great effect to the Troops Out Movement.
  2. We show how the undermining of the Troops Out Movement, a democratic organisation was one of a range of “counter measures” that were fully endorsed by Government.
  3. We submit that  post 1972, the principle purpose of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) was not to assist with maintaining public order. Its task, in conjunction with MI5, was to spy on citizens who were politically active, particularly in the trade union movement.
  4. Government knew and approved, encouraged and enabled the continuation of  the SDS.
  5. From as early as 1975, the SDS management knew of undercover officer sexual relationships with their targets.
  6. The Public were continually deceived as to the function and tasking of Special Branch, and its close work with MI5.

In conclusion we say that in their defence the British establishment claimed to be defending democracy, but it was not a defence of democracy, it was the undermining of democracy in defence of the establishment.

Rule 10 questions and missed opportunities

Alongside these submissions we are today also publishing what are called Rule 10 questions – these are questions that our legal team drafted we for Counsel to the Inquiry (CTI). The Rule 10 questions can be viewed here.

We submitted over seventy pages of questions for CTI to ask Geoffrey Craft a Senior Police Officer in SDS who managed undercover officers – particularly Rick Clark. Each question was supported by referenced documentary evidence, setting a context, foundation and rationale for asking it.

The questions were submitted early to ensure that CTI could understand not only their importance, but also they could be included in CTI’s questions to Craft. Those questions were absolutely crucial to understand the deployment of Rick Clark, as his deployment was so significant to all of the deployments that followed it.

What resulted was very disappointing. There was much handholding of Craft by CTI through his questioning process – barely 5% of our Rule 10 questions were asked. This despite the fact that the deployment of Rick Clark was extremely important and crucial as it has far reaching consequences in respect of how the SDS worked, the tactics used, and how it was tasked by MI5.

We hope that going forward that CTI is more responsive to our Rule 10 questions.

We take this opportunity to thank our legal team comprising James Scobie KC (Garden Court Chambers) and Piers Marquis (Doughty Street Chambers). They were instructed by Paul Heron our senior solicitor.

26Apr 2021

UCPI: Undercover officer led Troops Out Movement

26th April 2021|

On Friday 21 April we delivered our opening statement to the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI). The public inquiry has been reconvened to look at the years 1973 to 1982. This section of the Inquiry is Tranche 1 Part 2.

PILC represents the following participants in the UCPI: Richard Chessum, ‘Mary’, Lois Austin, Hannah Sell, Dave Nellist, John Rees, Lindsey German, Chris Nineham, Youth against Racism in Europe and the Stop the War Coalition.

Our opening statement was behalf of Richard Chessum and ‘Mary’, who were both spied upon by undercover officers from the Metropolitan Police. Both were involved in the Troops Out Movement, and to a lesser extent the International Marxist Group, in the early 1970s.

Our statement also begins to explore the systematic infiltration of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), in which Lindsey German was a leading figure at that time. Over the years the party was subject to major infiltration—we estimate that 30+ officers may have targeted and infiltrated the SWP.

Commenting on our opening statement, the Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance (COPS), an alliance of activists subjected to systematic surveillance, said:

“[James] Scobie [QC] did a great job piecing together the career of undercover officer Richard Clark (‘Rick Gibson’ HN297, 1974-76) rising through Troops Out Movement (TOM) seemingly in order to get access to Big Flame – and how he was eventually found out.”

Our opening statement, carefully assembled by Piers Marquis of Doughty Street Chambers and Paul Heron, solicitor at PILC, provides a clear analysis of how undercover officer Richard Clark was able to climb to a leading position in the Troops Out Movement. Clark went from a local to a regional and then to a national position of authority in the movement. He subsequently directed the movement for a period of time, and, we say, contributed to de-railing it.

We then explain how other officers infiltrated a host of organisations, taking positions of responsibility that gave them a say directing the activities of those groups. This was political policing worthy of an authoritarian state.

In our statement we point out that many officers considered the Socialist Workers Party ‘extremely dull’ or generally not worthy of surveillance. However some, such as ‘Paul Gray’ (1977-82), claimed the party was involved in violence. As we show, his claims were undermined by his own words in his own reports—which show nothing of the kind. We say he was lying.

Worryingly, Paul Gray reported on children, recording details of their lives which were sent on to his senior officers and then to MI5. These children were either the children of Socialist Workers Party members or young people engaged enough with their society to be part of School Kids Against the Nazis.

As we point out, during Gray’s deployment Column 88—a fascist group—were threatening to burn down the homes of members of the Socialist Workers Party. The National Front was attacking Bengalis in Brick Lane, east London. Fascists also smashed up West Indian record shops and vandalised mosques around this time. Instead of investigating the racist firebombing that killed 13 young black people in New Cross, the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) and undercover officers were reporting on schoolchildren and providing MI5 with copies of Socialist Workers Party babysitting rotas.

At the end of our statement we laid down a challenge to the public inquiry:

“This Inquiry has been set a challenge – to get to the truth. This means asking difficult questions, again and again, to uncover the truth.

Ordinary people have been involved in campaigns for a better society, for social equality, anti racism, anti-fascism, against apartheid and for trade union rights. The best of reasons, and the best of traditions.

We hope the Inquiry is ready, willing and equipped to meet that challenge. The Inquiry must be fearless and unflinching in the pursuit of the truth. The people of this country expect nothing less.”