Three victims of spying, represented by Birnberg Peirce, are seeking permission from the High Court to judicially review the Home Secretary’s refusal to appoint additional members to ensure a diverse and balanced panel to assist the Chair at the Undercover Policing Inquiry [UCPI].  

They argue that he lacks the requisite expertise to assess evidence when dealing with complex issues including sex, race and class discrimination. 

Permission was refused and a Renewal hearing takes place at 10.30am today, 23 October, at the High Court, Court 3, before Mr Justice Supperstone.

A number of procedural aspects will be dealt with but the thrust of the challenge is that the Chair alone cannot adequately deal with the questions of racism and sexism (as well as political policing) which go to the heart of the undercover policing Inquiry.

...

Your support has been critical to getting us this far. Please continue to support the legal challenge to the Home Secretary by sharing the link to CrowdJustice page with your friends and family and on social media: www.crowdjustice.com/case/spycopchallenge

...

In Module One, critical findings of fact will be made about not only the conduct of individual officers, but also in relation to systemic issues, including institutionalised racism and sexism. The Inquiry must have the necessary expertise in discrimination to tackle these complex issues effectively and in a manner which commands public confidence. The Chair accepts that he does not have any training in discrimination. He has, in various forums, public and private, demonstrated that he is not familiar or comfortable with the contemporary understanding of discrimination issues. It cannot be a rational use of such extensive public resources for an Inquiry of this magnitude to be conducted by a lone individual who lacks the experience and expertise to inquire effectively into these issues.

The failure to appoint additional panel members will frustrate the purpose of the Inquiry by undermining public confidence in its process and conclusions. The Inquiry has already cost over £10m. That will be wasted public money and a huge lost opportunity if the Inquiry is ineffective.   

The 3 claimants bringing the challenge are Core Participants [“CPs”] in the UCPI chaired by Sir John Mitting.  They include Patricia Armani da Silva, the cousin of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent man shot dead by police in a botched surveillance operation on 22 July 2015. The family justice campaign founded to find out the truth about Jean Charles’ death was spied upon by police. Another claimant, ‘Jessica’, was a 19-year old activist who was deceived into a sexual relationship with a fellow activist who it transpired was a 32 year old undercover police officer tasked with infiltrating animal rights groups. The third Claimant is John Burke-Monerville who has been informed that the Justice for Trevor campaign group, was targeted by undercover police officers.  The campaign that was set up in the 1980s to get  the truth  about allegations that Trevor was beaten by police at Stoke Newington police station in 1987 causing him to suffer brain damage. Trevor was subsequently murdered. 

We write to provide an update on developments and to express our sincere gratitude to all those who have supported us by contributing to the fund and circulating our cause so widely.  

Since the page was launched, we have been attempting to persuade the Chair of the Inquiry to explain how he will enable a person who was spied on to provide the Inquiry with effective evidence if s/he does not know at least the cover identity of the officer(s) concerned and how others who don’t yet know they have been spied on are going to find out if cover names are not revealed.  

The Chair has failed to explain. We, therefore, have no option but to issue another, separate legal challenge to the Chair’s on-going approach to the restriction of the cover names of former undercover officers which is incompatible with the conduct of an effective inquiry.   

Taking on the Home Secretary and the Chair is a huge task with significant financial risk for us. We now need to raise £5000 to cover the fees charged by the court to bring the claim and the Defendants’ costs risk in the initial stages of this application and a further £50,000 if it proceeds to full Judicial Review. That means, with the two Judicial reviews, we have to raise £10,000 to cover court fees and the Defendant’s liability for costs if they lose in the initial stages of the applications.  

So we still have a long way to go - will you take two minutes to help by: 

1) Posting the link to the case on Twitter and FaceBook and explain why this case is so important: www.crowdjustice.com/case/spycopchallenge/

2) Emailing 5 friends and ask them to contribute

3) Sending the link around your WhatsApp groups and let people know about the campaign  

Your help really will make a difference.

Any money left over will be used to fund other similar legal activity and protect any other victims of undercover policing who may be forced to take similar legal action. We feel that these legal challenges are our last chance to steer the Inquiry on the right course to achieve the truth, which is something that will benefit the whole of society and ensure that those campaigning for justice and social and environmental change now are not subjected to the same treatment.

Thanks so much for your support.