Im Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz sollen wichtige Ermittlungsakten zur Zwickauer Terrorzelle vernichtet worden sein. Nach Informationen aus Sicherheitskreisen wurden die Unterlagen erst nach Auffliegen des Thüringer Neonazi-Trios gelöscht – nachdem sie zuvor jahrelang gelagert worden waren.

Der Verfassungsschutz hat zwischen 1997 und 2003 großen Aufwand betrieben, um die Neonazi-Szene in Thüringen zu unterwandern. Mit acht Spitzeln versuchte er Informationen aus dem “Thüringer Heimatschutz” (THS) zu gewinnen, aus dem auch das Trio stammte, das später die Zwickauer Terrorzelle bildete und jahrelang unentdeckt raubend und mordend durchs Land zog.

Das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz soll sechs Spitzel im rechtsradikalen “Thüringer Heimatschutz” eingesetzt haben (im Bild: das Haus eines mutmaßlichen Terror-Helfers im sächsischen Johanngeorgenstadt). (© dpa)

Das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz koordinierte die Operation “Rennsteig”. Es soll selbst sechs Quellen im THS geführt haben, zusätzlich zu V-Leuten des Thüringer Landesamts. Doch von der Operation, die den Verfassungsschutz dicht heranführte an die rechte Terrorzelle, fehlen nun wichtige Akten: Sie wurden im Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz gelöscht – nach Auffliegen der Terrorzelle Ende vorigen Jahres. Das erfuhr die Süddeutsche Zeitung am Mittwochabend aus Sicherheitskreisen.

Am 11. November 2011 sind demnach vier Akten der Operation “Rennsteig” vernichtet worden. Begründung: Es sei aufgefallen, dass die Löschfrist bereits abgelaufen war. Personenbezogene Daten darf der Verfassungsschutz nicht unbegrenzt speichern.

In Berlin kursiert die Frage, warum die Akten dann überhaupt so lange aufbewahrt wurden – und sie ausgerechnet dann gelöscht wurden, als Politik und Öffentlichkeit erfahren wollten, was eigentlich der Verfassungsschutz über das Neonazi-Trio wusste.

Andere sagen, das Löschen sei nun einmal aus datenschutzrechtlichen Gründen unumgänglich gewesen. Dass es Spitzel im THS gab, ist zwar schon länger bekannt. Der Thüringer Verfassungsschutz führte den Neonazi Tino Brandt, der den THS maßgeblich prägte, als V-Mann.

Kontakte der Neonazis nach Bayern

…

 Find this story at 27 June 2012 

27.06.2012, 22:20
Von Tanjev Schultz

Copyright: Süddeutsche Zeitung Digitale Medien GmbH / Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH
Quelle: (Süddeutsche.de/kat)

Jegliche Veröffentlichung und nicht-private Nutzung exklusiv über Süddeutsche Zeitung Content. Bitte senden Sie Ihre Nutzungsanfrage an syndication@sueddeutsche.de.

Der Film zeichnet Leben und Taten der Terroristen nach und belegt Versagen von Verfassungsschutz und Polizei.

Find this story at 26 June 2012

Das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz hat nach Angaben aus dem Bundestagsuntersuchungsausschuss bei den Ermittlungen zur Neonazi-Mordserie Akten vernichtet, nachdem das Trio aus Zwickau bereits aufgeflogen war. “Sie sind aufgefordert worden, Akten zu suchen, sie haben Akten gefunden und sie haben die Akten vernichtet”, sagte der Ausschussvorsitzende Sebastian Edathy (SPD) in Berlin.

Die Ermittler sollten demnach am 11. November 2011 Akten zur sogenannten “Operation Rennsteig” für die Arbeit der Bundesanwaltschaft zusammenstellen, stattdessen seien am selben Tag Akten vernichtet worden. Bei der “Operation Rennsteig” handelte es sich um eine Zusammenarbeit des Verfassungsschutzes mit der rechtsextremen Gruppe “Thüringer Heimatschutz”, aus der die NSU hervorgegangen sein soll. Die Aktenvernichtung habe Verfassungsschutzpräsident Heinz Fromm am Mittwoch dem Bundesinnenministerium mitgeteilt. Ein Vertreter des Bundesinnenministeriums bestätigte das.

Das Trio Beate Zschäpe, Uwe Böhnhardt und Uwe Mundlos (v.l.) soll für mindestens zehn Morde verantwortlich sein.
Im Untersuchungsausschuss sorgte die Information für Empörung – und zwar quer durch die Parteien. “Das ist erklärungsbedürftig”, sagte der Ausschussvorsitzende Edathy der “Mitteldeutschen Zeitung”. “Solche Vorkommnisse machen es schwierig, Verschwörungstheorien überzeugend entgegenzutreten.” Die Obfrau der SPD im Ausschuss, Eva Högl, nannte dies einen “Skandal”. Der Bundesinnenminister müsse aufklären, ob damit Fehler der Sicherheitsbehörden vertuscht werden sollten. Auch Linkspartei-Obfrau Petra Pau zeigte sich entsetzt über den Vorgang.
Porträt

Sebastian Edathy – ein kantiger Aufklärer
Er ist eigenwillig, manchmal etwas ruppig, aber immer “sehr parteilich gegen Rechtsextremisten”. Mit dem Vorsitz des Untersuchungsausschusses übernimmt Edathy die bislang größte Aufgabe seiner Karriere. [mehr]

Der CDU/CSU-Obmann Clemens Binninger hielt die Begründung des Verfassungsschutzes für die Aktenvernichtung für nicht glaubwürdig. Die Behörde habe erklärt, bei der Suche nach Beweismitteln zu den NSU-Terroristen sei aufgefallen, dass die Speicherfristen für die fraglichen Dokumente abgelaufen seien. Binninger betonte: “Ich halte diese Begründung für wenig überzeugend, für wenig plausibel, weil man in so einem Fall natürlich die Amtsleitung fragen müsste”. Er warnte zudem davor, dass derartige Vorfälle weitere Spekulationen über fragliche Aktionen von Sicherheitsbehörden befeuere.
Minister fordert Aufklärung

Bundesinnenminister Hans-Peter Friedrich (CSU) wies inzwischen Verfassungsschutzpräsident Heinz Fromm an, den Vorgang lückenlos aufzuklären. Dem Vernehmen nach ist der Täter inzwischen bekannt. Ihm droht ein Disziplinarverfahren. Der Verfassungsschutz will unterdessen die gelöschten Akten offenbar wieder rekonstruieren. Ein BfV-Vertreter soll dies den Mitgliedern des Untersuchungsausschusses des Bundestages angeboten haben.
BKA-Chef Ziercke räumt Fehler ein

BKA-Chef Ziercke vor dem NSU-Untersuchungsausschuss des Bundestags
Zuvor hatte der Untersuchungsausschuss den Chef des Bundeskriminalamtes, Jörg Ziercke, vernommen. Der Polizeichef sagte während der Befragung, er bedauere, dass die deutschen Sicherheitsbehörden ihrem Schutzauftrag nicht nachgekommen seien. Im Grundsatz verteidigte er das Vorgehen der Ermittler bei der Neonazi-Mordserie. Er räumte zwar Fehler ein, ließ aber offen, wo diese geschehen seien. “Das Versagen hat viele Facetten”, sagte er.

Der Ausschuss will unter anderem klären, welche Rolle Ziercke bei den Ermittlungspannen gespielt hat. Die Terroristen sollen von 1998 bis zu ihrem Auffliegen 2011 nahezu unbehelligt von den Sicherheitsbehörden im Untergrund gelebt und ihre Morde begangen haben. Ziercke ist seit 2004 Präsident des BKA.

Find this story at 28 June 2012

Germany’s domestic intelligence service destroyed files on neo-Nazis linked to the terror gang which claimed the murders of ten people – on the day the killings were traced to them, it has emerged. The interior minister has demanded an explanation.

Hans-Peter Friedrich said on Thursday he had personally called the president of the Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution and told him to tell him what had happened.

The office destroyed at least four files on its informants within a neo-Nazi group which had strong links to the terror group.

Operation Rennsteig used eight informers to infiltrate the Thuringia neo-Nazi group the Thüringer Heimatschutz – from which the neo-Nazi terrorists emerged. The informant operation ran from 1997 until 2003.

The gang, which called itself the National Socialist Underground, killed nine immigrant shop owners, eight Turkish and one Greek, and a policewoman in a murder spree over nearly 13 years.

Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt botched a bank robbery and died in a murder-suicide, leaving their friend Beate Zschäpe to allegedly blow up their flat and then hand herself in to the police.

The emergence of the neo-Nazi terror cell as responsible for the until then seemingly unconnected murders shocked Germany – particularly as it emerged at the end of last year that the trio were known to police and intelligence services.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper reported on Thursday that crucial files from Operation Rennsteig were missing – destroyed by the Office for Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s internal intelligence agency.

Four files were destroyed on November 11, 2011, the paper said – after it was realised that the time limit for keeping personal data had been breached.

This was also the same day as the connection between the neo-Nazi group and the string of murders was made.

The question now arises as to why the files were kept for so long – and why they were destroyed at exactly the time when it became important to see what had been known about the neo-Nazi trio, the paper said.

The fact that there were paid informants inside the notorious Thüringer Heimatschutz has been known for a long time, particularly with the outing of Tino Brandt, a neo-Nazi leader, as an informant.

But now that a parliamentary investigative committee is looking at who knew what and when – and how come nothing was done to stop the National Socialist Underground, details become crucial.

Jörg Zierke, head of the federal police BKA, admitted to the committee the police had failed in the case.

Find this story at 28 June 2012

Published: 28 Jun 12 10:48 CET
Updated: 28 Jun 12 14:30 CET

Jury sees footage tracing newspaper vendor’s movements through City of London during G20 protests in 2009
Simon Harwood, charged with the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson, arrives at Southwark crown court with his wife, Helen. Photograph: Rex Features

A court has seen video footage of the minutes leading to the death of Ian Tomlinson, the man prosecutors allege was killed on the fringes of the G20 protests in London by a riot police officer who struck him with a baton before shoving him to the ground.

The jury at Southwark crown court also heard from friends of Tomlinson, who said he had been calm and happy on the evening of 1 April 2009, although clearly under the influence of drink. The court was shown another compilation of images, tracking the movements of the police constable involved, Simon Harwood, before his encounter with Tomlinson.

Tomlinson’s family looked on grim-faced as the prosecution showed dozens of video clips giving a chronological rundown of Tomlinson’s movements as he tried to return home, having spent time with a newspaper vendor friend by Monument station in the City.

They also saw several video angles of the moment when Harwood, a member of the Metropolitan police’s Territorial Support Group unit, struck Tomlinson on the leg with a baton as the 47-year-old walked away from police lines, his hands in his pockets. Harwood then shoved Tomlinson to the ground causing, the prosecution alleges, internal bleeding which killed him within little more than half an hour.

In his attempt to reach the hostel where he lived when not with his family at weekends, Tomlinson, a long-term alcoholic, headed towards Bank tube station, where he was turned back at a police cordon set up following clashes involving protesters marking the G20 meeting of world leaders. He then wandered through alleyways towards the pedestrian passageway by the Royal Exchange building, where he encountered Harwood.

This slow progress was followed by dozens of cameras, mainly CCTV but also shaky, handheld amateur video, and footage from TV crews. The montage, some of it only brief glimpses as Tomlinson walked past internal cameras in shops, was compiled by investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which initially investigated his death.

While there were still occasional skirmishes between police and protesters by this time, throughout his walk Tomlinson appeared calm, walking mainly with his hands in the pockets of his tracksuit trousers. The final footage, chronologically, showed Tomlinson briefly walking away after he was pushed to the ground and then, after a cut in the filming, lying prone on the pavement, where a medical student was trying to assist him.

Harwood, 45, was first shown standing by the police van he had been designated to drive, then dragging away a man who wrote graffiti on the vehicle, only to lose him when the man slipped out of his jacket. Wearing a riot helmet and balaclava but easily identifiable by a waist-length fluorescent jacket, Harwood then joined a line of other riot officers who began clearing the passageway.

Amid initial chaos, Harwood shoved a man who blew a plastic vuvuzela in his face before pushing over a cameraman filming an arrest.

Another piece of footage showed Harwood pushing a third man, who had stopped seemingly to help someone sitting on the pavement. It is shortly after this that the line of police reaches Tomlinson.

The court later heard from several of Tomlinson’s friends, including Barry Smith, a newspaper vendor who had known him for more than 25 years. Smith said his friend had been very happy that day, having cashed his giro and used some of the money to travel to the Millwall FC club shop in south-east London to buy a replica shirt and other clothes.

Tomlinson had left the stall only because the papers sold out early, Smith said: “If I’d phoned up and got some more papers he might have been alive. I’m gutted.”

…

Find this story at 19 June 2012

Peter Walker
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 June 2012 18.08 BST

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Bij de sturing van op georganiseerde criminaliteit gerichte opsporingsonderzoeken, ontbreekt het aan voldoende inzichten: – in het opsporingsproces, – in de factoren die hierop van invloed zijn en – in de resultaten die ermee worden bereikt. Dit rapport gaat over de wijze waarop het concept ‘intelligence’-gestuurde opsporing in de praktijk uitwerkt bij de aanpak van georganiseerde misdaad. Hiertoe is ondermeer onderzocht hoe de voorbereiding van een opsporingsonderzoek naar georganiseerde misdaad in de praktijk verloopt, in hoeverre voorstellen voor onderzoeken daadwerkelijk tot opsporingsonderzoeken hebben geleid en wat daarvan de resultaten zijn geweeest. De eerste voorlopige resultaten werden reeds in 2007 in hoofdstuk 5 van het rapport “Georganiseerde criminaliteit in Nederland” (Onderzoek en Beleid, nr. 252) gepubliceerd (zie link bij: Meer informatie).

Inhoudsopgave:
Voorwoord
Samenvatting
Inleiding
Het selectieproces van zaken
Weegdocumenten van de Nationale Recherche
Van preweegdocumenten tot tactisch onderzoek
Conclusies
Summary
Literatuur
Bijlagen

Auteur(s): Bokhorst, R.J., Steeg, M. van der, Poot, C.J. de
Organisatie: WODC
Plaats uitgave: Den Haag
Uitgever: WODC
Jaar van uitgave: 2011
Reeks: Cahiers 2011-11
Type rapport: Eindrapport

Document te vinden bij

Samenvatting te vinden bij

Summary at

Met Police Commissioner slammed for his public support of the Government’s Communications Data Bill
Tory MP Dominic Raab accuses him of being ‘deeply unprofessional’ and jeopardising principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’
Bill would force communications companies to store data on every website visit, email, text message and social network use for 12 months

Britain’s most senior police officer was accused of playing politics yesterday after he gave his full backing to Government plans to monitor the public’s every internet click.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe endorsed a draft law that critics claim amounts to a snoopers’ charter, saying that in some cases it could be a matter of ‘life or death’.

His actions were branded ‘deeply unprofessional’ and prompted calls for official censure.

Mr Hogan-Howe’s intervention in the Communications Data Bill was compared to that of former Met commissioner Sir Ian Blair, who was accused of lobbying for a Labour plan to allow terrorism suspects to be detained for up to 90 days and also backed controversial ID cards.

Tory MP Dominic Raab said: ‘Just as it was wrong for Sir Ian Blair to lobby for the flawed ID card scheme, it is deeply unprofessional for Commissioner Hogan-Howe to lobby for Big Brother surveillance.

‘It politicises our police and undermines public trust. It’s also shocking that he wants more surveillance powers to “eliminate innocent people from an investigation”.

‘In this country, we’re innocent until proven guilty – not the other way round.’

Former shadow home secretary David Davis, one of the most outspoken critics of the proposed law, said: ‘He will have done his reputation no end of harm by getting involved in this process.’

He said that after Sir Ian spoke out on 90 days detention he was seen as a Government spokesman and, if not careful, the same would be said of Mr Hogan-Howe.

He added: ‘The truth of the matter is this is a highly political issue and the police should stay out of it.’

Mr Hogan-Howe made the comments yesterday in an article for The Times, in which he brought the 2005 Soham murder investigation into his argument, saying police were able to disprove Ian Huntley’s alibi that he did not kill schoolgirls Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells by looking at his phone and text records.

He also appeared alongside Home Secretary Theresa May at a press conference to promote the draft Communications Data Bill.

If made law, it will give ministers powers to demand that internet companies store data on every website visit, email, text message and visit to social networking sites for a minimum of 12 months.

Police and security services would not have access to the content of messages, but would know who was contacted, when and by what method.

The Bill is expected to face fierce criticism from Lib Dem and Tory backbenchers when it is scrutinised by Parliament.

Currently, police can access information that is stored automatically by internet companies, but they say that 25 per cent of the data is not logged, leaving a loophole for determined criminals.

Mrs May said that without the new powers, offenders would go free. ‘We will see people walking the streets who should be behind bars,’ she said.

Sitting alongside her, Mr Hogan-Howe claimed the proposals were no more intrusive than current laws.

But in facing repeated questions over whether he was right to intervene so publicly, the Commissioner accepted there was a risk of the police becoming politicised over the issue.

‘You could say there is a risk [of politicisation], but the thing I’m passionate about is making sure criminals can’t get away with crime,’ he said.

‘If that’s regarded as political, it’s a sorry state of affairs.’

…

Find this story at 14 June 2012

By Jack Doyle

PUBLISHED: 23:14 GMT, 14 June 2012 | UPDATED: 23:14 GMT, 14 June 2012

Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd

Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group
© Associated Newspapers Ltd

CBP-onderzoek naar periodieke controle politiegegevens omtrent zware criminaliteit

Persbericht, 12 juni 2012
Het College bescherming persoonsgegevens (CBP) heeft na onderzoek geconcludeerd dat de Criminele Inlichtingeneenheden (CIE’s) bij twee regionale politiekorpsen, de Koninklijke Marechaussee en een bijzondere opsporingsdienst onvoldoende maatregelen hebben getroffen om de wettelijke eisen omtrent bewaartermijnen van politiegegevens na te leven. Daarmee handelen zij in strijd met de wet. Het CBP deed onderzoek bij de twee regionale politiekorpsen Flevoland en Brabant Zuid-Oost, de Koninklijke Marechaussee en de Inlichtingen en -Opsporingsdienst van de Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport. De CIE’s verwerken politiegegevens om inzicht te krijgen in de betrokkenheid van personen bij ernstige en georganiseerde misdrijven. Voor de verwerking van deze gevoelige (politie)gegevens omtrent zware criminaliteit gelden strenge wettelijke eisen, mede omdat de informatie niet altijd betrouwbaar is terwijl de risico’s en gevolgen van de verwerking groot kunnen zijn voor de personen die het betreft. De Wet politiegegevens (Wpg) bepaalt dan ook dat dergelijke politiegegevens moeten worden verwijderd zodra zij niet langer noodzakelijk zijn. Daarbij geldt dat uiterlijk vijf jaar nadat voor het laatst gegevens zijn toegevoegd, de gegevens moeten worden verwijderd. De wet eist bovendien een periodieke (jaarlijkse) toets om vast te stellen in hoeverre de gegevens nog noodzakelijk zijn voor het doel waarvoor ze werden verwerkt. Uit het onderzoek blijkt dat geen van de vier onderzochte partijen deze bij wet verplichte periodieke toets uitvoert dan wel niet concreet genoeg toetst of de opgenomen politiegegevens nog noodzakelijk zijn. Ook constateert het CBP dat het verplichte interne toezicht door de privacyfunctionarissen op de naleving van de bewaartermijnen van de gegevens inclusief het toezicht op de periodieke controle van de noodzaak om ze te bewaren, tekort is geschoten.

Lees het rapport van definitieve bevindingen Regionaal politiekorps BZO (528 KB)

Lees het rapport van definitieve bevindingen Regionaal politiekorps Flevoland (528 KB)

Lees het rapport van definitieve bevindingen Koninklijke Marechaussee (502 KB)

Lees het rapport van definitieve bevindingen Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport – Inlichtingen en Opsporingsdienst (492 KB)
Periodieke controle
De wetgever verplicht tot een periodieke, jaarlijks uit te voeren, interne controle waarna gegevens die niet langer noodzakelijk zijn moeten worden verwijderd. De politie moet daarbij het belang van de registratie van de gegevens voor de uitvoering van de politietaak afwegen tegen de belangen van de betrokkene bij verwijdering. Deze belangenafweging kan leiden tot verwijdering van de gegevens voordat de uiterste bewaartermijn van vijf jaar is verlopen.

Controle door de privacyfunctionaris
De Wpg verplicht de politiekorpsen om een privacyfunctionaris aan te stellen die als taak heeft gegevensverwerkingen intern te controleren, onder meer op de naleving van de bewaartermijnen. Het CBP constateert dat geen van de privacyfunctionarissen de afgelopen jaren een onderzoek heeft uitgevoerd naar (de naleving van de bewaartermijnen van) gegevensverwerkingen door de CIE. Daarmee schiet de verplichte interne controle om de grenzen van de Wpg te bewaken, tekort.

New evidence of the disturbing practices of private sector companies seeking ‘intelligence’ on protest organisations was revealed by documentary photographer and investigative journalist Marc Vallée at Sundays Netpol conference.

Speaking on the subject of Olympic policing, Marc Vallée told how he had been personally approached for information on protest groups by a private sector company specialising in risk analysis. The company, Exclusive Analysis, asked him to provide any information he had about direct action and protest groups, particularly the groups No Tar Sands, Rising Tide UK, Climate Camp and UKuncut.

Exclusive Analysis promotes themselves as “a specialist intelligence company that forecasts commercially relevant political and violent risks.” Their website claimed they work with a range of private sector and government clients, including intelligence and national security agencies.

Marc Vallée was approached by a Richard Bond, who stated he was an employee of Exclusive Analysis. He told Mr Vallée that Exclusive Analysis had a number of clients that ‘had interests in’ the Olympic games. Asked whether there was an Olympic context to the information they were after, Richard Bond replied, “We have followed these groups for a long time. Yes we are looking at them for the Olympics.”

Exclusive Analysis are one of a growing number of private sector organisations providing intelligence or vetting information to private sector companies on protest activity. One of the roles of Exclusive Analysis appears to be the provision of intelligence and information that enables private companies to better manage or control the ‘risks’ from political action.
The company website claimed that as well as dealing with global terrorism threats, “Our regional teams analyse data and risk indicators on other groups (from violent single-issue groups focused on animal rights, the environment and pro-life activism to politically motivated groups such as anarchists and the extreme right and extreme left.”

Find this story at 22 May 2012

Groningen creëerde reality show rondom ontruiming

De standaard-ontruiming van een kraakpand in de Groningse Peperstraat is vorig jaar ontaard in een grootschalige observatie- en inlichtingenoperatie, waarbij burgemeester Rehwinkel de gemeenteraad naderhand heeft voorgelogen.

‘De deurwaarder wilde een aantal stukken aan de krakers betekenen en onze assistentie was daarvoor gevraagd. Er werd door de deurwaarder meermalen aangeklopt, maar er kwam geen reactie. […] Een van de krakers in dit pand is in ieder geval bij rapp. bekend.’ (pv 2011018252)

‘Inzet verkenners om confrontaties te voorkomen via CHIN. […] Benadert brandweer en GHOR met verzoek aan te sluiten bij volgende overleg.’ (overleg inzake kraakpand Plassania 22 februari 2011)

‘Waarom is zo’n grote politiemacht ingezet bij een ontruiming? Waarom zijn de media van tevoren ingelicht? Waar zijn de eigendommen van de krakers gebleven?’ (vragen van de SP en GroenLinks in de gemeenteraad van Groningen)

Het Amsterdamse VU-ziekenhuis heeft camera’s in de eerste hulp opgehangen voor een reality show. In het programma Echt Scheiden, ook van RTL, wordt de kinderen voor het oog van de camera verteld dat hun ouders uit elkaar gaan. De zucht naar ‘echte televisie’ is zo groot dat elk deel van het dagelijks leven op de buis wordt vertoond. Het wachten is op De Ontruiming, een reality show over huisuitzettingen en het ontruimen van kraakpanden.

lees meer

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is een techniek waarmee kentekens met behulp van camera’s automatisch worden gelezen en vervolgens worden vergeleken met één of meer referentiebestanden. Deze bestanden bevatten kentekens waarmee iets aan de hand is, bijvoorbeeld een openstaande boete, een gestolen voertuig of een rijontzegging. Er zijn op dit moment 90 mobiele en 120 vaste ANPR-camera’s in gebruik bij de Nederlandse politie.
Dit onderzoek maakt duidelijk of, en zo ja hoe, ANPR kan bijdragen aan (verbeterde) opsporing, vervolging en berechting van delictplegers.
De probleemstelling van dit onderzoek is als volgt geformuleerd:
Hoe wordt binnen de Nederlandse strafrechtspleging gebruik gemaakt van ANPR?
Op welke elementen van de strafrechtsketen is ANPR van invloed?
Draagt de inzet van ANPR bij aan een effectiever werkende strafrechtsketen en zo ja, hoe dan?

Inhoudsopgave:
Managementsamenvatting
English summary
Inleiding
ANPR in Nederland
Wetgeving en bewaartermijn
Beoordelingskader ANPR
Stap 1: Scannen
Stap 2: Referentielijsten en hits
Stap 3: Reactie
Neveneffecten, knelpunten en kosten/baten
Slotbeschouwing
Bijlagen
Auteur(s): Flight, S., Egmond, P. van
Organisatie: DSP-groep, WODC
Plaats uitgave: Amsterdam

 Document te vinden bij

Samenvatting te vinden bij

Summary at

News revealed as minister said undercover officers CAN have sex with environmental activists to maintain their cover

Bob Lambert planted a bomb in Debenhams inHarrowin 1987, MP says using parliamentary privilege

Three bombs planted during the coordinated attacks

Two bombers were caught and jailed, but the third one was never traced

An undercover policeman planted a bomb in a department store to prove his commitment to animal rights extremists, an MP claimed yesterday.

Bob Lambert is accused of leaving an incendiary device in a Debenhams inLondon– one of three set off in a coordinated attack in 1987.

Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party, used parliamentary privilege to claim that Mr Lambert – who went under the alias Bob Robinson – carried out the attack after infiltrating the Animal Liberation Front.

The group planted the devices in protest at the store’s decision to sell fur products.

The attacks caused £8million of damage and led Debenhams to stop selling fur.

The claims were strongly denied by Mr Lambert, who is now a leading academic and expert in terrorism and Islamophobia at St Andrew’s University.

Following the July 1987 attacks on Debenhams, two activists – Geoff Sheppard and Andrew Clarke – were jailed for planting devices in theLutonand Romford stores.

Sheppard received a sentence of four years and four months, while Clarke was jailed for more than three years. The third activist involved was never caught.

Miss Lucas yesterday said she had seen a witness statement from Sheppard claiming the third man was Mr Lambert and that he targeted a store inHarrow.

She told MPs that Sheppard was not there when the bomb was planted. She read from his statement, which said: ‘I straightaway knew that Bob had carried out his part of the plan.

‘There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Bob Lambert placed the incendiary device at the Debenhams store inHarrow.

‘I specifically remember him giving an explanation to me about how he had been able to place one of the devices in that store, but how he had not been able to place the second device.’

Miss Lucas alleged that when Sheppard’s flat was raided two months later while he was making four more fire-bombs, the intelligence was so accurate it ‘came from Bob Lambert’.

Calling for an inquiry into the activities of undercover officers, Miss Lucas told MPs: ‘It would seem that planting the third incendiary device was perhaps a move designed to bolster Lambert’s credibility and reinforce the impression of a genuine and dedicated activist.

‘There is no doubt in my mind that anyone planting an incendiary device in a department store is guilty of a very serious crime and should have charges brought against them.’

Mr Lambert said: ‘It was necessary to create the false impression that I was a committed animal rights extremist to gain intelligence so as to disrupt serious criminal conspiracies.

‘However, I did not commit serious crime such as planting an incendiary device at the Debenhams Harrow store.’

Mr Lambert infiltrated the Animal Liberation Front in the late 1980s and his evidence was used to convict Sheppard and Clarke.

He went on to become a police spymaster who led a network of undercover officers who infiltrated radical groups.

…

Find this story at 13 june 2012

By Kirsty Walker and Chris Greenwood

PUBLISHED: 14:27 GMT, 13 June 2012  | UPDATED: 00:45 GMT, 14 June 2012

Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd

Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group

© Associated Newspapers Ltd

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green)

It is a pleasure to hold this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the rules governing undercover police infiltrators and informers.

I am sure the House will agree that when it comes to the deployment of undercover police officers, transparency and accountability are of the utmost importance. In recent months, however, a number of cases have come to light that seem to expose serious abuses of any guidelines that we might reasonably assume inform what police officers working undercover can and cannot do. The cases raise important questions about whether such guidelines are ever enforced, whether individuals who breach them are properly held to account, and the extent to which infiltration of campaign groups is a legitimate, or even effective, tactic. Also, I have details of new allegations relating to the behaviour of one undercover officer that I believe require immediate investigation and raise questions about the convictions of two individuals.

Since at least the 1968 protests against the Vietnam war, police chiefs, backed by successive Governments, have used the tactic of infiltration to secure more reliable intelligence about political demonstrations than could be provided by informants. Undercover police officers pose as political activists over several years, to gather reliable intelligence and perhaps disrupt campaigners’ activities. In the early days, such officers were part of a super-secret unit within special branch, called the special demonstration squad; more recently they have been under a second unit, the national public order intelligence unit.

Up to nine undercover officers have been unmasked following the exposure of Mark Kennedy in late 2010. I will say a bit more about his case later, but the officers include Bob Lambert, know by the alias Bob Robinson. That officer pretended to be a committed environmental and animal rights campaigner between 1984 and 1988. By the summer of 1987, he had successfully infiltrated the Animal Liberation Front, a group that operated through a tightly organised underground network of small cells of activists, making it difficult to penetrate. In October 2011, after he was exposed as an undercover officer, Bob Lambert admitted:

“In the 1980s I was deployed as an undercover Met special branch officer to identify and prosecute members of Animal Liberation Front who were then engaged in incendiary device and explosive device campaigns against targets in the vivisection, meat and fur trades.”

Lambert has also admitted that part of his mission was to identify and prosecute specific ALF activists:

“I succeeded in my task and that success included the arrest and imprisonment of Geoff Sheppard and Andrew Clarke.”

The men Lambert referred to were ALF activists who were found guilty of planting incendiary devices in two Debenhams stores. Allegations about exactly what kind of role Lambert might have played in their convictions have come to light only recently.

In July 1987, three branches of Debenhams, in Luton, Romford and Harrow, were targeted by the ALF in co-ordinated, simultaneous incendiary attacks, because

the shops sold fur products. Sheppard and Clarke were tried and found guilty, but the culprit who planted the incendiary device in the Harrow store was never caught. Bob Lambert’s exposure as an undercover police officer has prompted Geoff Sheppard to speak out about the Harrow attack. He alleges that Lambert was the one who planted the third device and that he was involved in the ALF’s co-ordinated campaign. Sheppard has made a statement, which I have seen, in which he says:

“Obviously I was not there when he targeted that store because we all headed off in our separate directions but I was lying in bed that night, and the news came over on the World Service that three Debenhams stores had had arson attacks on them and that included the Harrow store as well. So obviously I straightaway knew that Bob had carried out his part of the plan. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Bob Lambert placed the incendiary device at the Debenhams store in Harrow. I specifically remember him giving an explanation to me about how he had been able to place one of the devices in that store, but how he had not been able to place the second device.”

In the same interview, Sheppard says that two months after the three Debenhams store were set on fire, he and another person were in his flat making four more fire bombs when they were raided by police. Sheppard alleges that the intelligence for the raid was so precise that it is now obvious that it “came from Bob Lambert”. Lambert knew that the pair were going to be there making another set of incendiary devices.

Sheppard was jailed for four years and four months, and Clarke for more than three years. For Lambert, it was a case of job done—in fact, so well had he manipulated the situation that he even visited Sheppard in prison, to give him support before disappearing abroad. Until recently Sheppard had no reason whatsoever to suspect the man he knew as Bob Robinson—he assumed that Robinson had got away with it, fled the country and built a new life.

It seems that planting the third incendiary device might have been a move designed to bolster Lambert’s credibility and reinforce the impression of a genuine and dedicated activist. He successfully went on to gain the precise intelligence that led to the arrest of Sheppard and Clarke, without anyone suspecting that the tip-off came from him, but is that really the way we want our police officers to behave?

The case raises new questions about the rules governing undercover police infiltrators and informers, particularly when it comes to those officers committing a crime—an area in which the law is especially grey. Police chiefs can authorise undercover officers to participate in criminal acts to gain the trust of the groups they are trying to infiltrate and, in theory, to detect or prevent a more serious crime, but usually they are not allowed to be involved in planning or instigating the crime. As I understand it, the specific law on that is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and that before its enactment, at the time of the Debenhams attacks, the rules were vague. They have not so far been made public.

If Sheppard’s allegations are true, someone must have authorised Lambert to plant incendiary devices at the Harrow store, and presumably that same person may also have given the officer guidance on just how far he needed to go to establish his credibility with the ALF. We simply do not know, and in the absence of any

proper framework or rules, the task of holding Lambert to account is very difficult. Even if strict protocols are in place to try to control the actions of undercover officers, who decides what the protocols say, and how can we hold those people to account, given the secrecy that surrounds such activities?
Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 June 2012, c96WH)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood, Conservative)

Will the hon. Lady give way?
Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 June 2012, c98WH)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green)

Yes, but very briefly, as I am short of time.
Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 June 2012, c98WH)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood, Conservative)

Is not an alternative explanation that there were no protocols in place and that decisions were taken at the discretion of this officer, who was not properly controlled? To the extent that there were protocols, is it not clear that the guidance for undercover officers was coming from the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is an entirely unaccountable organisation?
Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 June 2012, c98WH)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The truth is that we simply do not know, and that is the problem. We need clarity, which is what I hope the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice can help us with later.

There is no doubt in my mind that anyone planting an incendiary device in a department store is guilty of a very serious crime and should have charges brought against them. That means absolutely anyone, including, if the evidence is there, Bob Lambert or, indeed, the people who were supervising him.

Ironically, as we have seen, the use of undercover police infiltrators can make it much more difficult to secure successful convictions. Three Court of Appeal judges have overturned the convictions of 20 environmental protestors, ruling that crucial evidence recorded by an undercover officer, Mark Kennedy, operating under the false name of Mark Stone, was withheld from the original trial. The judges said that they had seen evidence that appeared to show that Kennedy was

“involved in activities that went further than the authorisation he was given”,

and that he was “arguably, an agent provocateur.” The latest allegations concerning Bob Lambert and the planting of incendiary devices prompt us to ask: has another undercover police officer crossed the line into acting as an agent provocateur, and how many other police spies have been encouraging protestors to commit crimes?

Mark Kennedy’s exposure in 2010 has shone a light on how officers behave when they go undercover, and especially on the rules governing whether they are permitted to form intimate relationships with those on whom they are spying. Jon Murphy, Chief Constable of Merseyside and the police chiefs’ spokesman on the issue, claims that that is “grossly unprofessional” and “never acceptable”, yet one undercover police officer, Pete Black, claims that superiors knew officers had developed sexual relationships with protestors to give credibility to their cover stories and help gather evidence.

Eight women who say that they were duped into forming long-term loving relationships with undercover policemen have started a legal action against the police. They have a copy of a letter from a Metropolitan police solicitor that asserts that the forming of personal and other relationships by a “covert human intelligence

source” to obtain information is permitted and lawful under RIPA; so either rogue undercover officers have been breaking the rules set by senior officers, or senior officers have misled the public by saying that such relationships are forbidden. We need to know what the truth is, and we need any rules of engagement to be published and open to public and parliamentary scrutiny or challenge.

The eight women allege that the men’s actions constitute a breach of articles 3 and 8 of the European convention on human rights. Article 3 asserts that no one shall be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment, and article 8 grants respect for private and family life, including the right to form relationships without unjustified interference by the state. The women go on to allege that the actions amount to common law tortious acts of deceit, misfeasance in public office and assault.

Bob Lambert is one of the five men named in the legal action, as is Mark Kennedy. The Guardian has also reported that Bob Lambert secretly fathered a child with a political campaigner whom he had been sent to spy on, and later disappeared completely from the life of the child, concealing his true identity from the child’s mother for many years. Lambert has admitted having had a long-term relationship with a second woman to bolster his credibility as a committed campaigner, and he subsequently went on to head the special demonstration squad and mentor other undercover officers who formed deceitful relationships with women.

The police authorities have made virtually no attempt to hold those or other men to account, or to examine whether they have broken any rules on relationships when undercover. The solicitors instructed by the Metropolitan police have taken a totally obstructive approach to the litigation, threatening to strike out the claims as having no foundation. Furthermore, police solicitors argue that cases can be heard only by the investigatory powers tribunal, in secret—a move that would prevent the women, whose privacy was invaded in the most intrusive manner imaginable, from hearing the evidence, such as the extent to which intimate moments were reported back to police chiefs. It seems that the police do not want anyone to be able to challenge their version of events or to scrutinise their actions. To paraphrase one of the women involved, it is incredible that in most circumstances the police need permission to search someone’s house, but if they want to send in an agent who may sleep and live with activists in their homes, that can happen without any apparent oversight.

The rules governing undercover police infiltrators and informers are also remarkably deficient when it comes to giving false evidence in court to protect a secret identity. For example, Jim Boyling, who was exposed last year for infiltrating groups such as Reclaim the Streets using the pseudonym Jim Sutton, concealed his true identity from a court when he was prosecuted alongside a group of protestors for occupying a Government building during a demonstration. It is alleged that from the moment Boyling was arrested, he gave a false name and occupation, maintaining this fiction throughout the entire prosecution, even when he gave evidence to barristers under oath.

Boyling was reported to have been present at sensitive discussions between other activists and their lawyers to decide how they would defend themselves in court, undermining the fundamental right of the activists to

hold legally protected consultations with a lawyer and illicitly obtaining details of private discussions. A lawyer representing activists who were charged alongside Jim Boyling has noted:

“This case raises the most fundamental constitutional issues about the limits of acceptable policing, the sanctity of lawyer-client confidentiality, and the integrity of the criminal justice system. At first sight, it seems that the police have wildly overstepped all recognised boundaries.”

Yet Boyling’s actions may well have been authorised. Pete Black, who worked with Boyling in the same covert unit penetrating political campaigns, said that the case was not unique and that, from time to time, prosecutions were allowed to go ahead in order to build up credibility with the activists being infiltrated.

The Metropolitan commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, has defended undercover officers’ use of fake identities in court, claiming that there is no specific law that forbids it. However, I echo the concerns of Lord Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, who said that Hogan-Howe’s defence was “stunning and worrying”. He commented that

“at the very least, the senior officers who are sending these undercover PCs into court to give evidence in this way are putting them at serious risk of straying into perjury.”

Bob Lambert, Mark Kennedy and Jim Boyling, as well as two other officers named in current legal actions against the police, John Barker and Mark Cassidy, have all crossed a line. Similarly, other undercover police officers may well have crossed such a line. The assumption is that they have been authorised and instructed to do so or at least, if that is not specifically the case, that a blind eye has been turned to some of their actions.

Activists who have been infiltrated have called for one overarching, full public inquiry to examine what has gone on. Lord Macdonald has also called for such an inquiry to consider how we should control undercover operations, but the Government have ignored calls to set one up. Instead, the authorities have set up 12 different inquiries since January 2011, each held in secret and looking at only one small aspect of an undercover operation. Those inquiries have not been particularly thorough and have not resulted in follow-up action. For example, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, ordered an investigation and report into allegations that the Crown Prosecution Service suppressed vital evidence in the case of the Ratcliffe-on-Soar environmental protestors. A key criticism of the CPS in that report is of the

“failures, over many months and at more than one level, by the police and the CPS.”

Nick Paul, the senior CPS lawyer who specialises in cases involving police misconduct, was not even interviewed as part of the investigation, and senior CPS staff have evaded disciplinary action. The CPS shows an ongoing reluctance to investigate past possible miscarriages of justice, and Keir Starmer is among those resisting calls for a more far-reaching inquiry.

The new allegations that I have raised today make the case for a public inquiry even more compelling. So many questions remain unanswered, including whether Bob Lambert planted the third incendiary device and, if he did, who authorised him to do so and why. More widely, the public have a right to know why money is being spent on infiltrating campaign groups, with no apparent external oversight of the decision to infiltrate

or of whether the methods used are necessary or proportionate. Why are the rules on such practices open to such abuse? Why are high-ranking police officers and, presumably, politicians sanctioning operations that put police officers at risk and undermine basic human rights?

We need to have faith that police officers are beyond reproach, that robust procedures are in place to deal with any transgressions and that those making decisions about the deployment of police officers are accountable and subject to proper scrutiny. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to review the various concerns I have raised, and that he can tell us that the Government will agree to set up a far-reaching public inquiry into undercover police infiltrators and informers, which will look back over past practices as well as look forward.
Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 June 2012, c98WH)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
11:16 am

Nick Herbert (Minister of State, Justice; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

May I say what a surprise, but nevertheless what a great pleasure, it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies? I congratulate Caroline Lucas on securing the debate. I am grateful to her for raising some of these issues, because it gives me an opportunity to set out the Government’s response. I recognise that the issues she has raised are serious.

Undercover operations are sometimes necessary to protect the public and to prevent or detect crime. We should commend the difficult and often dangerous job performed by undercover officers. However, in the light of recent cases and concerns, including those raised by the hon. Lady, it is right to ask two principal questions that we must be able to answer with confidence. First, is there a system for ensuring that the use of police undercover deployment is consistent with human rights legislation, particularly the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial? Secondly, is the system working sufficiently well for the particular type of undercover deployment that has led to concerns, or do we need to take action to improve it and ensure that it provides the required assurance?

Before I consider those two fundamental questions, it is important to point out that the deployment of Bob Lambert, a case raised by the hon. Lady, took place in the 1990s, before the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—or RIPA, as it is known—was implemented. RIPA is the legislative framework that enables police and other public authorities using covert human intelligence sources, such as undercover officers, to ensure that they act in compliance with their duties under the Human Rights Act. A “covert human intelligence source” is the label used by the legislation to describe anyone who establishes or maintains a relationship for a covert purpose. That applies to a member of the public who comes forward to volunteer information about someone and who is asked by a public authority to find out more. It applies to a public authority test purchaser who engages the confidence of a supplier to buy illicit goods. It also applies to a member of a law enforcement agency who goes undercover to infiltrate and to pass intelligence back to that agency about an organisation planning disruption or criminal acts.
Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 June 2012, c101WH)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood, Conservative)

Could the Minister clarify whether RIPA also applies to ACPO’s responsibility for an undercover officer and its status as a private company? Moreover, did ACPO have any involvement in the Lambert case, or did it become involved only in later operations?
Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 June 2012, c102WH)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Nick Herbert (Minister of State, Justice; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

I will clarify that point later, but my understanding is that the accountability lies with chief constables, not ACPO. I am aware of and share my hon. Friend’s concern about ACPO and its status. I hope and believe that it will be addressed, but if there is anything further to say about the matter, I will write to him.
Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 June 2012, c102WH)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood, Conservative)

I am thinking in particular of the environmental protests at Ratcliffe-on-Soar, where it emerged that ACPO was responsible for the management of undercover officers. I am delighted that since then, Ministers have ensured the transfer of the powers involved to the Metropolitan police.
Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 June 2012, c102WH)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Nick Herbert (Minister of State, Justice; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is correct about the responsible unit, and that important change has enhanced accountability.

RIPA applies to each of the instances that I have mentioned, because the true nature of the relationship, which involves reporting back covertly to a public authority what has been said or done, is hidden from the other person or people being talked to. In every case, RIPA requires that authorisation is only given if it is necessary and proportionate. RIPA sets out who can make a decision to deploy a covert source and for what purpose the deployment might be made. RIPA codes of practice provide practical guidance on how best to apply the regulatory framework and how to observe the human rights principles behind authorisations. External oversight and inspection is provided by the chief surveillance commissioner, and independent right of redress is provided by an investigatory tribunal for anyone who believes that they have been treated unlawfully.

That is the current system, which was not in place when Lambert was deployed, but does it work? The published annual reports of the chief surveillance commissioner indicate that, in the main, it does, but that has not always been the case. That was shown graphically by the independent report produced by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary earlier this year on the deployment of undercover police officer Mark Kennedy. It showed that there had been failings in the application of the existing system and safeguards, but it went further by making a number of recommendations for ACPO to strengthen both internal review and external quality assurance of undercover officers deployed against domestic extremism. It also invited the Home Secretary to consider the arrangements for authorising the undercover police operations that present the most significant risks of intrusion. In particular, it proposed raising the internal level of police authorisations for the long-term deployments of undercover police officers under RIPA, and establishing independent, external prior approval by the chief surveillance commissioner for long-term deployments of undercover police officers.

The Home Secretary welcomed the HMIC report, and since its publication the Home Office has been working with the inspectorate, ACPO, the chief surveillance commissioner and others on how best to implement its recommendations.
Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 June 2012, c102WH)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green)

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the situation as he sees it, but does RIPA allow undercover police to have sexual relationships with those they are trying to infiltrate? That is one of the points at issue: some say that it does and some say that it does not.
Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 June 2012, c103WH)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Nick Herbert (Minister of State, Justice; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

I will try to respond to the hon. Lady’s question before the end of my speech.

One factor is how we target the type of deployment that causes concern, without imposing an unnecessary or burdensome bureaucracy across a much wider field where the current regime may be said to be working as Parliament intended. We need to ensure that we do not deter members of the public from coming forward to help the police in what can be difficult work. We also need to make sure that officers charged with sensitive, intrusive and dangerous policing in the community are given the support and protection they require. Above all, we need to avoid the mistakes identified in the HMIC report being made again. Our response, when we make it, will have that uppermost in mind.

On the hon. Lady’s call for a public inquiry, the independent HMIC review looked at the broad issues raised by the Kennedy case, and made clear recommendations as to how the current system should be strengthened—a system that was not, in any case, in place when Lambert was deployed. We are considering our precise response to those recommendations. I do not think that it is necessary to conduct a public inquiry.

The hon. Lady raised a number of specific issues, one of which was whether RIPA can be used to authorise a covert human intelligence source to break the law. In a very limited range of circumstances, an authorisation under RIPA part II may render lawful conduct that would otherwise be criminal, if it is incidental to any conduct falling within the Act that the source is authorised to undertake. That depends, however, on the circumstances of each individual case, and consideration should always be given to seeking advice from the legal adviser of the relevant public authority when such activity is contemplated. A covert human intelligence source who acts beyond the limits recognised by the law will be at risk of prosecution, and the need to protect the covert human intelligence source cannot alter that principle.

The RIPA statutory guidance does not explicitly cover the matter of sexual relationships, but it does make it clear that close management and control should

be exercised by the undercover officer’s management team. That will be a relevant factor. The absence of such management gave rise to concern in the Kennedy case.
Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 June 2012, c103WH)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green)

Does the Minister agree that that sort of fudged, grey area means that for women who have had such an experience, and for women and, indeed, men who might have such an experience in the future, this is incredibly unsatisfactory? We simply do not have clear guidelines on whether the action and going that far is legitimate, and that undermines confidence in the system. The Minister has referred to other inquiries that have been conducted, but what has not been conducted is a public, overarching inquiry to consider all the relevant areas.

Moreover, the Minister’s response to the case of Bob Lambert is extraordinarily complacent. Yes, RIPA was not in place at that point, so there can be no criticism that its guidance was not followed, but what is the Minister going to do now, given that the issue is in the public domain and that there could have been serious miscarriages of justice? How will the Minister follow up on that case in particular?
Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 June 2012, c104WH)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Nick Herbert (Minister of State, Justice; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

I would be happy to pursue the matter further with the hon. Lady, if she likes, but I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate to issue specific statutory guidance under RIPA about sexual relationships. What matters is that there is a general structure and system of proper oversight and control, rather than specific directions on behaviour that may or may not be permitted. Moreover, to ban such actions would provide a ready-made test for the targeted criminal group to find out whether an undercover officer was deployed among them. Specifically forbidding the action would put the issue in the public domain and such groups would know that it could be tested.

The Government are certainly not complacent about the Lambert case. We were keen for an independent, wider review of the deployment of undercover officers by HMIC, which is now independent of the Government and reports to Parliament. We are satisfied that its recommendations will further strengthen the proper system of safeguards for the deployment of undercover officers that did not operate when Lambert was deployed.

Sitting s uspended.

Find this story at 13 June 2012

An undercover operation 25 years ago that led to the jailing of two animal rights activists now appears shrouded in mystery

It seemed like – and may well have been – a heroic police triumph that thwarted a campaign to firebomb department stores. When anti-terrorist officers caught two animal rights activists red-handed as they assembled incendiary devices to set fire to branches of Debenhams, it appeared their timing could not have been better.

As police burst in, the Old Bailey was later to hear, the activists were sitting at a table using a soldering iron that was still hot.

But on Wednesday, 25 years after an audacious police investigation led to the jailing of two activists for inflicting damage totalling £9m on three Debenhams stores, new questions have been raised in parliament about the ethics of the operation and the conduct of one particular police spy.

The MP who raised the case – Caroline Lucas of the Green party – conceded that much of the infiltration of a cell of the Animal Liberation Front in 1987 remains shrouded in mystery.

What is unlikely to be disputed is that an undercover police officer, Bob Lambert, adopted a fake identity to live deep undercover among hardcore activists – gaining crucial intelligence about their campaign against the fur trade.

The question raised on Wednesday was whether Lambert went further, potentially acting as agent provocateur. According to the accusation levelled by one convicted activist – and aired by Lucas in parliament – Lambert is suspected of planting one of three incendiary devices in branches of Debenhams. Lambert has strongly denied the allegations.

A long-standing investigation by the Guardian has brought to light various aspects of Lambert’s clandestine surveillance unit, set up in 1968 to gather intelligence about anti-Vietnam war protesters.

Police continue to maintain an army of spies living long-term in activist groups – the most infamous example being Mark Kennedy, who was last year exposed as a police officer after a seven-year deployment among green activists. Kennedy’s double life as ‘Mark Stone’ ended in ignominy last year after it emerged he had developed sexual relations with women while undercover.

Since Kennedy was unmasked, a further eight undercover police officers have been identified, most of whom stand accused of developing sexual relations with activists – behaviour police chiefs insist is banned. They include Lambert, who has apologised for deceiving “law-abiding members of London Greenpeace” during his deployment and admitted he tricked an innocent woman into having a long-term relationship with him, to lend credibility to his alter ego. Lambert also fathered a child with a woman activist he had been sent to spy on.

Responding to Lucas during the parliamentary debate, the policing minister, Nick Herbert, said police officers can start sexual relationships with suspected criminals if it means they are more plausible. He said that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa), the law that has governed their activities since 2000, does not explicity prohibit sexual relations, but requires the operations to be strictly managed.

Herbert said it was important police were allowed to have sex with activists because otherwise it could be used as a test for outing suspected undercover officers.

In his almost total adoption of a new identity, and his willingness to develop close personal relations with women activists, Lambert followed a similar path to that of Kennedy. His journey into the core of the animal rights movement started around 1984.

Like other members of the covert unit, then known as the Special Demonstration Squad, Lambert radically changed his appearance, growing his hair long to reinvent himself as the militant animal rights activist ‘Bob Robinson’.

Insiders from the covert police unit confirm Lambert’s work inside the ALF burnished his reputation as one of their most successful spies. He went on to become a spymaster in the unit before leaving the police for a career as a lecturer at St Andrews University.

However, his respected record was placed in doubt on Wednesday when Lucas raised questions about the extent of his involvement in a campaign to target Debenhams stores with incendiary devices. Lucas admitted “we just don’t know” exactly how far Lambert may have taken his operation.

By 1987, Lambert had infiltrated the small ALF cell co-ordinating arson attacks on stores in protest against their sale of fur. The relatively simple devices – the size of cigarette boxes – were placed under inflammable objects in the stores and were designed to set off the sprinkler systems, causing extensive flooding. They were set to go off at night so that people were not harmed, according to the activists. In July that year, the incendiary devices were simultaneously planted and ignited at three Debenhams stores in Luton, Romford and Harrow. But only two activists – Geoff Sheppard and Andrew Clarke – were caught and convicted. It appeared that the perpetrator who planted the third device had got away.

Lucas told MPs: “Sheppard and Clarke were tried and found guilty but the culprit who planted the incendiary device in the Harrow store was never caught. Bob Lambert’s exposure as an undercover police officer has prompted Geoff Sheppard to speak out about that Harrow attack. Sheppard alleges that Lambert was the one who planted the third device and was involved in the ALF’s co-ordinated campaign.”

She added: “Sheppard says that two months after the three Debenhams stores were set on fire, he and another person were in his flat, making four more firebombs, when they were raided by police. Sheppard alleges that the intelligence for the raid was so precise that it is now obvious that, and I quote, it ‘came from Bob Lambert’ who knew that the pair were going to be there making another set of incendiary devices.”

The suggestion that intelligence gathered by Lambert thwarted two activists planning a firebombing campaign is likely to be uncontroversial. On 9 September, police burst into Sheppard’s bedsit in Hillside Road, Tottenham and caught the pair red-handed surrounded by paraphernalia for making the devices – alarm clocks, copper wire, bulbs and batteries.

Victor Temple, for the prosecution, said at the time: “They were in the process of what was clearly a well-practised method of constructing incendiary devices similar in every significant respect to those used at Harrow, Luton and Romford.”

Previously, Lambert has spoken about his role in the police operation against the ALF, and his specific involvement in the investigation into Sheppard and Clarke, saying: “I succeeded in my task and that success included the arrest and imprisonment of Geoff Sheppard and Andrew Clarke.”

What is likely to prove more controversial is the suggestion, relayed by the MP, that Lambert may have gone further than a mere observer, and planted the third incendiary device in order to bolster his credibility and “reinforce the impression of a genuine and dedicated activist”.

That is an allegation that Lambert has firmly denied. He told the Guardian: “It was necessary to create the false impression that I was a committed animal rights extremist to gain intelligence so as to disrupt serious criminal conspiracies. However, I did not commit serious crime such as ‘planting an incendiary device at the [Debenhams] Harrow store’.”

One possibility is that police chiefs authorised some kind of controlled explosion at the Harrow store – which the court heard suffered £340,000-worth of damage – to maintain Lambert’s cover story. That, however, would raise further questions.

If Lambert did not let off the incendiary device, who did? And if police knew about the plan to start fires in three branches of Debenhams, why did they let them go ahead, causing £9m in damages and lost trade?

Both are likely to be questions explored by an internal Metropolitan police inquiry into the activities of undercover officers in protest groups between 1968 and 2008 – a review that has been continuing for several months.

The Met said in a statement: “Any matters arising from the review will be assessed and where appropriate will be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).”

Whatever the precise nature – if any – of Lambert’s involvement in the firebombing campaign, his success in duping hardened animal rights activists into believing he was a fellow campaigner is beyond doubt.

In 1988 – a year after the Debenhams fire attacks – Lambert later went abroad, telling friends he was escaping the attentions of Special Branch. They could not have known he was in fact one Special Branch’s finest operatives.

Following their arrests in 1987, Sheppard and Clarke were convicted for planting devices in the Debenhams branches. Sheppard was jailed for four years and four months, and Clarke for more than three years. Sheppard was jailed again in the 1990s but says he stopped doing illegal protests some years ago.

Sheppard said he did not doubt the motives of the man he knew as ‘Bob Robinson’ until his true identity was revealed in the Guardian. The convicted activist told the Guardian: “For 24 years I have believed that my friend … Bob Robinson was on the run and had most likely gone to a different country and probably made a new life for himself and I just thought – good for him, he was the lucky one that managed to get away.”

So instinctively did Sheppard trust Lambert, he said, that he was grateful to him when he visited him in jail. Sheppard said: “I remember thinking ‘Bob’s still there for me’. Actually, he was the guy who put me there.”

Clarke declined to talk about his role in the arson campaign but his lawyer, Mike Schwarz, said: “These allegations are very serious. If true, they cast doubt on the safety of my client’s convictions. Over a month ago I wrote to the director of public prosecutions asking about these issues. It is of great concern that the Crown Prosecution Service have still not replied to me.”

His letter to the DPP, Keir Starmer, states that Lambert played an “active, participating and crucial” role in the firebombing campaign, and the failure of prosecutors to diclose his information about his role would render Clarke’s conviction unsafe.

Herbert indicated on Wednesday that the Home Office was not inclined to investigate the Lambert case. It may therefore turn out to be in the courts where the latest allegations are resolved.

Last year the court of appeal quashed the convictions of 20 environmental activists infiltrated by Kennedy. The key issue was the failure by the Crown Prosecution Service to disclose details about Kennedy’s undercover operation to the defence team. On the face of it, the Lambert case presents another example in which police or prosecutors did not disclose all the evidence they had amassed.

In July last year, when overturning the convictions of green activists, the three senior judges said they had evidence indicating Kennedy “was involved in activities that went further than the authorisation he was given” and was “arguably, an agent provocateur”.

During her speech in parliament, Lucas suggested Kennedy may not be the police spy to have “crossed the line”.

“The latest allegations concerning Bob Lambert and the planting of incendiary devices would beg the question: has another undercover police officer crossed the line into acting as an agent provocateur?” she said. “And how many other police spies have been encouraging protesters to commit crimes?”

Find this story at 13 June 2012

Paul Lewis and Rob Evans
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 June 2012 17.40 BST
© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

MP claims that undercover police officer may have ‘crossed the line’ during animal rights activists’ bombing of department store

Ministers have been asked to investigate the police infiltration of a cell of animal rights activists responsible for a firebombing campaign after questions were raised about the ethics of an operation that, it was alleged, may have involved an undercover spy planting an incendiary device in a department store.

The MP who raised the case, which dates back to the 1980s but surfaced only after recent disclosures about the clandestine unit of police spies, suggested it may constitute a case in which “a police officer crossed the line into acting as an agent provocateur”.

Caroline Lucas, parliament’s only Green MP, used a Westminster Hall debate on the rules governing undercover policing to raise the case under parliamentary privilege, and add to calls for a public inquiry into the use of police spies.

Only limited details are known about the mysterious police operation to infiltrate a group of hardcore anti-fur protesters, and Lucas admitted no one could be sure about the precise role played by the undercover police officer, Bob Lambert, who spent years living among the activists having adopted a new identity.

Lambert infiltrated a cell of activists from the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), who detonated three incendiary devices at three Debenhams branches in London in July 1987 as part of a campaign against the sale of fur.

Two activists, Geoff Sheppard and Andrew Clarke, were caught red-handed months later as they prepared for a second wave of arson attacks. They were convicted over the attacks on the stores.

“Sheppard and Clarke were tried and found guilty – but the culprit who planted the incendiary device in the Harrow store was never caught,” Lucas said. “Bob Lambert’s exposure as an undercover police officer has prompted Geoff Sheppard to speak out about that Harrow attack. Sheppard alleges that Lambert was the one who planted the third device and was involved in the ALF’s co-ordinated campaign.”

The MP relayed comments from Sheppard in which the convicted activist said: “Obviously I was not there when he targeted that store because we all headed off in our separate directions but I was lying in bed that night, and the news came over on the World Service that three Debenhams stores had had arson attacks on them and that included the Harrow store as well.

“So obviously I straight away knew that Bob had carried out his part of the plan. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Bob Lambert placed the incendiary device at the Debenhams store in Harrow. I specifically remember him giving an explanation to me about how he had been able to place one of the devices in that store, but how he had not been able to place the second device. So it would seem that planting the third incendiary device was perhaps a move designed to bolster Lambert’s credibility and reinforce the impression of a genuine and dedicated activist. He did go on to successfully gain the precise intelligence that led to the arrest of Sheppard and Clarke – and without anybody suspecting that the tipoff came from him. But is that really the way we want our police officers to behave?”

Lambert, who has admitted having sexual relations with women while operating undercover, has previously spoken about his role in the police investigation of the ALF and his specific role in the operation against Sheppard and Clarke.

However, he firmly denies planting the incendiary device. He told the Guardian: “It was necessary to create the false impression that I was a committed animal rights extremist to gain intelligence so as to disrupt serious criminal conspiracies. However, I did not commit serious crime such as ‘planting an incendiary device at the [Debenhams] Harrow store’.”

Lucas admitted “we just don’t know” exactly how far Lambert may have taken his operation, but said: “Yet, if Sheppard’s allegations are true, someone must have authorised Lambert to plant incendiary devices at the Harrow store. Presumably that same someone may also have given the officer guidance on just how far he needed to go to establish his credibility with the ALF.”

She added: “There is no doubt in my mind that anyone planting an incendiary device in a department store is guilty of a very serious crime and should have charges brought against them. That means absolutely anyone – including, if the evidence is there, Bob Lambert or indeed the people who were supervising him.”

Lucas raised the case of Mark Kennedy, who was revealed last year to have spent seven years living undercover among environmental activists. He also had sexual relations with female activists. Kennedy’s exposure led the court of appeal to quash the convictions of 20 environmental campaigners wrongly convicted of conspiring to break into a power station. The three judges said they had seen evidence that appeared to show Kennedy had been “arguably, a provocateur”.

Lucas said: “The latest allegations concerning Bob Lambert and the planting of incendiary devices would beg the question: has another undercover police officer crossed the line into acting as an agent provocateur? And how many other police spies have been encouraging protesters to commit crimes?”

The MP voiced concerns about other aspects of a longstanding operation to plant spies in protest groups, including the evidence that most of those unmasked in public are suspected of having engaged in sexual relationships with activists. She raised the case of eight women who say they were duped into forming relationships with undercover officers, and who have begun a legal case against police.

She said senior police chiefs had said it was “never acceptable” for their spies to have sexual relations with activists, but the Met had told the women’s lawyers that “forming of personal and other relationships” is permitted under Ripa, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

“So either rogue undercover officers have been breaking the rules set by senior officers, or senior officers have misled the public by saying that such relationships are forbidden,” Lucas said.

The policing minister, Nick Herbert, acknowledged there were questions about the accountability of long-term spies and said the Home Office was considering how better to regulate the area.

He said ministers were considering proposals from a review of the Kennedy case by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, which recommended that future deployments of undercover police officers should be “pre-authorised” by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners.

…

Find this story at  13 June 2012

Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 June 2012 13.29 BST
© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.