Confirming the identity of undercover police officers

MQT on 2014-09-17
Session date: 
September 17, 2014
Question By: 
Jenny Jones
City Hall Greens
Asked Of: 
The Mayor


In the light of the comments made by the judge in the case involving claims made by women deceived into relationships with undercover officers (Mr Justice Bean in Dil and others v CPM), that there was a "clear prima facie case" that Mark Cassidy was Mark Jenner and John Barker was John Dines, and that pursuing the policy of NCND (Neither Confirming Nor Denying the identity of undercover officers) in relation to those officers is likely to only "postpone the day of reckoning" - will you formally acknowledge what is already in the public domain about these officers and confirm their identities to enable the two former partners of these men, who have suffered severe psychological consequences of police deceit for the past two decades, to have their suspicions validated so that they can move on, rather than being forced to continue their battle through the courts and the upcoming public inquiry?


Answer for Confirming the identity of undercover police officers

Answer for Confirming the identity of undercover police officers

Answered By: 
The Mayor

I refer you to Judge Bean's judgment which also held that "the Commissioner should not be required to admit or deny whether either of them is an undercover officer or has the real name alleged."

The MPS will neither confirm nor deny that either of the individuals named were undercover officers as to do so would undermine the principle which is used to protect sources of information and covert methodology.

The MPS have lodged an amended defence in the DIL and Others v CPM proceedings.