Witnesses

• See under Witness Statements for a full list.

In the Undercover Policing Inquiry, a witness is someone whom the Inquiry believes has relevant evidence to provide that will assist its investigations and make findings. They do not have to be a core participant, many core participants can expect to give witnesses statements and give live evidence.

Non-state core participants will usually have their costs of legal representation covered by the Inquiry. The same is true of witnesses who are not core participants - they can apply for legal assistance and have their costs covered, and unless they have access to other funds (e.g. if they are a trade union) this will likely be granted.

Examples of Tranche 1 witnesses who were not core participants are Christabel Gurney and Julia Poynter.

It is the decision of the Inquiry Chair which witnesses will be called to give live evidence, and who will simply have their statements read - regardless of whether they are a core participant or not. In Tranche 1, for example, Christabel Gurney was called to give evidence, while Julia Poynter’s statement was read.

Most of the witness statements relate to the evidential side of the Inquiry’s work. Some however, go to preliminary issues, where the Inquiry has needed material (usually from government agencies) to help determine a point. See, for example, the topics of Assurance Assurance Full page: Assurance  and ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’. Neither Confirm Nor Deny (NCND) Full page: Neither Confirm Nor Deny (NCND)

An inquiry has the power to compel a witness to give evidence, provided they are in England or Wales (an inquiry has no jurisdiction outside of these countries). However, the Undercover Policing Inquiry has stated it will not compel anyone who was a target of undercover policing. 

In his Foreword to the Inquiry’s 2018 Strategic Review, the Chair, Sir John Mitting, wrote: 

It is not only the Inquiry which is at a crossroads. If, as has been reported, some non-state core participants are undecided whether or not to continue to participate in the Inquiry, the time for decision will soon arrive. The strategic review sets out how the Inquiry will attempt to find out what happened and why on the assumption that non-state core participants do participate. I do not intend to use coercive powers to make them do so. If they do not, the Inquiry will get as close to the truth as it can without them. There is abundant material in the police files, in the public domain and in the unpublished records of the Herne and Elter investigations. Every former Special Demonstration Squad and National Public Order Intelligence Unit officer able to do so will be required to provide a detailed witness statement. Strategic Review, 10 May 2018, UCPI.View Document

The Inquiry has also obtained an Undertaking from the Attorney General that anything said in the process of giving evidence to the Inquiry can not be used directly or indirectly to prosecute them. Though this does not apply to third parties who are named by a witness – for details, see under Undertakings.

Not all witnesses give evidence orally in an evidential hearing. The Inquiry Chair selects which witnesses he wishes to hear from directly and to question. Those not selected have their evidence ‘read’ into the proceedings, which is when one of the Counsel to the Inquiry reads out a summary of the person’s statement or related documents. 

A number of individuals, mostly but not all former undercovers, have been excused giving live testimony due to health reasons. In these cases their statement may be read out during the hearing, as happened with ‘Mary’. 

A number of undercovers live outside of the Inquiry’s jurisdiction so could not be compelled to attend - as was the case with HN344 ‘Ian Cameron’, HN344 'Ian Cameron' HN344 ‘Ian Cameron’ was an SDS undercover deployed into the Anti-Internment League and the Northern Minority Defence Force (NMDF) in 1971-1972. He was withdrawn after he was asked to travel to Derry with three members of the NMDF, in which he had assumed a position of responsibility.  HN353 ‘Gary Roberts’, HN353 'Gary Roberts' ‘Gary Roberts’ is the assumed name of an undercover officer in the SDS who infiltrated the International Marxist Group and International Socialists from 1974 to 1978. He was undercover at the Battle of Lewisham in August 1977. He was also became Vice-President of the Student Union at Thames Polytechinic, in his cover identity, as well as attending a degree level course there. His real name is restricted.  and HN296 ‘Geoff Wallace’ HN296 'Geoff Wallace' ‘Geoff Wallace’ joined the SDS in mid-1975. He infiltrated the Hammersmith branch of the International Socialists from January 1976 until late 1978. He was elected to several officer roles, including Treasurer and was on the organising committee of the April 1978 Anti-Nazi League carnival.  in Tranche 1 Phase 2.

The normal process the Inquiry has adopted is that, once it has identified a witness and they have agreed to cooperate, the Inquiry sends them (generally via their Recognised Legal Representative Recognised Legal Representatives Full page: Recognised Legal Representatives ) a ‘Rule 9 Request’ (a reference to a specific power under the Inquiry Rules 2006) which sets out in writing the questions it wishes that person to answer. 

As part of this process, the Inquiry also provides various documents such as intelligence reports or service records which it has decided is relevant to the witness (mostly reports which mention the individual directly, but sometimes can be wider such as including the group through which individuals were targeted). 

There is no obligation on the Inquiry to provide all of the documents in which the witness named; it is the Inquiry’s position that it is restricted by cost considerations and its Terms of Reference to only disclose material that it deems is of direct relevance to its investigation. 

Also, many of the documents provided will also have redactions (words or sections which have been blacked out) as they contain information which the Inquiry has ruled should not enter the public domain (see under Restriction Orders for more details).

A number of people have provided supplementary statements in light of subsequent evidence to clarify their positions. In at least one case, the Inquiry has published a statement from someone who came forward after evidence had been given which provided additional detail in relation to an undercover’s deployment.