CEDAW/C/74/D/126/2018
methodologies of the units during their periods of operation. The average length of
deployment of undercover officers was four to five years. The long duration of
deployment increased the risk of gross intrusion by the officers into the lives of
targeted individuals. Such intrusion was disproportionate to the purpose of the
surveillance.
2.7 Undercover officers from the units adopted false identities and pretended to be
dedicated political activists. Using their false identities, some or many of the officers
pursued long-term and intimate sexual relationships with the authors and other
women. It is believed that the officers formed the relationships to build and maintain
their undercover identities and to increase the officers’ credibility and the trust
afforded to them by activists. The relationships lasted from seven months to nine
years. One of the officers fathered children with one of the authors.
2.8 The authors all suffered psychological harm when they discovered that their
partner or former partner was, or had been, an undercover police officer. Such
deception seriously undermined the authors’ ability to continue or further engage in
political activity and form close and intimate personal relationships. As a result, some
of the authors have been deprived of the opportunity to have biological children.
2.9 None of the authors has received information about why the relationships were
allowed to take place, or about any of their personal data that the State party retains.
The police officers and senior officers involved have not been criminally sanctioned
for the abuses committed.
2.10 On 20 October 2011, A.J. and S.B. filed civil actions against the Commissioner
of Police for the Metropolis before the High Court of Justice. On 18 July 2012, the
five other authors did the same. All of them raised civil common law claims on the
basis of deceit, negligence, misfeasance in public office and assault. The authors
whose relationships with the officers had begun after October 2000, when the Human
Rights Act 1998 entered into force, also raised claims under articles 3 and 8 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(European Convention on Human Rights).
2.11 The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis applied to strike out all of the
authors’ claims on the grounds that they should be heard by the Investigatory Powers
Tribunal. In January 2013, the High Court of Justice struck out the authors ’ claims
regarding the police officers’ engagement in sexual relationships with them, on the
grounds that the claims fell within the scope of Part II of the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and should therefore be considered by the Tribunal.
The High Court of Justice, however, also held that the authors ’ common law claims
could not be struck out because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider the
claims.
2.12 In November 2013, following an appeal by the authors, the Court of Appeal
affirmed the decision of the High Court of Justice. The authors subsequently
requested permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. In their request, the authors
challenged the determination of the lower courts that, under the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000, undercover police officers could be lawfully
authorized to enter into sexual relationships with members of the general public while
using their undercover personae, for the covert purpose of gathering intelligence. On
22 December 2014, the Supreme Court denied the authors’ request for permission.
2.13 The authors pursued their common law claims before the High Court of Justice,
under a conditional fee agreement with their legal representatives. This type of
agreement is premised on a contingency “no win no fee” basis. A claimant losing the
case is liable for the defendants’ costs. Thus, claimants may decide, as the authors
did, to purchase private “after the event” insurance to provide costs protection. The
19-22187
3/15