Strategic Review
This hearing was called by the Undercover Policing Inquiry to address issues that had arisen, particularly the ongoing delays around anonymity orders applications for former Special Demonstration Squad members. These had severely impacted on the Inquiry’s timetable.
At the outset, the Inquiry Chair, Sir John Mitting addressed the walk out by the non-state core participants a previous hearing. He noted that the recently instituted meetings between the Inquiry Legal Team and the recognised legal representatives of the core participants were a valuable exercise and he hoped they would continue. He also agreed to reverse the policy of his predecessor and hold a series of meetings directly with the various sets of core participants.
The main body of the hearing was taken up by various parties making suggestions on how to improve the timetable. The Metropolitan Police who had taken up most of the work of considering evidence for redaction made a number of mostly technical comments on how they would like to proceed.
Other topics explored by the Designated Lawyers for former undercovers included:
- how Rule 9 Requests for witness statements would be handled (including the logistics of document exchange);
- how Modules 1 and 2 would addressed with individual officers; and
- what to do if allegations against former undercovers were presented.
Other police representatives also spoke about technical issues and sought to understand precisely what sort of material the Inquiry was requesting of them.
The Non-State Core Participants (NSCPs) raised five issues of particular concern to them:
- Mitting’s apparent belief he could carry out the Inquiry’s work without the participation of the NSCPs;
- the Inquiry’s approach to giving greater anonymity for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit officers;
- disclosure of material;
- appointment of a panel and corresponding timetable; and
- the type of venue the Inquiry would hold evidential hearings at.
Litigant-in-person Helen Steel also spoke, outlining the stress and pain that the non-state core participants were feeling at how long proceedings were dragged out and that they were not being provided with any disclosure in the meantime.
| Speakers | |
|---|---|
| Counsel / Individual | Clients |
| David Barr KC | UCPI |
| Jonathan Hall KC | Metropolitan Police |
| Oliver Sanders KC | Designated Lawyers Officers |
| Sir Robert Francis KC | National Police Chiefs’ Council |
| Andrew O’Connor KC | National Crime Agency |
| Nicholas Griffin KC | Home Office |
| Phillippa Kaufmann KC | Non-State Core Participants |
| Maya Sikand | Peter Francis |
| Stefano Ruis (solicitor) | Families of police officers (Category M) |
| Helen Steel | NSCPs (Litigant-in-Person) |
| Other counsel present | |
| Victoria Ailes | UCPI |
| Ruth Brander | Non-State Core Participants |
| Amy Mannion | Metropolitan Police |
| Christina Lyons | Metropolitan Police |
| Robert McAllister | Designated Lawyers Officers |
| Mr Bottomley | Designated Lawyers Officers |
| Rosemary Davidson | Home Office |