Undercover policing inquiry: will they have to name officers?
Grave allegations, basic democratic freedoms undermined, deceitful relationships, profound questions of racial equality – at last the public inquiry into undercover policing is underway.
The past two days have been spent grappling with how a Metropolitan Police ‘policy’ of neither confirming nor denying identities in the world of covert operations can survive, and if not and what the rules should be for restricting details of the 100+ spy cops, given a dozen names are now in the public domain.
For as some lawyers argued if ‘s inquiry is to have any credibility, openness is key.
Today pitched the Met against 11 current and former MPs who were spied on, together with another 126 individuals and groups over the issue of secrecy.
The least they want are the names used by officers while undercover to be made public.
The whistleblower Peter Francis was there lending his support to the demands for transparency.
His counsel Ben Emmerson QC said Mr Francis wants to assist the inquiry in exposing unethical, unlawful and inadequately supervised covert police practices that went on for decades and of which he played a part.
Only some of his knowledge is in the public domain, Mr Emerson told the inquiry, and there is much more to come.
But the police position is adamant – no names because of the risk to the officers, their families and methods
The inquiry’s chair Lord Pitchford will rule three weeks on the first real test for this public inquiry – just how public it can be.