FAQs
Find the answers to frequently asked questions about the Undercover Policing Inquiry.
If you have any other queries, please get in touch with the Inquiry at [email protected].
- All
- About the Inquiry
- Access to information
- Anonymity and restriction orders
- Core participants
- Hearings
- Identities of deceased individuals
- Next steps
- Sexual or intimate relationships
- Taking part in the Inquiry
- Witness statements
The Inquiry aims to be open and transparent as possible. Provisions will be put in place to ensure there is sufficient public and media access to all open evidence hearings.
The Chairman wants to create the optimal conditions for getting to the truth by hearing evidence in full from all sides. In his statement of 19 December 2018, he set out his views on why live-streaming of the evidence for certain witnesses would be incompatible with protecting their rights and interests and may infringe restriction orders made.
The Inquiry’s hearings in November 2020
Due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the Inquiry’s hearings in November 2020 were virtual and conducted remotely.
The opening statements from Counsel to the Inquiry and core participants were all live-streamed via the Inquiry’s website.
For the evidence hearings, the Inquiry set up a bespoke screening venue in Central London, open to all core participants, their legal representatives and media representatives. Members of the public were not able to attend due to the national restrictions related to the pandemic in place at the time. However, the summaries of witness evidence read out by members of the Inquiry team were live-streamed on the Inquiry website, and a live transcript of the oral evidence was streamed to the Inquiry’s website with a 10-minute delay. Draft transcripts were typically published shortly after the morning session and again at the end of the day.
The Inquiry’s hearings in April and May 2021
Due to the continuing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the arrangements for the Inquiry’s hearings in April and May 2021 were similar to the Inquiry’s hearings in November 2020, with the following changes:
- The bespoke screening venue in Central London was also open to members of the public who had registered to attend;
- Proceedings could also be followed via an audio stream with a 10-minute delay; and
- If a witness requested an audio-visual stream for their evidence, this was provided on YouTube with a 10-minute delay.
The Inquiry’s hearings in May 2022
The Inquiry’s evidence hearings in May 2022 were conducted in person at the Thistle Marble Arch Hotel. The venue was open to core participants and their legal representatives, media representatives, and the general public.
Proceedings could also be followed remotely. The oral evidence of the civilian witnesses was live-streamed on YouTube with a 10-minute delay, as were the evidence summaries. For the rest of the oral evidence, there was an audio feed available on YouTube with a 10-minute delay.
As a public inquiry, all relevant and necessary evidence that the Inquiry considers as part of its investigations will be published, subject to any redactions.
Before a set of hearings start, general documents – such as annual reports submitted by the Chief Inspector of the SDS to the Special Branch Commander – relevant to the upcoming tranche may be published.
During hearings, all materials associated with a witness are published, subject to any redactions, as soon as they begin their oral evidence. Midway through and at the end of each day, a transcript of the hearing is published.
Materials associated with other witnesses and officers included in the relevant tranche but not giving oral evidence are published throughout the course of the hearings.
Before any materials associated with a particular set of hearings are published on the Inquiry website, the Inquiry shares the relevant materials it has gathered as part of its investigations, subject to any redactions, with non-state core participants and witnesses who are asked to provide evidence. These materials include, as a minimum, any document in which they are named or otherwise identified. Further information can be found in paragraph 40 of the Counsel to the Inquiry’s disclosure note regarding Tranche 1.
In the normal course of events, a witness called to give evidence at open hearings will be expected to provide their evidence in public, in full view of those attending the hearing or screening venue.
However, witnesses can request special measures to protect restricted identities or information, or because of their health or location. Special measures could include counselling, a hearing loop or giving evidence via a video-link.
Those watching the live stream of the Inquiry’s Tranche 1 (Phase 2) evidence hearings at the Amba Hotel were able to see and hear all but two of the witnesses giving oral evidence. Following special measure applications, there was only a real-time audio stream at the Amba Hotel for “Madeleine” and HN 126. The Inquiry’s Tranche 1 (Phase 2) evidence hearings were virtual and conducted remotely due to restrictions in place as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
Ordinarily, Counsel to the Inquiry will conduct the majority of questioning. Such an approach supports the efficient and fair running of evidence hearings minimises the risk of undermining restriction orders.
Before hearings start, recognised legal representatives of core participants will have the opportunity to propose lines of questioning or topics.
During hearings, there will be a 15-minute break after Counsel to the Inquiry has finished their questioning to allow counsel for core participants to apply for permission to ask questions of the witness about any topic or issues that have arisen unexpectedly during the witness’ evidence.
Once a witness has finished their oral evidence, their counsel will have the opportunity to ask questions about any topic covered in the witness’ oral or written evidence.
Further information on the arrangements for questioning can be found in the ‘Directions on the conduct of the Tranche 1 Phase 2 (T1 P2) hearings’ and ‘Note on the application of Rule 10 in the Inquiry Rule 2006’.
As there are several complex issues still to be determined that require engagement with Core Participants, there remains some uncertainty around the completion date for certain stages; however, those milestones on which there is a greater degree of certainty have been added to the table below.
To manage such a broad remit, the Inquiry has divided its work for Modules One and Two into the following six “tranches”:
- Special Demonstration Squad officers and managers and those affected by deployments (1968-1982)
- Special Demonstration Squad officers and managers and those affected by deployments (1983-1992)
- Special Demonstration Squad officers and managers and those affected by deployments (1993-2007)
- National Public Order Intelligence Unit officers and managers and those affected by deployments
- Other undercover policing and those affected by deployments
- Management & oversight by mid and senior rank officers, other agencies and government departments
The table will be updated with additional dates on a quarterly basis.
Completion of anonymity applications (T1)
Complete
Obtaining witness statements from officers and those affected by deployments (T1)
COMPLETE
Obtaining witness statements from managers (T1)
COMPLETE
Obtaining witness statements from other agencies, government departments and senior decision-makers (T1)
COMPLETE
Phase 1 evidence hearings (T1)
COMPLETE
Phase 2 evidence hearings (T1)
COMPLETE
Phase 3 evidence hearings (T1)
COMPLETE
Closing submissions (T1)
Complete
Interim report (T1)
Complete
Completion of anonymity applications (T2)
Complete
Obtaining witness statements from officers and managers (T2)
Complete
Obtaining witness statements from those affected by deployments (T2)
Ongoing
Obtaining witness statements from other agencies, government departments and senior decision-makers (T2)
Ongoing
Anticipated commencement of hearings (T2)
July 2024
Completion of anonymity applications (T3)
Complete
Obtaining witness statements from officers and managers (T3)
Ongoing
Obtaining witness statements from those affected by deployments (T3)
Ongoing
Obtaining witness statements from other agencies, government departments and senior decision-makers (T3)
Ongoing
Anticipated commencement of hearing (T3)
February 2025
Completion of anonymity applications (T4)
Ongoing
Obtaining witness statements from officers and managers (T4)
Ongoing
Obtaining witness statements from those affected by deployments (T4)
Ongoing
Obtaining witness statements from other agencies, government departments and senior decision-makers (T4)
Ongoing
Anticipated commencement of hearing (T4)
October 2025
Obtaining witness statements (T5 and M3)
Ongoing
Anticipated commencement of hearing (T5 and M3)
TBA
Closing submissions
TBA
Warning letters
TBA
Publication of final report
December 2026
The Inquiry strives to find anyone who may have had a sexual or intimate relationship with an undercover officer.
To do this we need to be able to find out who these people are, but identifying and tracing the right people can take time.
We publish cover names to help people identify if they were affected and to encourage them to come forward, and we also carry out our own investigations to identify incidences where this has happened.
If you had, or believe you had, a relationship with an undercover police officer, please contact the Inquiry.
Before publishing cover names, the Inquiry endeavours to contact close relatives of deceased individuals whose identities were used by the police where it has been able to identify them.
The Inquiry also visits relatives at their request to talk through any concerns they may have about the Inquiry processes.
There may be instances where the Inquiry will not be able to let relatives know. This would be if a restriction order has been made because the risk of harm to the former officer outweighs the interest in publishing the cover name.
We have invited parents or close relatives of deceased individuals who wish to know whether their relative’s identity was used by an undercover officer to contact the Inquiry.
Coming forward means that the Inquiry will be able to take into account the interest of the family.
If their relative’s name was used, and that fact can be disclosed, then it will make establishing contact much easier.
This Inquiry will look to establish a definitive figure for this. But previously published information by Operation Herne revealed that during the life of the Special Demonstration Squad (1968 – 2008) the identities of at least 42 deceased children were used by its officers to create their undercover identities.
Operation Herne was an independent investigation led by Derbyshire’s Chief Constable Mick Creedon QPM into the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). Operation Herne’s terms of reference was to examine how the SDS operated from its origin in 1968 to its closure in 2008.
The Inquiry will examine the documentary evidence in order to establish whether an undercover officer based their cover identity on that of another individual. The Inquiry may also ask questions of the officer concerned, provided that they are not deceased.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply to inquiries set up under the 2005 Inquiries Act, including the Undercover Policing Inquiry.
However, the Inquiry operates in as transparent and open a manner as possible in accordance with the interests of justice. The Inquiry publishes regular updates notes on the progress of its work as well as its costs on a quarterly basis.
You can find the latest press notices and update notes on the ‘News’ page of the Inquiry website.
For the latest non-evidential publications from the Inquiry, including rulings, statements, orders and submissions, please see the ‘Publications’ page.
All evidence published by the Inquiry to date can be found on the ‘Published evidence’ page.
The ‘Current status’ section of the home page of the Inquiry website provides a summary of the current stage of the Inquiry.
Useful first points of contact for those wishing to find out more about the Inquiry are the:
If the Chairman declines to make a restriction order, or declines to make a restriction order as extensive as that sought by the applicant, the Inquiry will notify the applicant prior to revealing the information.
This decision can be challenged by way of an application for permission to apply for judicial review. If no application is filed within the 14 days proscribed by section 38 of the Inquiries Act, or if the challenge is unsuccessful, the information may then be released to the appropriate core participants and may be published on the Inquiry’s website.
Rulings on restriction orders will be announced as soon as practicable after the decision has been made.
There can be delays in publication as the Inquiry checks with other agencies that may be concerned that no information is being released which they wish to argue ought to be restricted, or in some cases to consult with witnesses on the wording of the announcement.
Looking at issues on a case-by-case basis means that submissions can be received from everybody involved, and that all sides of the argument can be discussed.
In some cases oral hearings are needed to then further clarify some of the points and to hear all objections fully. This process takes time because the Inquiry must fully consider all applications to ensure that this Inquiry is as full and transparent as possible.
The directions, rulings and orders page contains copies of any restriction orders made. Copies of the open versions of the anonymity applications are also on the website.
The non-state core participants and the undercover officers who served with the Special Demonstration Squad and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit have been given the opportunity to make an application to the Chairman for anonymity. Anonymity in inquiry proceedings is achieved by way of restriction orders.
Restriction orders granting anonymity will vary. They can be made to restrict information contained within written documentary evidence which could lead to an individual’s identification (for example, their name, image, or information about their family). Restrictions may also be used when a witness is providing live evidence at oral hearings – through measures like closed hearings, screens, or voice modulation, for example.
The Chairman will make a ruling on whether to grant or reject the application either in full or in part, followed by a restriction order where one is needed if the application is successful.
Restriction orders are made where the Chairman is satisfied an application meets the tests set out in section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005. The legal principles under which the decision is made are set out in the May 2016 ruling.
Restriction orders only apply to the disclosure or publication of evidence given to and held by the Inquiry. They cannot restrict the disclosure or publication of information held independently of the Inquiry. The directions, rulings and orders webpage contains copies of any restriction orders made. Copies of the open versions of the anonymity applications are also on the website.
This inquiry aims to be as open and transparent as possible.
However, sometimes anonymity is required. This can be because:
- Some core participants – including people who have been deceived into relationships with officers – want their privacy respected.
- Exposure of identities could put individuals at risk of serious injury, or in extreme cases, death, because of the nature of the deployments they have undertaken.
- Revealing identities could damage individuals or their family’s private life and contravene their human right.
In making a decision, the Chairman applies the legal principles and approach outlined by his predecessor Sir Christopher Pitchford. In doing so he considers the extent to which rejecting the application would help the Inquiry fulfil its objectives, weighing this against the grounds advanced in support of the application, which may include the public interest, and/or an individual’s safety and right to private life
Where there is no restriction order, real names will be left unredacted in documents when they are published or otherwise shared by the Inquiry and, in due course, displayed in the officer tables on the Inquiry website.
So far, the cover names of 69 Special Demonstration Squad officers and four National Public Order Intelligence Unit officers are not subject to restriction orders.
The purpose of publishing cover names is to enable members of the public to identify whether they may have known officers who were deployed undercover and to prevent cases of mistaken identity.
When no application for a restriction order is made or an application has been unsuccessful, cover names are published as soon as the Inquiry has completed its pre-publication checks. These include checking whether the officer had asexual relationship during their deployment, or the name of a deceased person was used.
Sometimes it takes time to track down those who were affected, such as the relatives of a person whose identity was used. The Inquiry won’t publish cover names until it has made all reasonable efforts to contact those affected by the publication.
The cover names published so far are listed on the website.
The Inquiry’s objective is to get to the truth. Therefore, it is important that witnesses can give open and honest evidence. Without the protection of the undertaking from the Attorney General, a witness might choose not to answer a question because to do so might leave them open to prosecution.
On 8 September 2016 the Inquiry published a letter from the Attorney General which granted an ‘inquiry-specific’ undertaking.
The undertaking means that the evidence witnesses give to the Inquiry will not be used against them (or against their spouse or civil partner) in any criminal proceedings, or when deciding whether to bring criminal proceedings. This will enable witnesses to give evidence to the Inquiry without fear of being investigated and prosecuted as a result of their own evidence.
Yes, the Chairman has the power to issue a notice requiring a person to attend and give evidence, but would much prefer if witnesses did so voluntarily. The Inquiries Act 2005 makes a provision that a person may object to the Chairman’s notice on the grounds that the requirement to give evidence is not reasonable in all the circumstances.
For Module One, all issues have been consulted on. The lists for the Special Demonstration Squad was published in 5 July 2018 and for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit and Other Undercover Policing on 21 February 2019.
Covering 158 questions, 161 questions and 21 questions respectively, they are extensive and seek to get to the truth of undercover policing. These issues are not set in stone, and may be amended as the Inquiry progresses.
The issues list for the Module Two (A) investigation into the Special Demonstration Squad was released for consultation in early 2019 and the list was published on 30 September 2019.
The Inquiry’s opening statement hearings and Tranche 1 (Phase 1) evidence hearings took place from Monday 2 November 2020 to Thursday 19 November 2020. The Tranche 1 (Phase 2) opening statement and evidence hearings took place from 21 April to 13 May 2021. Both these sets of hearings were virtual and conducted remotely due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
The Tranche 1 (Phase 3) opening statement and evidence hearings took place from 9 May – 20 May 2022 and were conducted in person at the Thistle Marble Arch Hotel in London.
The Inquiry intends to start its Tranche 2 evidence hearings in the spring of 2024.
Witness statements will allow the Inquiry to receive a detailed picture of the work undertaken by each officer during their time within the Special Demonstration Squad, the National Public Order Intelligence Unit and units from other police forces.
Witness statements will form part of the hearings bundles produced for the evidence hearings. Evidential hearings bundles will bring together all the relevant information about an officer’s deployment.
Throughout the hearings for a particular tranche, all open evidence considered as part of that tranche will be published. This includes witness statements, subject to any restriction order redactions.
From each investigation, the Inquiry will identify relevant materials and compile a pack to assist the witness in preparing their statement. These packs may be subject to restriction order redactions.
The finalised pack will be issues to the witness and their legal representative, accompanied by a request for a witness statement. This request is called a ‘Rule 9 request’.
A Witness Protocol was also issued by the Chairman in January 2018 which sets out what is required.
The Inquiry is conducting an officer-by-officer investigation of former undercover police officers from the Special Demonstration Squad, National Public Order Intelligence Unit and units from other police forces. As part of this, officers, those responsible for managing them, and those affected by a deployment, will be asked to produce witness statements.
As part of the statements, each individual will be asked to cover a set of questions specific to their experience.
Former officers are approached first to allow the managers and non-state core participants the opportunity to see the officer’s responses, subject to any necessary restriction order redactions, before issuing their own statements.
No, section 40 of the Inquires Act 2005 gives the Chairman power to award expenses and legal costs to those who give evidence, whether or not they are core participants. This is subject to the conditions set out by the Home Secretary.
There are no state core participants that have their legal costs paid by the Inquiry.
A core participant may appoint a qualified lawyer to act on their behalf in relation to the Inquiry proceedings.
The Chairman is required to direct that core participants be represented by a single legal representative in cases where:
- the core participants’ interest in the outcome of the Inquiry are similar;
- the facts they are likely to rely on in the Inquiry are similar; and it is fair and proper that they be jointly represented.
The Chairman can make financial awards to cover the cost of core participants’ legal fees, subject to conditions designed to prevent excessive or wasteful spending.
The guiding principles that apply are necessity, proportionality and reasonableness.
A dedicated page on the Inquiry website provides the most up-to-date information about the Inquiry’s current core participants.
Groups or individuals need to apply to the Chairman, setting out their reasons for applying.
If you have decided to apply, you should make the application as soon as possible.
In deciding whether or not to grant core participation status, the Chairman may take into account any delay that has occurred. If there has been any delay, this should be fully explained and reasons given.
Further information can be found here.
A core participant is a person who has played, or may have played, a direct and significant role in the subject the Inquiry relates to. They can also be a person or group that has a significant interest in the Inquiry or may be subject to significant or explicit criticism as a result of the Inquiry.
Core participants are designated by the Chairman, with their consent, and can be an individual or an organisation. In this Inquiry, there are two primary categories of core participants:
- State core participants: this includes police officers, police institutions and government.
- Non-state core participants: this includes individuals that have had relationships with undercover officers, trade union members and activists.
These categories of core participants always have different legal representatives.
Core participants have access to all of the public evidence relevant to their particular interest in the case. In many cases, core participants and other witnesses can also have their reasonable legal costs paid. There are no state core participants that have their legal costs paid by the Inquiry.
You don’t need to be a core participant to give evidence to the Inquiry.
We can’t give you a full answer on that without knowing the nature of your evidence. However not everyone who provides us with a witness statement will need to go to a hearing to provide evidence in person.
The decision on whether or not to get legal representation is one that only you can make, but the Inquiry team do not need you to have a lawyer in order to provide us with your evidence.
A note will be taken of any initial contact with the Inquiry and your details will be kept by the Inquiry team unless you specifically ask us not to; however if your engagement with the Inquiry is to proceed we will need to take some details.
We record your personal data in line with the General Data Protection Regulation. For more information see our privacy notice and data protection notification.
You can:
- email us at [email protected]
- write to us at PO Box 71230, London NW1W 7QH
- give us a call on 0203 876 4750.
You may, if you choose, instruct a solicitor to represent you. The Chairman can make awards for costs for this.
By email
Most documents can be emailed, but documents with a protective marking of SECRET and above must not be emailed for security reasons. If you have any doubts about the level of sensitivity of documents in your possession, please contact the Inquiry team for advice and assistance.
The Inquiry web email inbox is monitored from Monday to Friday, throughout the working day.
By post
We will acknowledge all letters within five working days of receipt, providing a full response within 20 working days where one is needed. For complex issues a response may take longer.
By telephone
The Inquiry team will not take evidence over the phone on the first call; rather they will advise you how to engage with the Inquiry.
Anyone can submit evidence to the Inquiry.
This Inquiry is reading and reviewing tens of thousands of documents and will receive and consider the evidence of at least 250 police witnesses and the civilian witnesses who were affected by their deployments.
The appointment of members to a panel to sift through this in addition to the Chairman would impose a heavy cost in both time and money. It would result in further delays that would be unacceptable to all involved.
However, once the facts have been determined after modules one and two, the Chairman considers that it would be both practicable and desirable for a diverse panel to be recruited to consider the current state of undercover policing and to make recommendations to the Home Secretary for the future.
The Chairman was appointed by the Home Secretary. He is independent of Government.
The Chairman supervises the running of the Inquiry and decides how the Inquiry is to investigate the matters within the terms of reference. This is subject to a requirement to act with fairness and to avoid unnecessary cost.
He will write the interim report that will contain his factual findings and conclusions on the evidence heard in modules one and two. With the help of a panel, he will then produce a final report with relevant recommendations for the future of undercover policing. This will be delivered to the Home Secretary.
The Chairman cannot make any findings of civil or criminal liability, nor can he award any compensation.
To manage such a broad remit, the Inquiry has divided its fact-finding work into six “tranches”. Special Demonstration Squad officers and managers and those affected by their deployments are split into three tranches each covering a different time period: Tranche 1: 1968-1982; Tranche 2: 1983-1992; Tranche 3: 1993-2007.
As a smaller and more recent policing unit, National Public Order Intelligence Unit officers and managers and those affected by their deployments are the focus of a single tranche – Tranche 4.
Tranches 5 and 6 cover “Other undercover policing officers and managers and those affected by deployments” and “Management & oversight by mid- and senior-rank officers, other agencies and government departments” respectively.
The Inquiry is conducting its investigations in broadly chronological order. It was originally intended that Tranche 6 would be investigated after the Tranche 5 investigations had concluded. However, owing to the age and health of some potential Tranche 6 witnesses, the Inquiry has decided to bring forward work on this tranche. Management and oversight issues that form Tranche 6 will now be investigated in the relevant tranche for the relevant period or policing unit.
The Inquiry is led by Sir John Mitting, a former high court judge. It is independent of government and the bodies it is investigating. The Inquiry is supported by legal representatives, civil servants and contractors.
Starting in November 2020, a series of evidence hearings are taking place. Former police officers, those who managed them, and those affected by their conduct, will be called to give evidence.
Sir John will then produce an interim report that will contain his factual findings and conclusions on the evidence heard in modules one and two.
There are three modules to the Inquiry’s investigations:
- Module one – Examination of the deployment of undercover officers in the past, their conduct, and the impact of their activities on themselves and others.
- Module two – Examination of the management and oversight of undercover officers, including their selection, training, supervision, care after the end of an undercover deployment, and the legal and regulatory framework within which undercover policing was carried out. Module two (a) will involve managers and administrators from within undercover policing units. Module two (b) will involve senior managers higher in the chain of command as well as police personnel who handled intelligence provided by undercover police officers. Module two (c) will involve a number of other government bodies with a connection to undercover policing, including the Home Office.
- Module three – Examination of current undercover policing practices and of how undercover policing should be conducted in future.
The final report will follow the conclusion of module 3, which will set out the Inquiry’s conclusions and recommendations for the future of undercover policing.
The Inquiry’s aim is discover the truth about undercover policing across England and Wales over the past 50 years, and provide recommendations for the future.
For the purposes of the Inquiry, undercover police operations are defined as “the use by a police force of a police officer as a covert human intelligence source”.
Two undercover policing units – the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) – have particular prominence for the Inquiry, however, its work is not restricted to these units.
The SDS was a covert unit that existed within the Metropolitan Police Service between 1968 and 2008.
The NPOIU was set up around 1986, originally as the Animal Rights National Index. Around 2010, it merged with three other units to become the National Domestic Extremism Unit.
The Inquiry will examine the contribution undercover policing has made to tackling crime, how it was and is supervised and regulated, and its effect on individuals involved, both those who came into contact with officers and the officers themselves.
The Inquiry will establish a clear picture of what has happened and why, so that fully informed recommendations can be made for the future of undercover policing.
The Inquiry’s terms of reference sets the Inquiry’s work out in full.
In 2015 the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced that there would be a judge-led inquiry into undercover policing.
This was in response to independent reviews carried out by Mark Ellison QC, which found “appalling practices in undercover policing”.
The reports set out a number of issues including:
- failures to disclose material to be used in criminal proceedings;
- deception of courts; and
- concerns around the deployment of undercover police officers in Stephen Lawrence’s family.