HOME | IMC UK | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Support Us

Liverpool Indymedia

Did the CPS unlawfully authorise undercover work?

dangermouse | 18.01.2011 12:40 | Repression | Liverpool | Sheffield

Did the CPS act unlawfully in authorising criminal acts by NPOIU's undercover cops?
Do the police have the power to authorise officers to commit crime?

It was reported in a Guardian article recently that the CPS authorised the undercover operations by PC Kennedy. Depending on exactly what they authorised, it might be that they acted unlawfully in saying to the police that they could go ahead and commit criminal acts of conspiracy and incitement, etc with immunity from prosecution. I don't believe the CPS have the authority to say this to anyone, so if it can be confirmed that they did this, it might be worth considering a judicial review.

The CPS basically do this anyway, when they find some excuse and say it's "not in the public interest" or "insufficient evidence to prosecute" when it comes to the police, but that's somewhat different, because that's after the fact and so harder to challenge.

Apparently the head of the CPS, Keir Starmer, has just told the Justice Committee that "decisions on undercover policing do not involve the CPS"  http://twitter.com/afuahirsch/status/27327357454913537 I'm not sure that rules out that they promised immunity for the actions after the decision about what to do had been made by the police though.

I was also interested to read that, according to Bob Quick, who as an assistant commissioner was the former head of special operations at the Metropolitan police, a senior officer can authorise an undercover officer to participate in criminal acts: "If they are not involved in the planning, or did not instigate or initiate an offence, if their role is of a peripheral nature, they can be granted participating status."
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/10/fine-line-undercover-officer

I wasn't aware that there was any law that gave police officers the power to allow other police officers to commit crime, so it would be interesting if someone could find out exactly which statute allows this.

dangermouse

Comments

Hide the following 11 comments

RIPA

18.01.2011 13:01

Regulation Of Investigatory Powers is enabling framework legislation that creates a way for local councils to stalk people for attempting to get into the wrong school or for police officers to be given recklessness as a side line. Ignoring the claim (frequent) that it is NOT anti-terrorist legislation, RIPA enables hiding of evidence, questionable activities and anything else that the Home Secretary sees as being appropriate. Repealing RIPA would do it a favour to everyone except the corrupt.

Herbert Marcuse


anyone can commit a crime to prevent a greater crime

18.01.2011 14:18

Isn't that the argument used by a lot of activists?

I hate the cops as must as the next person, but I imagine they could use a similar argument for themselves.

anon


Not RIPA

18.01.2011 15:15

RIPA, as far as I recall, is mostly concerned with setting regulations around surveillance, that the authorities have to observe. There's nothing in there that gives anyone the legal right to commit crimes of conspiracy or incitement, or anything else for that matter.

I'm not convinced that the "commit a crime to prevent a greater crime" is an established principle that they could rely on either. I'm aware that activists have used that as a defence successfully, but if it was a jury that acquitted them then it could be considered a perverse verdict that hasn't set a precedent. Just because I know someone's planning to go and attack someone, or set their dog on them, wouldn't make it legal for me to break their legs or steal their dog to prevent this happening. OK, rubbish example, sorry, but you get the point.

Whilst technically it could be called assault, the law allows for the use of force in self-defence or to defend others (and in some circumstances, to stop a crime in progress or prevent the suspect escaping). Nonetheless, you could still be prosecuted for carrying an offensive weapon or unlicensed possession of a firearm, if you used those to stop yourself or someone else being assaulted and it was necessary to use them, even though the actual force you used was reasonable and thus legal and protected you from prosecution for the rest of your actions. So even self-defence is quite specific.

Anyway, I hope the activists concerned and their lawyers look into this.

dangermouse


Semantic bollocks

19.01.2011 08:45

"If they are not involved in the planning, or did not instigate or initiate an offence, if their role is of a peripheral nature, they can be granted participating status."

So Mark Kennedy's role in the aborted Ratcliffe action and many others means he DIDN'T have what they call "participating status". So what would they call it then? "Instigating status"? "Planning status"? "Logistical status"?

As a comment I noticed on yesterday's Grauniad piece said:

"400 litres of your finest emergency white-wash if you will my good man and make it sharpish."

Stroppyoldgit


Entrapment

19.01.2011 10:23

The plod could only claim that their committing of a crime was legal if that crime was considerably lesser than the crime they strove to prevent.

However, if the crime they were prosecuting was the same crime it gets harder to defend.

If the crime being prosecuted was actually instigated/planned/enabled by the cops, they have acted clearly in a criminal manner. It is generally what is called entrapment.

My pet theory is that the reason the scuppered the trial is that they feared a setting events into motion that would uncover evidence that the plod have been entrapping peaceful activists.

The motives for such sinister and illegal behaviour are many. Here are a few:

1. The state really does recognise that popular resistance to its unsustainable, immoral and undemocratic behaviour is a threat to the ruling elite and their paymasters.

2.That getting loads of people nicked and into the criminal justice system satisfies many undemocratic objectives, including disabling movements and criminalising peaceful protest to choke the uptake of new recruits.

3. "The tail wagging the dog." That they are cynically drumming up new business for themselves by exaggerating the actual danger to the public of activists in order protect their budgets, expand departments and syphon more public funds into the private sector (such as Global Open/NPOIU).

At any rate, RIPA200 is a scary piece of oppressive legislation, but it is all about surveillance and intercepts and nothing about giving cops and their cronies the license to break laws in the way the seem to have been doing.

Again, I think the real bigger story that made them drop Ratcliffe like a hot potato is that what they want to hide if much more serious- as disgusting as the infiltrators have been.

Grim RIPA


What statute or case law?

19.01.2011 18:16

"The plod could only claim that their committing of a crime was legal if that crime was considerably lesser than the crime they strove to prevent."

I'm not so sure that stands up to scrutiny though. If an undercover cop infiltrates a drug ring, I can't see how they'd avoid maintaining their cover without getting involved enough that they could be considered to have committed conspiracy to supply drugs/possession of drugs which would probably be the same offence that the suspects would be charged with.

At the end of the day, unless there's a statute or case law has established in common law that it's legal for the police to commit a lesser crime (or even the same crime) to prevent a crime, then surely it's illegal. The CPS might have reached an understanding with the police that they won't prosecute the officers involved because it's "not in the public interest", but the CPS don't make the law and if this is the only basis for this practice, I'd suggest the CPS are acting unlawfully, and their actions are vulnerable to judicial review.

dangermouse


It stand perfectly well up to scrutiny.

19.01.2011 20:12

I forget the Latin terminology, but the principal of breaking a law to prevent a worse crime/event taking place is nothing obscure. It happens all the time.

In the example of speeding, drivers aren't breaking the law if there is good reason:

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8350539.stm

I wasn't even charged when I kicked a door in to get to an infant that had been locked inside while its mother went out drinking.

If you were to kill someone who was imminently about to murder someone else it would normally be legal.

If the cops can argue that their actions were preventing a higher crime, like everyone else, it is legal.

I'm not saying that they did act in that manner, just that is likely their excuse.

In reality they probably run riot while most people in the system look the other way.

Grim RIPA


The Mothers of Invention

19.01.2011 20:27

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_English_law

Not endorsing this article at all, but someone has already been thinking on these lines:

 http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/10/did-undercover-climate-officer-go-native/

Grim RIPA


Necessity is quite a limited defence

20.01.2011 02:37

"In the example of speeding, drivers aren't breaking the law if there is good reason:

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8350539.stm"

Well that states that statute permits the emergency services to speed in the course of duty and that case law has established there can be defences to a charge of speeding for everyone else, and thus if there appeared to be such a defence, it would be appropriate for the police to take no further action.

"I wasn't even charged when I kicked a door in to get to an infant that had been locked inside while its mother went out drinking."

Obviously I don't know the details, but that could be covered by the defence of necessity that you refer to. To quote from the wiki you linked to "the defence of necessity recognises that there may be situations of such overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law." and "There must be an urgent and immediate threat to life which creates a situation in which the defendant reasonably believes that a proportionate response to that threat is to break the law." Even if the defence of necessity didn't apply, the police or CPS may have decided that it wasn't "in the public interest" to prosecute you. That doesn't establish that what you did was legal, or mean they couldn't prosecute someone else in the exact same circumstances.

"If you were to kill someone who was imminently about to murder someone else it would normally be legal."

That's only true if the force used was reasonable and necessary. If it was determined that you could have reasonably prevented the murder without killing the person, you'd probably face a manslaughter charge. In any event, that's clearly covered by the defence of necessity.

"If the cops can argue that their actions were preventing a higher crime, like everyone else, it is legal."

I disagree. All you've shown is that the defence of necessity can apply when there is "an urgent and immediate threat to life"

My point is, just because the police choose not to arrest, or the CPS choose not to prosecute, doesn't establish that what was done was lawful, so unless there's some case law or statute that allows for the police to commit crime in the course of their undercover work, then all we have is a conspiracy by the authorities to usurp the rule of law.

dangermouse


Invention

20.01.2011 15:53

You can make it up as you go along all you like, but the necessity defence stretches beyond 'life and limb'. It can have a wide range of contexts. It could be argued that if the arrests were made earlier that some mythical catastrophe would not have been averted- when anyone with an ounce of sense can see through the lie; but credibility to the public isn't the issue. It's just an exercise in providing an escape route.

You also seem to think I am myself making a case for the police. I'm not. I think they have most probably acted illegally and have been in the murky waters of entrapment and they are running a damage limitation exercise now.

I am assuming that people will now be looking at any convictions that may have been arising from police entrapment and seeking proper legal advice.

The main problem is that there is little in the way of specific legislation regulating undercover police operations, and obviously the public oversight is so lacking that they have been running roughshod and riot.

Just don't expect them not to try avoiding be held accountable for their actions.

Grim RIPA


Law

20.01.2011 17:32

Why would you suggest I'm making it up as I go along, and that the "necessity defence stretches beyond 'life and limb'" when I've quoted from the wiki you linked to that says "There must be an urgent and immediate threat to life", not "some mythical catastrophe" sometime in the future? I realise wikipedia isn't always accurate, but I haven't seen anything else that contradicts that either.

You're probably right that there's issues of entrapment and people might be able to get convictions overturned on this basis, but I also think there's an important question as to the legality of police officers committing crime, even if they have been authorised to do so by their superiors, and the CPS giving them immunity to do so.

Of course I expect them to try to avoid being held to account. That's why I'm trying to find ways that we can challenge their actions.

dangermouse


Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

[navigation.actions2016]

[navigation.actions2015]

[navigation.actions2014]

NATO 2014

Actions 2013

G8 2013

Actions 2012

Workfare

Actions 2011

2011 Census Resistance
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Occupy Everywhere

Actions 2010

Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands

Actions 2009

COP15 Climate Summit 2009
G20 London Summit
Guantánamo
Indymedia Server Seizure
University Occupations for Gaza

Actions 2008

2008 Days Of Action For Autonomous Spaces
Campaign against Carmel-Agrexco
Climate Camp 2008
G8 Japan 2008
SHAC
Smash EDO
Stop Sequani Animal Testing
Stop the BNP's Red White and Blue festival

Actions 2007

Climate Camp 2007
DSEi 2007
G8 Germany 2007
Mayday 2007
No Border Camp 2007

Actions 2006

April 2006 No Borders Days of Action
Art and Activism Caravan 2006
Climate Camp 2006
Faslane
French CPE uprising 2006
G8 Russia 2006
Lebanon War 2006
March 18 Anti War Protest
Mayday 2006
Oaxaca Uprising
Refugee Week 2006
Rossport Solidarity
SOCPA
Transnational Day of Action Against Migration Controls
WSF 2006

Actions 2005

DSEi 2005
G8 2005
WTO Hong Kong 2005

Actions 2004

European Social Forum
FBI Server Seizure
May Day 2004
Venezuela

Actions 2003

Bush 2003
DSEi 2003
Evian G8
May Day 2003
No War F15
Saloniki Prisoner Support
Thessaloniki EU
WSIS 2003

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech

Publish Your News


Temporary Scroogle search

-->