Met police pay compensation to Spycops victim, but justice is yet to be served

Kate Wilson

On 25 January, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) ordered the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Metropolitan Police to pay just under £230k, including payment of legal costs, to political activist Kate Wilson. This was for the breach of five of her human rights.

But justice is far from being served.

In her own words

The perpetrator of this abuse was married police officer Mark Kennedy, who used the undercover name ‘Mark Stone’. Kennedy formed a long-term and intimate relationship with Wilson, who was unaware of his police role, in order to spy on other activists.

Here is what happened to Wilson in her own words.

She also explained what happened in this video:

The police have described the sexual relationships formed by Kennedy as “abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong”, and a “gross violation of personal dignity and integrity” that “caused significant trauma”. And the Met admitted that relationship abuse by undercover officers equated to torture.

Read on...

Kennedy also had a long-term intimate relationship with ‘Lisa Jones’, as well as with ‘Naomi’ and Sarah Hampton.

Kennedy is known to have spied on several protest groups, most of which were environmental groups. As well as England, his undercover work took place in several other countries including Scotland, Northern Ireland, Germany, Denmark, France and Iceland.

It’s believed that from 1968 to 2010 more than 1000 mainly left wing groups were spied on by “at least 144” UCOs.

Guilty parties

Wilson believes the compensation awarded was also in regard to “how complicit Mark’s managers were, and the role of 5 other undercover officers in violating my political rights”.

Police Spies Out Of Lives (PSOOL) states how Wilson was also spied on by other undercover officers (UCOs): Jim Boyling, Jason Bishop, Rod Richardson, Lynne Watson and Marco Jacobs.

Known UCOs are also listed by the Undercover Research site and Powerbase. Names and photos of some of the UCOs are given in this video:

In 2015 the Met apologised to eight women for their abuse by UCOs and the violation of their human rights.

Role of the police supervisors

The tribunal ruled [pdf, p3]:

(i) Undercover police officer (“UCO”) Mark Kennedy (“MK”) … grossly debased, degraded and humiliated [Wilson] and interfered with her bodily integrity;

(ii) MK’s sexual relationship with the Claimant was conducted with the knowledge of his principal “cover officer”;

(iii) MK’s deployment manager, who had the rank of Detective Chief Inspector, knew or turned a blind eye to the sexual relationship;

(iv) Other senior officers of the rank of Detective Chief Inspector or above who had operational and managerial responsibility within the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (“NPOIU”) for MK’s deployment either knew of the relationship, chose not to know of its existence, or were incompetent and negligent in not following up on the clear and obvious signs that MK had formed a close personal relationship with the Claimant which might be sexual in nature;

(v) There is no evidence to support a finding that UCOs having sexual relationships was a deliberate tactic of the NPOIU. The true position is closer to being one of “don’t ask, don’t tell’. [Emphasis added]

In September 2018, journalist Rob Evans had reported that:

In papers lodged with the IPT, the police admitted that Kennedy’s cover officers and line manager “were aware that he was conducting a close personal relationship” with Wilson. They added that Kennedy’s “sexual relationship with [Wilson] was carried out with the acquiescence of his cover officers and line manager”.

Also in September 2018, The Canary revealed the names of Kennedy’s supervisors, derived from confidential police files which it had seen.

More cases

The Met previously admitted that undercover officers had “abusive and deceitful” relationships with at least 12 women, including Wilson.

As previously reported by The Canary, “over 30 women were deceived into having relationships with undercover police officers. These spies also fathered, then abandoned, children with some of the women”. More ‘spycops’ who used sex to gather intelligence have been named.

Meanwhile, PSOOL points out there are a number of civil claims currently being brought “against The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis“. Other cases are expected.

Not just history

The UCO scandal is not about history but is ongoing. As The Canary‘s Eliza Egret pointed out:

Despite the ongoing Undercover Policing Inquiry, and despite Wilson’s tribunal, the state passed the sinister Covert Human Intelligence Sources Act in 2021. The act legalises the criminal activities of undercover officers and agents working for the police, MI5, and other state agencies.

She adds:

And if that isn’t horrific enough, the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is passing its final phases in parliament, will give the state extensive new powers.

Furthermore, in May 2019, the Crown Prosecution Service reportedly decided that no UCO would be prosecuted for “having non-consensual sexual relations with any member of the public”.

Wider context

Wilson also commented on how the police are institutionally sexist:

I am one of many dozens of women deceived into this kind of relationship by deployed undercover police officers. They used sex with women to gather ‘intelligence’. The evidence suggests a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach by senior officers embedded in a culture of misogyny and mission creep. I have no doubt that the police are institutionally sexist.

Meanwhile, the official inquiry into undercover policing will likely drag on for years, despite parallel legal actions.

In July 2018, 85 non-state core participants to the inquiry, including Wilson, issued a list of demands including:

full disclosure of all names – both cover and real – of officers from the disgraced political police units, accompanied by contemporaneous photographs

Justice will only be served when that and their other demands are fully met; as well as naming the supervisors who oversaw the abuse.

Feature image via YouTube

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us