Procedural Hearing 3: 22-23 March 2016

Restriction Order Approach

The purpose of this preliminary hearing of the Undercover Policing Inquiry was to allow the then Inquiry Chair, Sir Christopher Pitchford, to resolve differences between the police and non-state core participants as to how anonymity for former undercovers and their managers should be dealt with, and hence permit the Inquiry to establish its processes going forward.

It was necessary to determine how much could go into the public domain and how much would remain secret by the granting of restriction orders. At the time, the police were still seeking to maintain their policy of ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ about even acknowledging that individuals had been undercover officers.

Argument focused on the legal framework, policy matters and the balance of public interest – whether it lay with secrecy or openness. 

Pitchford summed the issue up in his opening remarks to the hearing:

There is a stark difference of opinion between the police service core participants and the non-police non-state core participants as to whether any and, if so, how much information about undercover policemen and their operations should be put into the public domain.

If I can distil the dilemma that will face the Inquiry, it is in saying that part of my task will be to assess on the one hand the weight of the public interest in the openness of the proceedings of this Inquiry and the harm that might be done if much of it was held in private and, on the other, the public interest in keeping sensitive information private and the harm that might be done if it were to be disclosed.

So I want to make sure, before I get down to making decisions, that I have as much assistance as possible from those whose interests are represented at the Inquiry and that is why we are here today. I have asked today's speakers to concentrate primarily on the factors that they say represent the public interest that should prevail, but of course I'm prepared to hear submissions on anything that is relevant to the issue of restriction orders. Transcript of UCPI Procedural Hearing 3: Restriction order approach (Day 1), Procedural, 22 Mar 2016.View Document

There were a number of further hearings on the issue of Anonymity and the Restriction Order Approach. As a result, there were multiple applications for anonymity and restriction orders. In particular, applications for restriction orders over the real and cover names of almost every undercover and many of their managers were made. A number of non-state core participants also made successful applications to have their names restricted.

• For more details see the topic pages on Anonymity and Restriction Order Approach.