Former Top Cop Makes WILD Palestine Action Spycops Claim

The undercover policing inquiry, also known as the spy cops inquiry, has been rolling on for more than a decade. Established by Theresa May in 2015, it was expected to conclude within three years. And while critics have argued that it's all taking far too long for justice for those harmed by undercover police to be delivered, it certainly continues to pro provide very revealing insights into how political groups were historically covertly policed, as well as how they might still be to this day. In a new report, Navara Media's Claim and independent journalist Sam Knight reveal how recent testimony at the hearings has revealed how police might still be authorized to have sex with undercover activists, in particular Palestine action activists or others like them. At the center of the story is a man called Roger Pierce. Roger Pierce is a former undercover police officer who during the 1980s embedded undercover with anarchist groups under the pseudonym Roger Thorley. He would go on to become head of Special Branch from 1999 to 2003, the Metropolitan Police Unit that dealt with counterterrorism and police political descent. Special branch was also the home of the Special Demonstration Squad or SDS tasked with infiltrating protest groups. So, if anyone knows how undercover policing works, it's probably Pierce, who has not himself been accused of wrongdoing in this respect. Now, the SDS is one of the main subjects of the inquiry, which has repeatedly revealed how it used grotesque covert techniques to infiltrate perfectly legal groups. They include using the names of dead children and babies to create fake identities. The unit also used intelligence gleaned about construction workers who were also union members to have them blacklisted from jobs. It also surveiled the grieving family of Steven Lawrence, a teenager killed in a racist attack in 1993. And the Met have since admitted that the surveillance was itself racist and that the unit that undertook it committed horrendous abuses. And undercover officers also entered into sexual relationships with members of the public while undercover, with some even fathering children. Now, it's very easy to think this kind of manipulative dishonesty is a thing of the past. Indeed, the historic focus of the Spy Cops inquiry very much gives that impression. But while giving evidence in July this year, Roger Pierce seemed to suggest undercover officers might still be authorized to enter sexual relations for intelligence reasons with activists in some circumstances. While Pierce was keen to point out that while head of special branch, unauthorized sexual relationships while undercover would have been a disciplinary matter for him had they occurred amongst his officers, he also did seem to say that there might be times when they were justified. This is from Navar's report. In a witness statement given in 2013, Pierce listed criteria that would need to be considered to determine when, if ever, it would be acceptable for an undercover police officer to engage in a sexual relationship, which included risk to the officer, risk to the operation, and likely intelligence benefits from continuence, especially where serious crime is anticipated. At the hearing in July, Pierce gave this example of what he thought would be an appropriate case for authorizing undercover police officers to have sex with unwitting activists. and he began with a few examples. >> The kind of situation I'm contemplating is intelligence which leads to exposure of most most likely a terrorist attack or for example um a means of getting behind uh the production of a bomb or even a crude anarchist device. um means of entering or infiltrating um activity involving firearms. Now, in cases where there's high risk of extreme harm, um death, injury, I suppose some people might think those rare and extraordinary circumstances could call for actions that wouldn't be allowed under any but the most extreme conditions. Some people might think that. Perhaps that would be reasonable thing for some people to think. I mean, you may disagree. But then Pierce went on to give an another example which seemed less extreme. >> A means of infiltrating activity involving for example a breach of military bases with an intention to con inflict serious economic damage on as we've seen recently on aircraft. I'm contemplating for example breach of a factory making a particular product to damage equipment in that factory and going equipped with for example sledgehammers with which you may injure a police officer. So I'm I'm contemplating what might might produce the grounds for me to grant authorization, but I'm using existing examples which we've seen reported recently or fairly recently as the kinds of things which might justify that authorization. >> Now that's obviously a reference to an action at Bryce Norton Air Base last year alleged to be have been carried out by Palestine Action in June of 2025. Five defendants in the case plead not guilty to damaging property and the crime the charge of and it's a long one entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejuditial to the safety andor interests of the UK. Uh they pled not guilty to both those charges in January this year. And there was also a very clear reference to the case of an Elbert systems breakin in August of 2024 for which four Palestine a activists action activists rather were found guilty of criminal damage with one of them also found guilty of grievous bodily harm though without intent. So would the police authorize co covert cops to have sex with activists in those circumstances? Clare and Sam try to find out reporting this. A spokesperson for the Met told Navara Media, "We are aware of these comments. However, this PICE's interpretation of the guidance is inaccurate and we rebut this. The conduct described would not be authorized and having a sexual relationship is not an undercover policing tactic. This is covered in the College of Policing authorized professional practice." The College of Policing, however, appeared to provide a different answer with a report saying this. When approached by Navara Media, the College of Policing insisted its current guidance was clear that sex must not be used as an undercover policing tactic, nor should it be authorized as a means of gaining intelligence, and that contrary to Pierce's comments, the guidance does not provide a route to authorize such a relationship. The guidance does however suggest that having sex while undercover could be justified if an officer perceives an immediate threat to themselves and or others if they were not to do so. Now, Navara approached Roger Pierce for a comment on his evidence of the inquiry, but he declined. And the Met would neither confirm nor deny if undercover officers still operate within political groups. The College of Policing told Navara Media it's current it's currently reviewing its guidance and quote will consider relevant developments including recommendations arising from the under ongoing undercover policing inquiry. Others though are not convinced. In 2003, Kate Wilson was tricked into a relationship with undercover officer Mark Kennedy, who posed as an environmental campaigner under the alias Mark Stone. In her mid20s at the time, Wilson dated Kennedy for 16 months, and the pair even moved in together. She is now a campaigner with group Police Spies Out of Lives, and she was shocked by Pierce's remarks, telling Navar Media this. We've established that there was a completely rotten culture that existed in Roger Pierce's day. His comments suggest that culture was perpetuated and may well still exist today. The fact that he was linking what happened in the SDS to what is happening in the activist world today is really important. Earlier today, I was joined by Navar Media's Clare Himer, one of the authors of this report and also our head of articles. I began by asking her what she made of the idea that a very senior retired head of special branch might think that sex could still be a legit legitimate tactic in undercover intelligence gathering. I think it says so many things. I guess the first being that it actually points to how the police's own guidance on this is really quite unclear. Uh on the one hand, the police, the college of policing specifically seems to say it's never acceptable for an undercover officer to engage in a sexual relationship um as a tactic. And then yet at the same time, it also suggests oh actually there might be some instances in which that is okay. And I think Roger Pierce bringing up Palestine action uh in the undercover policing inquiry as an example or specific Palestine action actions as examples of what he thinks it might be acceptable. I think basically really speaks to the fact that to be honest there isn't there aren't you know even to this day even after everything we found out from the undercover police inquiry hard and fast rules about that definitely not being okay to have sex with activists as one of the campaigners that I spoke to for this piece told me it does kind of suggest that the really really um rotten culture which existed in his time um aspects of that could still be playing out So, in the leadup to his using uh two Palestine action cases as an example of when perhaps um sex as a as a tactic, an undercover tactic could be used. He and and the examples he refers to obviously the Brian Norton uh breakin u where uh is alleged to have been by Palestine action. Five people have been charged but they have denied those charges. Um and uh the Filton uh case, the breakin at Elbert Systems Factory in in in Filton. Um he uses those examples which are primarily about property damage. Right. There was one person injured at Filton, but the jury found a person who did it uh guilty of grievous bodily harm, but not guilty of the the greater charge of grievous bodily harm with intent. Um so so those are cases which are you might say you might think largely concerned with criminal damage but in the runup he talks about other kinds of cases. He talks about cases involving stopping the building of a bomb clearly aimed at harming people stopping crimes involving firearms clearly aimed at harming or threatening harm to people. Um why is it do you think he included these cases and and went into such detail about about them being actual cases where the tactic might be might be appropriate? He's drawing this link between things which to most of us we might think these things aren't in any way of the same severity. Uh you know a terrorist attack which kills people versus some people smashing up a factory which itself is creating products which are killing people. Um, I think this basically just really clearly shows Roger Pierce's own political motivations and probably sheds quite a lot of light on the political motivations of uh quite a lot of the police force um and what is um what is perceived as a priority in terms of what police should be spending their time doing. Obviously, we can't read his his mind, but it also seems to be very much in step with the idea that the government is also thinking of terrorism um as involving thing now clearly is involving things like like property damage um in a way that I guess might license police to treat it the same as things like building a bomb when it comes to sex and other covert techniques being used as as as undercover tactics. We're sold this idea that we don't have political policing in this country and that um you know our police isn't the same as in some like super authoritarian state but that's just simply not the case and policing is of course influenced by the priorities of government and uh I think this is as clear an example as we're going to get of that. >> Roger Pierce has now gone on to become an author. How has his time as head of special branch and before that an undercover police officer himself? How has that affected his literature? >> Roger Pierce as a novelist markets himself as you know the former commander special branch um someone who has experience of being a spy cop himself. And it's it's very much a selling point for his spy novels that he's really drawing on that experience and what it was like uh to you know create this realistic realistic fictional world. Um it is quite wild some of the some of the things that he says in his book. you know, he has this a character describes um a uh undercover police officer as someone who's, you know, for queen and country, which is obviously a crazy thing to say. It's this crazy situation where, you know, um so many of these women who were deceived by officers haven't got the justice that they've they've wanted and really, you know, understanding what's happened. And then here's this guy, you know, he leaves the force years ago. He's published multiple spy books um drawing on his experience in his time as um a spy cop and head of special branch. Um you know marketing himself you know in in this quite sexy way and it's just um it just feels like this incredibly bizarre situation um and must feel incredibly cruel for people who've been directly impacted by this. I should say that there have been absolutely no allegations about Roger Pierce himself as an undercover officer um using using sex as as a tactic nor as um authorizing um or managing officers who who used as a tactic while he was head of special branch. Now in your article you have like quite a lot of back and forth with uh the police federation I think on their handbook of of of undercover policing like how how enlightening did you find that or did it leave you in the dark as well? Yeah, I ended up in this really weird kind of back and forth first with the Mets and then the College of Policing. Um the Met basically saying Roger Pierce is wrong. This kind of thing wouldn't be authorized. Um and you know, check out the College of Policing Handbook in order to see that. But then you go to the College of Policing Handbook and you know the first sentence in the relevant section says it's never acceptable for an undercover officer to uh engage in a sexual relationship with an activist. And then in the very next paragraph it suggests that actually there might be an exception to this in the case where um the there's a threat to the officer or threat to others which kind of suggests that actually okay there might be some criteria by which um it's being judged whether or not it is appropriate for a police officer to have sex with activists. And so then I went to the college of policing and asked them this and they just kind of insisted and doubled down that like their guidance was clear. It wasn't acceptable and that um uh Roger Piss is kind of wrong to suggest that the guidance lists criteria by which it might be judged for that to be okay. But anyone can go and read it themselves and see that it isn't it's not clear-cut. Um, and uh, in a way I wonder if there's space being left open there such that if a police officer did do this, there's a way to potentially make it, you know, not a cut and dry case that they've definitely definitely done something wrong. >> Yeah. I guess it in the case of of um you know it being allowed if they perceive an immediate threat to themselves or to others that's down to the judgment of a police officer of what counts as immediate and what what counts as as a threat. Um, and I guess that's something that's only asked about after the event, right? >> Of course. And also, if you just think about also what they're suggesting, the suggestion there, I guess, if you to apply it to Palestine action is the idea that, okay, in this situation where they're about to like break into an arms factory with a sledgehammer, some undercover cop is, you know, would be authorizing going, oh, okay, actually, maybe as a distraction, I'm just going to like stop having sex with someone to like stop this from happening. It's also quite ludicrous imagining that sit situation playing out in reality. Um almost quite comical. >> Um so yeah, it is um it's not at all clear and I wonder if that's potentially deliberate. Now, some campaigners, victims of these undercover tactics in the past have sort of complained about how the historical focus of the uh inquiry sort of conceals from view tactics that are perhaps still in use by by the Met Police and and other other squads involved in in the in these kinds of undercover operations. Others have complained about the fact that the length of the um inquiry which has gone on for over 10 years now uh is also sort of a way of you know in studying history in this great detail is also a way of denying justice to the victims of those tactics. What what do you make of those two claims? One that it's that it conceals current techniques, the other is that it denies denies um victims their their justice. The big thing that campaigners are really worried about at the moment actually is that um the inquiry itself is going to be potentially shut down or at least severely cailed before it actually gets to looking at um more recent cases of undercover policing and how um and misconduct. Um so the home office has is currently running this consultation uh on whether or not to shut it down. They're basically um citing both its length and the cost as potentially a reason a reason to do so. There have been, you know, women who've been waiting since the beginning of the inquiry to learn about how the hell it happened that they were deceived by police officers. They've been promised that the inquiry is going to look into the management of those squads that did that. And now potentially that's not going to happen. Um Iran Khan, the lawyer, wrote um a piece for the Guardian recently um in which he suggests that part of the reason that the inquiry has been um so long and so expensive is because the Met itself has made it such um there have been deliberate obstructions in order to stop things from moving moving quickly. Um and yeah, for for so many of these women, it would just be um absolutely heartbreaking um if if they didn't if they didn't get justice in this way. Um so yes, there's people who are they're calling for a um boycott of the consultation and instead to ask the home office directly, write to the home office directly, asking them to keep the inquiry um so that they can they can hear what they need to hear. That was Navara Media's Clare Himer speaking to me earlier today and if you want to read her full article, we'll leave a link in the description below. Banana, let me get your take on on this and inquiries in general, right? Like one of the things that really striking about them is they get launched >> uh often long after the dust has settled when you know things, you know, like if you think about the Iraq war inquiry, quite a long time after the war itself. Uh this is this is an inquiry that just it's sort of it's looking at a huge stretch of time. Um, and you know, the complaints are often all always the same, which is that it's always retrospective. So, you're never looking forward and or even at the present, and they take so long, they cost so much. This one is looking to be shut down because it's it's taken so long and and costs so much that, you know, we don't actually resolve these issues in the end. And so, for all we know, the police will continue to use these tactics and then there'll be have to be another inquiry in in in in the future. I mean, I know the handbooks say they shouldn't. The Met denies that they do. Um, but I'm sure at the time there were regulations against, you know, forming sexual relationships with people while you, you know, under under false pretenses. Um, I mean, like sexual assault essentially. And, um, yeah, and and the handbook would have said the same, I'm sure. >> Yeah. I mean, it's and it's the the issues and problems that they're so sort of similar like it's very uh cyclical, isn't it? the same types of issues that we get with regards to the way in which the police are, you know, the policing rules operate. Basically, this idea of like discretion and the amount of discretion that the state is willing to give to um senior officers or often individual officers even about the ability to be able to make a decision on the basis of what is or isn't an immediate threat. Think about stop and search rates for example. that's highly discretionary and when you you know you give those types of discretionary decisions to individual officers or to senior officers they often abuse it and they don't necessarily abuse it because they are in of themselves horrible people although I will be honest I think there are some horrible individuals who are attracted to the police because of the power it gives them but because of the nature of I think what policing also is right you know the asks of of of what it is that the state actually is asking the police to do initially means that I think they are incentivized to often behave in the way in which they're behaving even if the state in in in a policy direct policy sense is is prohibiting it or saying that it somewhat prohibits it. The very sort of general or o overarching asks of what the state is asking to do to infiltrate you know these these political groups why are they doing that for example you know um that the ask empowers them to behave in this way or inevitably incentivizes them to behave in this manner. So when they've got that gap around discretion and their own ability to make these discretionary calls, there's a lot of room in there. There's a lot of maneuverment in there for them to then end up going down these these very disturbing um dark paths and and and very brutal paths. You know, I think it's a brutal violent thing, I think, to to have done these things to these women. >> Yeah. Terrible. Really terrible. I mean, I don't understand why the police, excuse me, why the police have the power to covertly monitor perfectly legal groups in many cases. I mean, a lot of these cases are just concerned with, you know, anarchist groups or animal rights groups and, you know, I know obviously if crimes are committed or if there's a suspicion that a crime, that's a different story. But these are just, you know, groups writing pamphlets and, you know, all kinds of, you know, perfectly legitimate legal things to do. I mean, yeah, less infiltrating political groups, more stopping cyclists going through red traffic lights, please. It's going to be controversial, but really, >> yeah. Um, >> yeah. No, I was I was just going to say like your colleague um CLA mentioned as well, you know, um this idea of uh it's gone out of my head now because you've talked about cyclist and it's disappeared. All I can think of is someone running through a running through a red light on a on on a on a bike. Um but yes, sorry. that the the way in which the state is very much directing sorry police and the way in which policing is a function of of the state and and the fact that the state has this issue and problem with um Palestine action with um any kind of disscent around um Palestine and around the genocide that's going on there. You know, that's a direct reflection then in in what's occurring in in in the way in which the police behave, which then means that they do end up doing these ever more increasingly extreme things to justify, you know, justify what the state is directing them and telling them to do. >> Completely