Undercover police officer unlawfully spied on climate activists, judges rule

Mark Kennedy acted as agent provocateur, says appeal court judgment quashing Ratcliffe-on-Soar conspiracy convictions Three senior judges have ruled that the undercover police officer Mark Kennedy unlawfully spied on protesters and arguably acted as an “agent provocateur”. In a damning ruling explaining why they quashed the convictions of 20 climate change activists, the court of appeal judges said they shared the “great deal of justifiable public disquiet” about Kennedy’s infiltration. The judges, who included the lord chief justice, said there had been a miscarriage of justice as a result of prosecutors not disclosing to the defendants vital evidence about the undercover officer. The activists discovered their convictions for conspiracy to break into Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station had been quashed on Tuesday. On Wednesday, giving their reasons for overturning the convictions, the judges made stinging criticisms about Kennedy’s undercover operation, which they said was part of long-term police infiltration of extreme leftwing groups. The judges said Kennedy “was involved in activities which went much further than the authorisation he was given, and appeared to show him as an enthusiastic supporter of the proposed occupation of the power station and, arguably, an agent provocateur”. The suggestion that an undercover police officer may have incited criminal actions is likely to be damaging to Sir Hugh Orde, who has been tipped as a replacement for the outgoing Met commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson. Orde runs the Association of Chief Police Officers, which until recently ran the network of undercover officers sent to spy on political groups. The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, will also be under pressure. His officials are under investigation for failing to disclose evidence about Kennedy’s operation to defence lawyers in the Ratcliffe case. The judgment said: “Something went seriously wrong with the trial. The prosecution’s duties in relation to disclosure were not fulfilled. The result was that the appellants were convicted following a trial in which elementary principles which underpin the fairness of our trial procedures were ignored. “The jury were ignorant of evidence, helpful to the defence, which was in the possession of the prosecution but which was never revealed. As a result justice miscarried.” The inquiry into allegations that the Crown Prosecution Service did not disclose evidence in the case is being led by Sir Christopher Rose, a former appeal court judge. Mark Kennedy Police Protest Crime Court of appeal Rob Evans Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk

Posted by on July 20, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.