Early in the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI) there was concern over whether there was destruction of documents by the Metropolitan Police.
This arose from the allegations of a whistle-blower that they had seen material relating to the National Public Order Intelligence Unit being wholesale destroyed among other issues of police surveillance.
The story was broken by The Guardian on 8 January 2016. Baroness Jenny Jones, one of those affected, raised the issue publicly and made a formal complaint shortly after.
On 15 January 2016, the UCPI contacted the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) seeking assurances. Their correspondence which continued for a year, and included Rule 9 requests for information and details of what the Metropolitan Police was doing to maintain records of potential interest to the Inquiry and to ensure that the necessary protocols were in place.
Referral to the IOPC
In May 2016, the MPS referred itself to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for investigation. This in turn led to the 2019 report titled Operation Hibiscus: Investigation into the shredding of material potentially relevant to the planned Undercover Policing Public Inquiry.
By the time the report was published, the Independent Police Complaints Commission had been renamed the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).
The report found that there had been destruction of documents which should have been preserved for the UCPI. Furthermore, Sarah Green, regional director of the IOPC, publicly criticised a number of police managers for not cooperating with her investigation.
According to a witness statement from Detective Superintendent Neil Hutchison, the Rule 9 request included the following:
- Details of all requests or instructions by you to your staff to preserve MPS documents for the purposes of this inquiry;
- Any steps that have been taken to verify that any request or instruction to preserve documents is being complied with;
- The steps that have been taken to address the risk that individual officers or staff may deliberately seek to destroy or amend parts of the record, and to ensure that any such attempt will be prevented or detected;
- Details of any instance in which you suspect that any officer has circumvented, or sought to circumvent, the steps taken;
- The ways in which routine or automated document destruction procedures have been modified to ensure that relevant documents will not be destroyed.
These requests elicited a number of witness statements and exhibits describing the internal processes adopted by the Metropolitan Police to ensure material relevant to the UCPI was not being destroyed. They also provided detail on Operation FileSafe – a review of information management practices triggered by the needs of the Inquiry but which demonstrated wider issues.
The issue was also raised by the non-state core participants. However, the matter was dealt with solely by correspondence (‘on the papers’) and there was no associated hearing for it.
On 8 February 2017, the Inquiry released a press release detailing what it knew about the issue prior to the announcement of the IPCC/IOPC inquiry and what measures it was taking to seek assurance from the Metropolitan Police. In it they set out a comprehensive timetable of events and correspondence.
July 2015
- Opening statement from Undercover Policing Inquiry.
July to December 2015
- Inquiry communicated with the Metropolitan Police Service to obtain assurances as to the retention and preservation of material of potential relevance to the terms of reference.
January 2016
- Inquiry became aware, via an article in The Guardian (8th January) and through correspondence with Bindmans solicitors on behalf of Baroness Jenny Jones (11th January) of an allegation relating to the destruction of material relating to Baroness Jones.
- As a result, the Inquiry escalated its requests for assurance by issuing a Rule 9 request to the Metropolitan Police Service (15th January) for a signed witness statement providing further information, assurance as to document retention and preservation, and the need to avoid conflict of interest in connection with handling material relevant to the Inquiry.
- First assurance witness statement received from Detective Superintendent Neil Hutchison (29th January).
April 2016
- Inquiry formally notified by the Metropolitan Police Service of a second allegation, relating to shredding of documents at the National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit.
- Inquiry issues further request for assurance evidence.
- Inquiry received and considered material from the Metropolitan Police Service relating to allegations concerning Baroness Jones.
May 2016
- Meeting between Inquiry legal team and Metropolitan Police Service legal team regarding assurance and the National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit.
- Inquiry made aware that the Metropolitan Police had referred a second allegation to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
- Inquiry issued a request for evidence and assurance regarding the National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit and its records.
June 2016
- Inquiry received supplemented versions of the first assurance statement from Detective Superintendent Neil Hutchison (dated 3rd June and 17th June).
- Received a second assurance statement from Detective Superintendent Neil Hutchison (dated 9th June).
- Inquiry in liaison with the Independent Police Complaints Commission in relation to both allegations.
- Witness statement received from the Metropolitan Police, responding to requests made about the National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit and its records.
July 2016
- Inquiry issued a further request for assurance evidence to Detective Superintendent Neil Hutchison.
- Updated assurance witness statements received from Detective Superintendent Neil Hutchison (29 July 2016 – two statements, then published on the Inquiry’s website)
- Inquiry agrees to Independent Police Complaints Commission request to provisionally restrict (redact) information about their investigation into the shredding allegation. The application was made ‘to avoid causing any prejudice to the [Independent Police Complaints Commission] investigation…there are still steps to be taken to secure evidence … which may be prejudiced if potential subjects are alerted to the investigation.’ Publication of (the detail or fact of) this application would have had the potential effect of undermining the substantive application for restriction. August 2016.
- Inquiry requested clarification and further information about document retention and preservation within the National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit and its successor the National Counter Terrorism Police Operations Centre, further to the witness statement received on this issue in June.
- Inquiry seeks further clarification of issues in statements of Detective Superintendent Hutchison
September 2016
- Inquiry received and considered additional information from the Metropolitan Police Service concerning the allegation relating to Baroness Jones.
- Witness statement received from Metropolitan Police containing further information about document retention and preservation sought in August (and referenced above).
October 2016
- Inquiry issued a request for further evidence concerning National Special Branch Intelligence System database under the control of National Counter Terrorism Police Operations Centre.
- Inquiry sought and received assurance from the Metropolitan Police Service that all routine review and deletion of material on the National Special Branch Intelligence System database under the control of National Counter Terrorism Police Operations Centre had been suspended; that forensic mirror images of the database from 2014 and 2015 had been preserved in a secure location; and that a further mirror image had been taken and was similarly securely preserved.
November 2016
- Inquiry issued request for evidence in connection with its own enquiries into allegation related to Baroness Jones.
- Inquiry received two witness statements from the Metropolitan Police Service concerning assurance within the National Counter Terrorism Police Operations Centre, with particular reference to the National Special Branch Intelligence System database.
December 2016
- Inquiry issued supplemental request for assurance evidence concerning the National Special Branch Intelligence System database.
February 2017
- The Inquiry continues to seek assurance to ensure preservation of documents relevant to the Inquiry, and the need to avoid conflict of interest in the preservation of and provision of documents to the Inquiry.