I was a ruthless undercover detective, but the new ‘spycops’ law is a catastrophe waiting to happen

The Covert Human Intelligence Source (CHIS) Bill gives state agents immunity from prosecution for crimes committed during their operations.

(Rex)

I was ruthless as an undercover cop. I would manipulate vulnerable drug users to meet their suppliers and infiltrate their criminal networks.

Through this manipulation, I caused great material and emotional harm to many vulnerable people. I held power over them, and I used that power to accomplish the goals of my investigation.

But I was a detective. I was driven by the belief that the end justifies the means. My investigation was more important than the collateral damage it entailed.

Too many people seem not to have noticed that the government has produced a new Covert Human Intelligence Source (CHIS) Bill with little opposition in the Commons. It is now making its journey through the Lords.

This proposed legislation gives state agents immunity from prosecution for crimes committed during their operations. This does not just apply to police, but also to police informants – recruited from the criminal world to do the bidding of their police source handler.

I am speaking with frontline experience. Any detective will tell you that criminals become informants to serve their own interests. Often, informants are useful for getting rid of rivals. The police, meanwhile, are happy enough if results are produced, arrests made and drugs seized. The exchange works for both sides.

Undercover policing is the “nuclear option” of criminal investigation. It is far more intrusive than any other state action. An undercover cop inserts themselves into the fabric of their target’s life. We can make you dance to our tune.

For other, far less intrusive investigative tactics, there is strict external oversight. A simple search warrant requires the examination of a magistrate’s clerk and the agreement of her magistrate. Yet, all of the decisions around police spies are made within policing. This is an utterly perverse ethical gap, whose catastrophic results we see laid bare in the current Spy Cops scandal.

In my undercover role I always knew that I was subject to the rule of law. If I had to commit a crime to protect my covert identity, or my immediate safety, then I had leeway to do so – but later a judge would decide if that crime was, in fact, in the public interest.

So, when I shoplifted to build my “legend” amongst communities of homeless drug addicts – I knew those designer trainers would be entered as evidence and eventually returned to the shop. When I bought drugs with other addicts, I was scrupulous that they take the bag from the dealer first, then pass it to me – so that it could never be said that I had supplied anyone drugs. Both the letter and the spirit of the law are crucial here.

We are told this bill merely formalises in statute what already happens in practice. No. No it doesn’t. It changes everything. Because, in providing blanket immunity, it removes that crucial legal and psychological boundary that we are always subject to the decision of a court – not just fellow police.

The power to grant advance authority to commit crime creates a situation where criminal informants can break the law at will – and know that if they toss a little intelligence to their handler they will never even be investigated.

This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. If you can’t imagine multiple scenarios where this bill creates unintended consequences, then you very simply haven’t spent enough time among covert police or informants.

For the police themselves, there will undoubtedly be much noble intent behind how they adapt to the proposed law and learn how to stretch its boundaries. Police investigators are some of the most driven and hard-working people you’ll ever meet. That is why those boundaries are so important. How they are stretched will likely never be made public. It will be neither confirmed nor denied – but an essential cornerstone of ethical police practice will have been eroded.

Knowing who I was when I was working undercover, I would never have chosen to give myself blanket immunity. Those rules are there for good reason. Here, we must remember Lord Acton’s dictum, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

This bill invites criminality into a realm uniquely susceptible to it. It enforces opacity and impunity onto areas in which transparency and accountability are utterly essential – not just for the safety of our communities, but for the integrity and reputation of policing as a whole.

We have to be absolutely clear-eyed and honest about this. Blanket immunity is blind trust. It is a recipe for disaster and endangers the integrity of law enforcement. I sincerely hope that the Lords decide to stop this happening.

Neil Woods is a former UK police officer and undercover drugs operative. Now he's an active member of the international drug policy reform movement.

Read More

Proposed law ‘would sanction murder and rape by undercover police’

Met Police officers ‘shredded documents linked to undercover inquiry’