DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Daaaad! You're so embarassiiiiing!
Tout exposed Mark 'Stone/Kennedy' exposed as undercover police officer
- Thread starter butchersapron
- Start date
TopCat
Putin fanboy
It was totally like that.
No respect for my entry which required picking a lock and looking suave like Mr Bond. Why did I bring beer? Why fags? No one smoked. Only one drank beer. They were all very sweet. It was the support the cleaners campaign.
the tufty club
Nope! Looks like I might have got infiltrated by someone that isn't Kennedy though
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Met Police thoroughly defeated in the case brought by Kate Wilson to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in relation to serial sexual predator PC Mark Kennedy.
www.ipt-uk.com
Judgments - The Investigatory Powers Tribunal
Search for past judgments from independent judicial body, The Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
www.ipt-uk.com
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
1. From 2003 to 2009, a police operation was in place to collect intelligence about public disorder by political activists. The focus was on public disorder that amounted to or involved criminal acts but inevitably also collected intelligence concerning legitimate and lawful public protest. It was decided that a police officer should infiltrate the Sumac Centre in Nottingham which was a known meeting place for a number of campaigning and activist groups.
2. The officer deployed undercover for this purpose was Mark Kennedy, who served in this capacity throughout this period. His immediate superior, the principal cover officer, to whom he reported regularly also served in that capacity throughout the period.
3. Any interference by a public authority with a person’s private and family life and home must be “in accordance with the law” if it is to avoid a breach of the right to respect for private and family life which is guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The relevant law for this purpose is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) under which an undercover police officer is a “covert human intelligence source” (CHIS) who must act under and in accordance with lawful authorisations issued under RIPA, such authorisations to be reviewed and renewed on a regular basis.
4. Within months of starting his deployment, Kennedy (a married man with children) had entered into an intimate sexual relationship with Kate Wilson, the Claimant, which lasted until 2005. During that time he insinuated himself into every aspect of her private and family life. Thereafter Kennedy entered into sexual relationships with other women under surveillance, as did a number of other undercover police officers engaged in similar work.
5. Ms Wilson was active in campaigning circles and attended the Sumac Centre.
Kennedy realised early on that Ms Wilson would be of help to him in successfully infiltrating the activities of those in the Centre so as to facilitate his gathering of the intelligence he was deployed to collect.
6. When, many years later, Kennedy’s true role became public, Ms Wilson claimed that a number of her rights under the ECHR (incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998) had been violated.
7. Ms Wilson claimed that her treatment by Kennedy violated Article 3 (freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment); that her right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 had been infringed; and that she was also the victim of infringements of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) as well as Article 14 (Convention rights to be secured without discrimination on the ground, inter alia, of sex).
8. The Respondents admitted that her rights under Articles 3, 8 and 10 had indeed been infringed, but denied violations of Articles 11 and 14. This case has thus been about the nature, extent and severity of the infringements of those Convention rights which the Respondents conceded and whether there had also been violations of Articles 11 and 14.
9. The police admitted that Kennedy’s deception of the Claimant to enter into a long-term intimate and sexual relationship amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3; and this breach of Article 3 was aggravated by the knowledge of his principal cover officer. The sexual relationship also constituted a gross violation of her right to respect for private and family life under Article 8; and his use of the sexual relationship as a means of obtaining intelligence constituted interference with her right to freedom of expression under Article 10.
10. One of the Claimant’s arguments was that the entire RIPA regime in place at the time relating to undercover police activities failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the ECHR and accordingly any action authorised under it would not be lawful. However, the Tribunal – though not uncritical of various features of the law – has concluded that the statutory regime did comply with the Convention.
11. On all other points the Tribunal has found in favour of the Claimant.
12. Article 3 not only prohibits degrading treatment; it imposes positive obligations to ensure that such treatment does not arise. The same principle of positive obligations arises in connection with Article 8. The Tribunal concluded that a number of factors established a breach of those positive obligations: the inadequacy of Kennedy’s training with regard to sexual relationships; the inadequate supervision and oversight; allowing the same principal cover officer to remain in place throughout the operation; the failure of senior officers, who either knew of the sexual relationship, chose not to know or were incompetent and negligent in not following up on clear signs; and the failure to take steps to prevent a sexual relationship from developing.
13. The Tribunal also concluded that the infringement of the Claimant’s right to privacy under Article 8 went beyond what the Respondents had conceded.
Article 8(2) requires that any interference must be “necessary in a democratic society”, which has been held to mean that there must be “a pressing social need”. It must also be proportionate. The Tribunal has concluded that it failed to meet these requirements.
14. Moreover, the Authorisations granted under RIPA were not in accordance with the law: their breadth and open-ended quality rendered them meaningless as a limit on the undercover officer’s activities and as a protection and the reviews and renewals were perfunctory. Accordingly, the invasion of the Claimant’s private and family life could not be justified under Article 8(2) and therefore amounted to a clear breach of Article 8.
15. The impact on women of the failure to guard against the risk of undercover officers entering into sexual relationships with them also gave rise to a breach of Article 14.
16. The Tribunal also found that Ms Wilson’s rights to freedom of expression (Article 10) and freedom of assembly and association (Article 11) had also been violated. Details of her political activities over seven years were gathered, recorded, stored and transmitted amounting to a clear interference with her freedom “to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority” in the words of Article 8(1). As to Article 11, there was evidence that Kennedy had directly influenced both her political opinions and her movements and as such a breach of Article 11 was established.
17. In its concluding remarks, the Tribunal notes the significance of the case. Five Articles of the ECHR had been violated: “This is a formidable list of Convention violations, the severity of which is underscored in particular by the violations of Arts 3 and 14. This is not just a case about a renegade police officer who took advantage of his undercover deployment to indulge his sexual proclivities...Our findings that the authorisations under RIPA were fatally flawed and the undercover operation could not be justified as ‘necessary in a democratic society’...reveal disturbing and lamentable failings at the most fundamental levels.”
18. The Tribunal will now hold a remedies hearing in light of its findings.
2. The officer deployed undercover for this purpose was Mark Kennedy, who served in this capacity throughout this period. His immediate superior, the principal cover officer, to whom he reported regularly also served in that capacity throughout the period.
3. Any interference by a public authority with a person’s private and family life and home must be “in accordance with the law” if it is to avoid a breach of the right to respect for private and family life which is guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The relevant law for this purpose is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) under which an undercover police officer is a “covert human intelligence source” (CHIS) who must act under and in accordance with lawful authorisations issued under RIPA, such authorisations to be reviewed and renewed on a regular basis.
4. Within months of starting his deployment, Kennedy (a married man with children) had entered into an intimate sexual relationship with Kate Wilson, the Claimant, which lasted until 2005. During that time he insinuated himself into every aspect of her private and family life. Thereafter Kennedy entered into sexual relationships with other women under surveillance, as did a number of other undercover police officers engaged in similar work.
5. Ms Wilson was active in campaigning circles and attended the Sumac Centre.
Kennedy realised early on that Ms Wilson would be of help to him in successfully infiltrating the activities of those in the Centre so as to facilitate his gathering of the intelligence he was deployed to collect.
6. When, many years later, Kennedy’s true role became public, Ms Wilson claimed that a number of her rights under the ECHR (incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998) had been violated.
7. Ms Wilson claimed that her treatment by Kennedy violated Article 3 (freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment); that her right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 had been infringed; and that she was also the victim of infringements of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) as well as Article 14 (Convention rights to be secured without discrimination on the ground, inter alia, of sex).
8. The Respondents admitted that her rights under Articles 3, 8 and 10 had indeed been infringed, but denied violations of Articles 11 and 14. This case has thus been about the nature, extent and severity of the infringements of those Convention rights which the Respondents conceded and whether there had also been violations of Articles 11 and 14.
9. The police admitted that Kennedy’s deception of the Claimant to enter into a long-term intimate and sexual relationship amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3; and this breach of Article 3 was aggravated by the knowledge of his principal cover officer. The sexual relationship also constituted a gross violation of her right to respect for private and family life under Article 8; and his use of the sexual relationship as a means of obtaining intelligence constituted interference with her right to freedom of expression under Article 10.
10. One of the Claimant’s arguments was that the entire RIPA regime in place at the time relating to undercover police activities failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the ECHR and accordingly any action authorised under it would not be lawful. However, the Tribunal – though not uncritical of various features of the law – has concluded that the statutory regime did comply with the Convention.
11. On all other points the Tribunal has found in favour of the Claimant.
12. Article 3 not only prohibits degrading treatment; it imposes positive obligations to ensure that such treatment does not arise. The same principle of positive obligations arises in connection with Article 8. The Tribunal concluded that a number of factors established a breach of those positive obligations: the inadequacy of Kennedy’s training with regard to sexual relationships; the inadequate supervision and oversight; allowing the same principal cover officer to remain in place throughout the operation; the failure of senior officers, who either knew of the sexual relationship, chose not to know or were incompetent and negligent in not following up on clear signs; and the failure to take steps to prevent a sexual relationship from developing.
13. The Tribunal also concluded that the infringement of the Claimant’s right to privacy under Article 8 went beyond what the Respondents had conceded.
Article 8(2) requires that any interference must be “necessary in a democratic society”, which has been held to mean that there must be “a pressing social need”. It must also be proportionate. The Tribunal has concluded that it failed to meet these requirements.
14. Moreover, the Authorisations granted under RIPA were not in accordance with the law: their breadth and open-ended quality rendered them meaningless as a limit on the undercover officer’s activities and as a protection and the reviews and renewals were perfunctory. Accordingly, the invasion of the Claimant’s private and family life could not be justified under Article 8(2) and therefore amounted to a clear breach of Article 8.
15. The impact on women of the failure to guard against the risk of undercover officers entering into sexual relationships with them also gave rise to a breach of Article 14.
16. The Tribunal also found that Ms Wilson’s rights to freedom of expression (Article 10) and freedom of assembly and association (Article 11) had also been violated. Details of her political activities over seven years were gathered, recorded, stored and transmitted amounting to a clear interference with her freedom “to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority” in the words of Article 8(1). As to Article 11, there was evidence that Kennedy had directly influenced both her political opinions and her movements and as such a breach of Article 11 was established.
17. In its concluding remarks, the Tribunal notes the significance of the case. Five Articles of the ECHR had been violated: “This is a formidable list of Convention violations, the severity of which is underscored in particular by the violations of Arts 3 and 14. This is not just a case about a renegade police officer who took advantage of his undercover deployment to indulge his sexual proclivities...Our findings that the authorisations under RIPA were fatally flawed and the undercover operation could not be justified as ‘necessary in a democratic society’...reveal disturbing and lamentable failings at the most fundamental levels.”
18. The Tribunal will now hold a remedies hearing in light of its findings.
rubbershoes
not the only raver in the village
Some sections of the tory party have had the EHCR in their sights for a while.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
One of those people who can be bothered with FOI requests should try and find out how much cash the met have spaffed away on legal costs defending themselves in these cases they keep fucking losing anyway.
andysays
Love and solidarity
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
hitmouse
so defeated, thinks it's funny
Not much new in it, but got a big write-up in Vice last week:
www.vice.com
I suppose it is one of those things where the further away we get from Kennedy's deployment, the more we can appreciate just how valuable his contribution was in saving us from having an effective movement around climate change.
How a Married Undercover Cop Having Sex With Activists Killed a Climate Movement
Mark Kennedy spent seven years pretending to be a climate activist. People he deceived are still rebuilding their lives.
www.vice.com
I suppose it is one of those things where the further away we get from Kennedy's deployment, the more we can appreciate just how valuable his contribution was in saving us from having an effective movement around climate change.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
This. I cannot express my contempt enough.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
It's about a third of what one year of Kennedy's deployment cost. Less in fact, considering what that money would buy you now vs 20 years ago.
It would be interesting if we managed to see how his life turned out. I guess we won't unless he writes a book. It can't be pretty though living a double life and deceiving people.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
According to Kennedy's own claims to the Daily Mail
Dystopiary
putting up a hook to hang my hopes upon
And let's not forget that he did it again and again.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
And that after he was exfiltrated by NPOIU he decided to go back as a freelance spy.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
'Rob Harrison' AKA Boogie Boy - still out there...
Rob Harrison - profile released
Released today, profile of spycop Rob Harrison, the undercover who infiltrated London International Solidiarty Movement and direct action groups from 2004 to 2007.
undercoverresearch.net
'Creepy, nervous loser': UK undercover cop who infiltrated anti-war & pro-Palestine groups exposed
'A perfect Wallflower'
www.thecanary.co
Undercover officer rekindled relationship seven years later, inquiry told
‘Rob Harrison’ reappeared in woman’s life in 2014, before disappearing again
HN 18 - Undercover Policing Inquiry
www.ucpi.org.uk
Ming
I shot a man in Reno...
What a piece of shit.'Rob Harrison' AKA Boogie Boy - still out there...
Rob Harrison - profile released
Released today, profile of spycop Rob Harrison, the undercover who infiltrated London International Solidiarty Movement and direct action groups from 2004 to 2007.undercoverresearch.net
'Creepy, nervous loser': UK undercover cop who infiltrated anti-war & pro-Palestine groups exposed
'A perfect Wallflower'
Undercover officer rekindled relationship seven years later, inquiry told
‘Rob Harrison’ reappeared in woman’s life in 2014, before disappearing againwww.theguardian.com
HN 18 - Undercover Policing Inquiry
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Given his track record I wouldn't hold out any hope of meaningful self-reflectiveness, candour or honesty.
On top of all the on-the-clock lies and deception as he pretended to be 'Mark Stone', and his previously-noted short private sector stint as same, he lied to the activists who confronted him, lied in the Daily Mail interview, lied in the documentary film arranged by his agent (both UK and Australian versions), lied in his evidence to Parliament, and - I'm being generous here - was less than entirely accurate with some of the intelligence he supplied to both NPOIU and the various agencies in Europe and North America to whom they loaned him.
In case that view might seem like I endorse the 'rotten apple' hypothesis, I should probably also note that at every stage of this farrago virtually the entire senior leadership of UK policing has also been lying.
Ming
I shot a man in Reno...
So much for policing by concent.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Ming
I shot a man in Reno...
I’m sure lessons were learned (how to not get caught and how to get out of it if you are).
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
He should be chased down for the compensation money. Him and his handlers. Otherwise it's taxpayers paying out for his crimes twice over.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
As I've said before, there is culpability on three tiers.
The actual undercover officers themselves, their cover officers and the support and training staff.
The managers and senior police leadership who asked for, established, funded, sustained, protected and then walked away pretending it was nothing to do with them.
The politicians in government who received intelligence material and in some cases drove intelligence priorities.
Let them all face public scrutiny, financial penalties and harsh punishment.
Similar threads
