The Inspectorate emphasised that the risks of deploying officers in undercover roles must be “better managed”. But it also accepted that operations conducted by Mr Kennedy and others had prevented bombs from being planted and frustrated attacks on the national infrastructure.
The latest report follows the Inspectorate’s probe into the work of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) – now part of the National Domestic Extremism Unit (NDEU) – founded by the Home Office to tackle threats.
HMIs recommended that there needed to be a stronger system of pre-authorisation for undercover deployments where extremist threats were concerned as well as a better risk management process throughout operations.
They also suggested that there should be a clearer definition of domestic extremism to determine whether an undercover deployment was the most appropriate tactic.
In addition, HMIs stressed that there needed to be a “clear separation” between units collecting intelligence on public order issues and those associated with countering extremism.
In the report the Inspectorate fully accepted that undercover operations were “inherently risky” but voiced concern that they had not been adequately controlled.
“This was especially so in the case of Mark Kennedy, where the evidence suggests the risks of intrusion into the lives of members of the public while undercover were not well managed; on occasions, he did not follow the codes of practice…or the instructions of his supervisors; and NPOIU/NDEU did not identify the problems as quickly as they should have,” the document said.
HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Denis O’Connor stressed that undercover operations had been successfully used in the name of public protection.
But he added: “These operations are inherently risky and must only be used when they are necessary and proportionate. NPOIU operations were not adequately controlled in this regard.” |
