Investigation into links between
Special Demonstration Squad and
Home Office

Stephen Taylor
January 2015

 Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2
Objective .................................................................................................................................... 2
Summary of findings .................................................................................................................. 2
1.

Objectives and approach of this review ............................................................................. 5

2.

Background and context ..................................................................................................... 6

3.

Sources of documentary evidence of links between Home Office and SDS ...................... 7
3.2

Home Office ................................................................................................................ 7

3.3

The National Archive ................................................................................................. 10

3.4

Operation Herne ....................................................................................................... 11

3.5

Security Service ......................................................................................................... 12

4.

Analysis of the evidence ................................................................................................... 14

5.

What did the Home Office know of SDS? ..................................................................... 14

6.

How much operational detail were Home Office officials aware of? .......................... 16

7.

Was there less formal dialogue on SDS activities? ....................................................... 18

8.

Were Ministers kept informed of SDS activities? ......................................................... 19

9.

How was the SDS funded by the Home Office? ............................................................ 20

10.

What controversial operational activities were the Home Office aware of? ........... 23

10.1

Covert identities .................................................................................................... 23

10.2

Relationships with undercover officers and individuals in groups ....................... 24

10.3

Issues referred to in Ellison Report - Justice Campaigns ....................................... 25

10.4
Issues referred to in Ellison Report - involvement in criminal activity and
potential miscarriages of justice .......................................................................................... 25
11.
Are there significant operational issues that the Home Office should have been
aware of? ................................................................................................................................. 26

1 Page

 Summary report
Introduction
On 6th March 2014, the Home Secretary as part of her statement to the House on Mark
Ellison QC’s Stephen Lawrence Independent Review, announced the commissioning of a
forensic external review to understand the links between the Home Office and the Special
Demonstration Squad (SDS). This followed a series of critical comments on some of the
activities of the SDS in the Ellison Review. The statement included the following:
”Operation Herne has previously found that the Home Office was instrumental in the
establishment of the SDS in 1968, in the aftermath of the anti–Vietnam War demonstrations
in Grosvenor Square. And it has also previously found that the Home Office initially provided
direct funding for the SDS.
The Home Office was the police authority for the Metropolitan Police at that time, so the
interests of transparency require that we all understand what role the Department played.
My Permanent Secretary has therefore commissioned a forensic external review in order to
establish the full extent of the Home Office’s knowledge of the SDS.”

Objective
The objective of the review is precisely as the Home Secretary has set out: to establish the
extent of the Department’s knowledge of the SDS and its activities, including any knowledge
of particular SDS operations which the Ellison Review has indicated raise cause for concern.
In particular identifying who knew what and when insofar as that is possible from review of
documentation and interviews.

Summary of findings
The headline conclusion is that the Department was supportive of the SDS being created in
1968 and funded certain operational costs until 1989. Metropolitan Police Special Branch
provided a level of accountability through an annual summary in this period. When funding
ceased in 1989, no accountability was required until the SDS closed in 2008 and no
significant evidence was identified of any links to the Home Office throughout this period.
Outside of the annual reviews there is very little evidence to support any Home Office
knowledge of the SDS and in particular no evidence was identified of any influence in
operational activities.
The summaries from each section of the report are repeated below.
This investigation did not identify any retained evidence available in the Department of any
correspondence, discussions or meetings on the SDS for the 40 year period from 1968 to
2008. The only records relating to SDS currently available within the Home Office are very
2 Page

 minimal (24 letters covering the whole 40 year period) and were only recovered recently
from Operation Herne.
Detailed file searches failed to identify any documents of relevance and although a
consistent file reference is available, there is no record to show where this file is or when it
may have been destroyed. The absence of any current record of this reference number in
Departmental systems is a concern given that the material would have been classified as
Secret or Top Secret. It is not possible to conclude whether this is human error or deliberate
concealment.
In headline terms, the Home Office knew that:






Between 1969 and 1989, it was providing a separate and secret budget to meet the
costs of accommodation as well as transport costs for covert officers;
Operations and officers deployed by SDS were extremely covert;
Groups and organisations were deliberately targeted, monitored and infiltrated to
gather intelligence. Over the years, a small number of Home Office officials were
aware of some specific groups;
In the period from 1990 to 2008 after direct funding stopped, only two references
were identified to indicate any Home Office links to the SDS.

The Department was specifically aware of:




A number of the groups which were targeted, monitored and infiltrated each year
from 1969 to 1989;
The type of intelligence gathered from the covert operations, including some specific
cases where arrests followed as a result;
The detailed operational activity and all groups infiltrated in 1983 and 1986.

There is no documented evidence of any Home Office knowledge of:


detailed operational methods or activities other than the retrospective headlines
produced by Special Branch.

It is not possible to say with certainty that there were meetings and discussions on SDS
activities as no records exist. However, it is a reasonable assumption that there would have
been some discussions over the period as it is possible that documents marked Secret or
Top Secret at the time, may have been hand delivered.
In the absence of any available Home Office documentation, there are only three direct
references of any Ministerial involvement or awareness of SDS activities during the entire
period. It is clear that on one occasion, in a year of a significant and risky operation for the
SDS, there was a briefing to the Home Secretary who expressed approval of the activities.
The Home Office authorised and provided the separate and secret budget allocation to
specifically meet the costs of SDS accommodation and transport only, from 1969 to 1989.
3 Page

 This was deliberately kept outside of the mainstream Metropolitan Police funding, possibly
either due to the national significance of SDS work or to maintain the level of secrecy. The
level of funding requested grew significantly year on year. There is no evidence of challenge
to the budget request or scrutiny of expenditure by the Department once the allocation was
agreed.
The correspondence and the history demonstrates valuable intelligence gathering over a
long period by many brave and committed officers. However, the SDS is tainted by some
controversial aspects which are in the public domain. In relation to these, only a small
number of officials in the Department had any knowledge of the SDS over the period.
On the basis of the document review and interviews with former officials, I have seen:






no evidence that anybody in the Department was aware of the practice by some
officers to use identities of dead children;
no evidence that the Department was aware that the agreed arrangements and
Home Office funded accommodation included a risk of SDS officers forming
relationships with individuals within groups under false pretences and the potential
implications of this;
no evidence that any Justice Campaign groups were ‘targeted’ by the SDS. This
includes the Stephen Lawrence Justice Campaign;
no evidence that the Department had any direct knowledge of any criminal activity
and court appearances by SDS operatives which could lead to allegations of
miscarriages of justice at a later date.

However, given the absence of documents within the Department and the passage of time, I
cannot rule out the possibility that, at some point, an individual or individuals within the
Home Office may have:
a) been aware of the tactic to use the identity of a dead child;
b) acknowledged that the squad it was funding included inherent risks of:
 inappropriate relationships forming with individuals within groups;
 criminality; and
 court appearances using a false identity.
The records indicate some actions by SDS officers which would have been of interest to the
Department at the time due to either the high level of risk involved; or the potential for
embarrassment or illegality. There is no evidence that the Department was made aware of
these matters at the time.

4 Page

 Detailed Report
1.

Objectives and approach of this review

1.1

The objective of this review is to establish the extent of the Department’s knowledge
of the SDS and its activities during the 40 year period of its existence. This includes any
knowledge of particular SDS operations which the Ellison Review has indicated raise
cause for concern. In particular, identifying who knew what and when insofar as that is
possible from a review of documentation and interviews. Where sensitive detail has
been omitted from this report for security reasons, it will be provided separately to
the Home Office so that there is a record in the Department.

1.2

The approach has focused on:
i) Identifying potential sources of evidence from the period within the Home Office
and externally;
ii) Reviewing and analysing this evidence;
iii) Tracing and interviewing officials identified within the evidence to discuss issues
arising from the detailed analysis and test recollections from the period.

1.3

I am grateful that all former officials willingly gave time to discuss the subject
regardless of the fact that a considerable period of time had passed since each was in
office:
Exhibit 1: List of interviewees
Name
XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX

Role
Permanent Secretary
Deputy Under Secretary
Permanent Secretary
Assistant Under Secretary
Head of Division
Deputy Under Secretary
Deputy Under Secretary

Relevant Period
1975 - 1977
1978 - 1982
1979 - 1988
1981 - 1983
1983 - 1985
1984 - 1987
1987 - 1989

1.4

I am also grateful for the support and assistance from the Department particularly the
Police Integrity and Powers Unit and Information Management Services (IMS).

1.5

I would also like to note my appreciation for the invaluable support and assistance
from the Operation Herne Team. This team is carrying out a separate and detailed
investigation but allowed me access to all documentation as well as being available to
respond to a range of queries as and when required. This has been pivotal in enabling
this investigation and report to be completed.

5 Page

 2.

Background and context

2.1

The chronology for the history of the SDS is set out in the following exhibit.
Exhibit 2: Chronology of SDS from 1968 - 2008
Date
1968

Commentary
Special Operations Squad formed within Special Branch following Grosvenor
Square demonstration against Vietnam war.
Supported by Home Office which provided direct and dedicated funding.
Special Branch officers deployed to covertly assimilate into protest groups and
report back on tactics.
Agreed to review every 6 months.

1969 - 1989

Reviewed annually by Home Office and annual funding agreed.
Annual summary required by Home Office and annual report required by
Commander of Special Branch. To be prepared by SDS DCI.
No requirement for SDS Annual Report to be reviewed by Home Office
although it was the funding body.

1972-1973

Name changed to Special Demonstration Squad.

June 1989

Annual link to Home Office severed.
Letter from Deputy Under Secretary of State to say that annual authorisation
no longer required. SDS still considered valuable but Home Office has no
further need to know of resource and management aspects unless something
of real concern occurs.

1989-2008

Funded by Metropolitan Police within overall allocation.

1997

Name changed to Special Duties Squad.

2008

Squad ceases to exist.

Source: Operation Herne.
2.2

The evidence from the period demonstrates a valuable role played by the SDS and
brave and committed officers who gathered intelligence which was used to the
benefit of the Metropolitan Police and wider society for a long period. This fact must
be noted. However the context for this review and Operation Herne are the critical
issues in relation to some aspects of the SDS which continue to be relevant today and
are likely to continue to be raised through the courts.

6 Page

 3.

Sources of documentary evidence of links between Home Office and SDS
This investigation did not identify any retained evidence available in the
Department of any correspondence, discussions or meetings on the SDS for the 40
year period from 1968 to 2008. The only records relating to SDS held within the
Home Office are very minimal (24 letters covering the whole 40 year period) and
were only recovered recently from Operation Herne.
Detailed file searches failed to identify any documents of relevance and although a
consistent file reference is available, there is no record to show where this file is or
when it may have been destroyed. The absence of any current record of this
reference number in Departmental systems is a concern given that the material
would have been classified as Secret or Top Secret. It is not possible to conclude
whether this is human error or deliberate concealment.

3.1

InAorder
to assess
of correspondence
SDS activities in the
Office
between
1968
detailed
recordthe
of awareness
Home Office
withHome
Special
Branch
with regard
and
this
review
toby
identify
all potential
sources
overrelied
the period.
to 2008,
the SDS
from
1968has
to attempted
1995 is held
Operation
Herne and
has been
on as
Given
that
much
of
this
period
pre-dated
widespread
computer
use,
the
expectation
the only substantive evidence source for this review.
was that any documents would be available in paper format.

3.2 Home Office
3.2.1 At the start of the review, the only known written evidence available from the
Home Office was a series of 24 letters written from the Department to Special
Branch from 1968 to 1988. The letters mostly deal with funding authorisations
and were recovered from Operation Herne.
3.2.2 Previous exercises in the Department to identify evidence related to the SDS
had failed to identify any documents. Reference to this was identified in two
internal file notes dated October and November 2012 which included the
following comments from that time:

Information Management records reviewed in July 2012 and nothing
identified;

Policy files on development of Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act 2000 (RIPA) reviewed and nothing identified re SDS;

Discussions with members of RIPA development team indicated no
SDS documents identified;

No details unearthed on SDS funding provided by Department from
1969 – 1989 (Memo from official to Home Secretary 1 November
2012).
3.2.3 The letters referred to above contained a consistent file reference QPE 66
1/8/5 in respect of all correspondence and over the entire period. The file
reference is the Queens Peace Series which are files concerning the
7 Page

 maintenance of public order. The number 66 indicates that the relevant file
was created in 1966 which was prior to the SDS being set up. This suggests that
the file title would not refer to the Special Demonstration Squad (or its
previous incarnation SOS).
3.2.4 A search of the Departmental database failed to locate this file or any record to
indicate what may have happened to it. The screenshot below is provided as
evidence that there is no record of this file in the Home Office RMSys system.

Exhibit 3: Outcome of search for key SDS file on Departmental system.

3.2.5 There was however evidence of other files in the same series which were
reviewed to establish any similarities. The analysis is as follows indicating
limited similarities in the neighbouring references in the file sequence:

8 Page

 Exhibit 4: Evidence of Queens Peace File Series in Department (Ref 1-10 only)
File ref:
QPE 66
1/8
1
2
3

4
5

6
7
8
9

Title

Location

Security measures – vetting procedures. No sub-title.
Security measures – continued liaison between
Special Branch and security service, 1966-1969.
Security measures – review of division of
responsibility between Special Branch and security
service, 1967-1968.
Unknown
Unknown

Destroyed 2000
Stored and on
database
Stored and on
database

Missing
Missing –
considered to be the
Departmental SDS
file
Security measures – vetting procedures.
Stored and on
Six monthly conferences, 1968-1971.
database
Unknown
Missing
Security measures – vetting procedures. No sub-title. Destroyed 2000
Security measures – vetting procedures. No sub-title. Destroyed 2000

3.2.6 Existing files either side of the relevant file with reference QPE 66/1/8/3 and 6
as well as file QPE 66/1/8/50 were all recovered and checked to test for
misfiling and no items of relevance were identified.
3.2.7 The Information Management data storage process uses a bar coding system
for all files submitted for storage and this has been the case since around 1995.
All files in the system should have a clear record of where they are stored or
when they were destroyed. In this way, there is a clear trail for all files and this
clearly worked for six out of the nine examples in the table above.
3.2.8 In discussions with IMS staff, the failure to identify a known file reference
could be due to a number of reasons including:
i)
Destroyed prior to bar coding system being introduced and no
record kept;
ii)
Destroyed in accordance with procedures since but record deleted;
iii) Wrongly recorded by IMS;
iv) Still held by someone within the Department;
v)
Lost;
vi) Destroyed but outside of normal procedures.
3.2.9 In the absence of the above file, opportunity was taken to search the
Department’s database with the help of staff in Information Management and
using a range of key words. These searches failed to identify any direct
references to the SDS on any files on the database. A sample of files was
9 Page

 recovered from storage where it was felt that there could potentially be some
relevant documents but these also contained no material relating to the SDS.
3.2.10 An electronic data search was also requested so that the Information
Management Team could check for any electronic documents that might refer
to SDS on the Corporate Filing Plan (CFP). This also revealed no items.
3.2.11 Finally, this review took place at the same time as a separate review into
historical child abuse and potential missing files relating to this. This separate
review included a physical search of all storage facilities within the Department
to ensure that any ‘missing’ files have not simply been forgotten or left in a
desk or cupboard. The brief for this work was extended to include searching for
SDS references and a number of files were recovered for scrutiny.
3.2.12 The files recovered largely related to more recent deliberations relating to the
SDS and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) which was created
in 1999 with a similar brief. Some older files were also recovered but there
were no references or documents relating to the SDS.
3.2.13 On the basis of above, my conclusion is that the key file which contains the
evidence of Home Office interaction in relation to the SDS from 1968 to 2008
probably no longer exists and there is no record of what happened to it. It is
known that this file would have included documents classified as Secret and
Top Secret. The absence of any record of the file or the known reference
number in Departmental systems is a concern and it is not possible to conclude
whether this is human error or deliberate concealment.
3.2.14 Furthermore, outside of the series of letters obtained from Operation Herne,
and on the basis of detailed investigation as part of this review, there appears
to be no record in the Department of anything related to the SDS during its
years of operation from 1968 – 2008.

3.3 The National Archive
3.3.1 Whilst it is considered unlikely that any relevant material would be retained in
The National Archive (TNA) due to its nature, this was explored for
completeness.
3.3.2 The Public Records Act 1958 requires government departments to select
records for permanent preservation within a statutory timeframe (currently in
transition from 30 to 20 years) and in line with The National Archives advice
and guidance including the records collection policy.

10   P a g e

 3.3.3 Public records selected for permanent preservation are reviewed for sensitivity
and transferred to The National Archives as open records, as closed records (or
with closed extracts) in line with the Freedom of Information Act, or retained
by the government department if approved by the Lord Chancellor. Requests
to retain records beyond the usual 30 year period are approved by the Lord
Chancellor after consideration by the Advisory Council on National Records and
Archives. Retention of records should be reviewed every 10 years. Feedback
from TNA suggested that only 5% of documents are archived.
3.3.4 File searches were undertaken on the QPE reference noted earlier and the
evidence obtained from TNA records replicated the summary shown in the
table above. The TNA records use reference HO325 for the QPE series and
there is no reference in TNA to file QPE 66 1/8/5 on the database. However,
the other recorded files in Exhibit 4 were identified.
3.3.5 A series of file searches were also carried out using key words and no
references to SDS were identified.

3.4 Operation Herne
3.4.1 Operation Herne is the independent investigation led by Chief Constable Mick
Creedon into the SDS with terms of reference to review the former SDS from
its origin in 1968 to closure in 2008. The review covers a wide range of
activities and to date, Operation Herne has produced three reports on: Use of
Covert Identities, Allegations of Peter Francis and Mentions of Sensitive
Campaigns.
3.4.2 In order to carry out the on-going investigation, Operation Herne has managed
to secure a considerable volume of documentary evidence related to the SDS.
This includes:

paper documents from the historical Special Branch archive,
Commanders Archive and the Metropolitan Police general archive;

personnel, legal and professional services records; and

data recovered from 38 SDS hard drives which comprise 50,000
electronic files.
3.4.3 Documents have been scanned and stored on the Counter Terrorist Home
Office Large Major Enquiry System (CT HOLMES) and the Forensic Tool Kit (FTK)
is available to interrogate the hard drives including deleted files.
3.4.4 Full access to the Operation Herne data has been allowed as part of this review
within parameters agreed to preserve the integrity of the investigation. The
paper documents include the Metropolitan Police copies of correspondence
11   P a g e

 with the Home Office from 1968 to 2008 plus reports and memos which
include Home Office references.
Operation Herne paper files
3.4.5 The paper files reviewed comprised a significant volume of material including:

Annual correspondence from Special Branch to Home Office seeking
on-going authority and the budget requests for SDS;

The internal Metropolitan Police requests for release of the Home
Office funding once allocated; and

Annual reports on SDS.
3.4.6 The records include 48 documents directly linked to the Home Office over the
period together with a range of other documents of indirect interest. The vast
majority of detailed documents of interest are in the period from 1968 to 1989
which was the point where direct funding from the Home Office ceased. The
material is analysed in detail in the following section.
CT HOLMES
3.4.7 Analysis of the CT HOLMES system and interrogation of key words identified
scanned copies of the above paper documents and some additional material
which has also been analysed.
Forensic Tool Kit
3.4.8 The Forensic Tool Kit was used to interrogate the 38 SDS hard drives and
50,000 recovered files. This again used key words and identified only one
reference to a document already seen which dated from 1989. Given that
Home Office direct funding ended in 1989 and there is limited paper
documentation after this date, this is not surprising.
3.4.9 In summary, although no substantive records were found within the
Department, it is argued that the Operation Herne data represents the most
complete record available for the purposes of this review. It is not possible to
say that this includes all evidence of all Home Office interaction with the
Metropolitan Police on SDS matters. However, the absence of any significant
data from other potential sources suggests that there is a high probability that
the Operation Herne material is all that exists.

3.5 Security Service
3.5.1 The opportunity was also taken to discuss the review and review any relevant
documentation held by the Security Service. In response to a request from
the Operation Herne Team, the Security Service had previously searched all
12   P a g e

 systems and collated all available documents which referred to the SDS. A
report based on this information, giving an overview of MI5's relationship
with the SDS, was made available for the purpose of this review, as were the
parameters of the searches, which were confirmed to be thorough. However,
the report includes the caveat that it is not possible to state with certainty
that this identified every document and every reference.
3.5.2 The files confirm that the Security Service was aware of the SDS from 1974
and was involved in regular liaison from that period. The liaison relationship
was largely based on SDS provision of intelligence arising from SDS
operations, where that intelligence was relevant to the functions of the
Security Service.
3.5.3 There was no evidence in the documents reviewed of any liaison or
correspondence between the Security Service and the Home Office in
relation to the SDS. Indeed the only reference to the relationship between
the Home Office and the SDS on the files related to a conscious decision by
Special Branch not to refer a specific operational matter to the Department.

13   P a g e

 4.

Analysis of the evidence

4.1

The significant Home Office documents are the annual requests from Special Branch
for funding up to 1989 which were responded to by the Home Office with an emphasis
on the need to ensure that the arrangements remained secret. Much of the
correspondence with Home Office references also refers to routine administrative
matters such as provision of cash advances from within the Metropolitan Police once
the Home Office funding allocation had been provided, and transportation.

4.2

The detailed evidence within Operation Herne includes an annual report on activities
and intelligence gathered which became more thorough and detailed over the years.
There is no evidence that the detailed reports were routinely seen by the Home Office
during the years of operation. Indeed in 1982, an internal police file note explicitly
confirms this. The only exception was years 1983 and 1986 when it was clear that the
detailed operational reports were reviewed by the Home Office. This is covered later.

4.3

The table in Appendix A (omitted from published report due to classification)
summarises the main issues within the documentation for each year together with the
Home Office personnel involved. Most items were classified as ‘Secret’ and any ‘Top
Secret’ items are identified. The more detailed analysis of each item of
correspondence is not appropriate for this report and has been provided separately.
Additional information setting out issues of interest to the Department has also been
provided separately for security reasons.

5.

What did the Home Office know of SDS?
In headline terms, the Home Office knew that:





5.1

Between 1969 and 1989, it was providing a separate and secret budget to
meet the costs of accommodation as well as transport costs for covert
officers;
Operations and officers deployed by SDS were extremely covert;
Groups and organisations were deliberately targeted, monitored and
infiltrated to gather intelligence. Over the years, a small number of Home
Office officials were aware of some specific groups;
In the period from 1990 to 2008 after direct funding stopped, only two
references were identified to indicate any Home Office links to the SDS.

The evidence shows that the Home Office initially agreed to the concept and
establishment of the SDS in 1968 following the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations. The
establishment of the SDS as a secret and covert unit required officers to have
accommodation and the Home Office funded this directly through a separate budget
to the Metropolitan Police from 1969 until 1989.
14   P a g e

 5.2

An annual summary of SDS activity was prepared by Special Branch and there is no
evidence that this was seen by Home Office officials with the exception of years 1983
and 1986. However, headlines from the annual report were included in the annual
budget request to justify on-going funding and broadly indicate the types of groups
and organisations being infiltrated and the intelligence being gathered. These reports
vary in detail over the years as demonstrated in Appendix A (omitted from published
report due to classification).

5.3

The budget request and approval of the separate sum was specifically to pay for the
expenses of covert officers who were living separate lives. The annual letters refer to
the costs of accommodation as well as equipment for the accommodation. Transport
costs for covert officers were also met by this separate allocation from the Home
Office.

5.4

Initially, the view from the Home Office was that the squad should not be a
permanent fixture. Much of the correspondence from the Home Office throughout
the early period is explicit about the need to maintain the highest level of secrecy. One
letter in 1969 refers to concerns that the arrangements ‘could leak out and criticise
the Home Secretary’ and one in 1970 refers to the potential for ‘acute embarrassment
to the Home Office’. It is clear from the correspondence that this nervousness in the
early years related to the fact that accommodation was being funded by the
Department rather than specific operational issues.

5.5

In interviews with former officials as part of this investigation, there was very little
recollection of anything related to the SDS and no official could confirm exactly why
the letters from the Department expressed such a degree of nervousness. The most
obvious explanation was, as expected, that it was due to the unconventional nature of
the policing activity which focused on deliberate targeting and infiltration of certain
groups.

5.6

Direct budget allocation ceased from 1990 with a message from the Deputy Under
Secretary of State at the time that the Home Office no longer needed to be aware of
resource and management issues unless issues of real concern occurred. Once the
formal funding link had been severed and accountability was no longer required, there
appears to have been very little involvement from the Department. Apart from two
references, this investigation did not identify any evidence of any links between the
Department and the SDS from this point until the unit closed in 2008.

15   P a g e

 6.

How much operational detail were Home Office officials aware of?
The Department was specifically aware of:




A number of the groups which were targeted, monitored and infiltrated each
year from 1969 to 1989;
The type of intelligence gathered from the covert operations, including some
specific cases where arrests followed as a result;
The detailed operational activity and all groups infiltrated in 1983 and 1986.

There is no documented evidence of any Home Office knowledge of:


detailed operational methods or activities other than the retrospective
headlines produced by Special Branch.

6.1

The annual report produced by Special Branch sets out the detailed activities of the
SDS each year from 1968 for internal police use only. These reports list all groups
targeted, monitored and infiltrated in the year as well as the intelligence gathered but
do not specify any methods of working or detailed covert operational issues. There is
certainly no evidence at all of any Home Office influence in relation to the targeting
and infiltration. Officials interviewed as part of the investigation were quite clear that
the Department would not have interfered in operational matters which are the remit
of the police.

6.2

The headlines from these reports formed the basis of the annual funding letters to the
Home Office and over the years included some examples of the groups infiltrated, key
events and intelligence gathered. On two occasions, Home Office officials requested
more details and there is clear evidence that the reports for 1983 and 1986 were seen
by officials.

6.3

The 1983 report review followed a request by the Deputy Under Secretary of State
XXXXXXXXXXXXX on behalf of the Permanent Secretary XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX for more
information to see how the squad had adapted since its inception. A review was
undertaken by an official and whilst there is reference to a report being produced, this
has not been traced. All officials have been contacted as part of this investigation and
whilst there was some limited recollection of the SDS, none had any recollection of
the review or a report being prepared.

6.4

In respect of the 1986 report, a similar request came from the Deputy Under Secretary
of State, XXXXXXXXXXX who was new in office. On both occasions, the Department
was satisfied with its findings and funding continued albeit only until 1989.

16   P a g e

 Exhibit 5: Headlines from operational activities seen by HO officials in 1983 and 1986
(Full detail of groups provided separately for security reasons).
1983 Annual Report
Operational activity
48 groups infiltrated or monitored and all
named;

1986 Annual Report
Operational activity
63 groups infiltrated or monitored and
all named;

Intelligence summarised from key activities
including detailed intelligence gathered from
some groups:
 Number of activists;
 Organisational developments;
 Campaigns by groups and planned
campaigns;
 Potential threats.

Intelligence summarised from key
activities including detailed intelligence
gathered from some groups:
 Number of activists;
 Organisational developments;
 Campaigns by groups and
planned campaigns;
 Reference to individuals
detained following SDS
intelligence;
 Potential threats.

Personnel
Number of officers in field and supervisors.
Welfare
Details providing assurance on how isolation was
managed.
Security issues
Assurances on security and comment on
subsequent deployment.
Accommodation
Comments on scarcity in London, costs and need
to change.
Transport
Details on covert officers’ transportation.
Budget
Details of expenditure and variances from
budget for year. Highest cost was rents (£14,731
and misc. operational expenses £12,768).

Personnel
Number of officers in field and
supervisors.
Welfare
Details providing assurance on
supervision to ensure welfare issues
managed.
Security issues
Assurances on security and refers to
liaison with Security Services and post
field counselling.
Mentions awareness of potential for
infiltration within groups being targeted
and unsuccessful efforts by freelance
journalists to unearth covert officers.
Promotion
Notes exam failures.
Accommodation
Comments on costs and changes
required.

Transport
Details on covert officers’ transport.
Budget
Details of expenditure and variances
from budget for year.

17   P a g e

 7.

Was there less formal dialogue on SDS activities?
It is not possible to say with certainty that there were meetings and discussions on
SDS activities as no records exist. However, it is a reasonable assumption that there
would have been some discussions over the period as it is possible that documents
marked Secret or Top Secret at the time, may have been hand delivered.

7.1

There is no evidence of any dialogue in relation to the SDS outside of the
correspondence from Operation Herne. It is inconceivable that there would have been
no discussions within the Department or with Special Branch or the security services.
In particular, it is possible that the annual reports may have been delivered by hand
which could have prompted a discussion. However, the nature of the SDS suggests
that these may not have been recorded, and if they were, there is no available record.

7.2

In discussions with an official who was in post in 1984, he was able to recall
discussions on the SDS with the Commander and Deputy Assistant Commissioner at
the time but quite understandably did not recall any of the detail.

7.3

Another former official who was directly involved in the authorisation of the annual
budget in the 1980s could not recall the process but did suggest that any such
authorisation at the time would have normally been accompanied by a short briefing
either verbally or in writing by a civil servant. This would have provided the senior civil
servant with the assurance that the letter could be signed with confidence. As stated
above, no records could be found to support this.

7.4

A report into the SDS was prepared by a Detective Sergeant in the Metropolitan Police
in 2008 which has been made available as part of this review. This was a desktop
review based on paperwork without the benefit of any interviews. It asserts that ‘It
would appear, reading between the lines, that personal briefings were the order of
the day’. There is no evidence to support this assertion portraying a closer relationship
and as part of this review, the original author has confirmed that the comment was
informed speculation on his part. This was possibly on the basis that many of the
letters authorising SDS continuation are rather bland implying that there must have
been separate conversations.

18   P a g e

 8.

Were Ministers kept informed of SDS activities?
In the absence of any Home Office documentation, there are only three direct
references of any Ministerial involvement or awareness of SDS activities during the
entire period. It is clear that on one occasion, in a year of a significant and risky
operation for the SDS, there was a briefing to the Home Secretary who expressed
approval of the activities.

8.1

Without the ability to refer to any Home Office records, it is not possible to confirm
how aware the Home Secretary would have been at any time. The evidence available
from Operation Herne does provide five references (three direct) only during the 40
year period. The final reference is the only one post 1989 and was in CT HOLMES:
Exhibit 6: Evidence of Ministerial involvement

8.2

Year
1969

Home Secretary
J Callaghan

Reference
Indirect reference
Letter from HO refers to concerns that information on
SDS arrangements ‘could leak out and criticise Home
Secretary.

1970

R Maudling

Annual letter from HO mentions that SDS was discussed
with Home Secretary.

1973

R Carr

Indirect reference
Letter in December 1971 requested an update in
January/February 1973 to allow Home Secretary to be
consulted. (No evidence available to confirm that this
happened).

1988

D Hurd

Letter from Deputy Under Secretary of State mentions
that SDS work has been referred to Home Secretary ‘who
expressed his approval’.

1993

M Howard

Minister was due to meet SDS with Commissioner to
thank them for efforts during Welling riots. Ultimately,
the Home Secretary was unable to attend.

The feedback to the Home Secretary in 1988 followed the Home Office review of the
SDS letter and summary report for 1987 which includes references to infiltration of a
number of groups and in particular the arrest of two individuals (activities not
described here but provided separately to Department) at ‘great risk to an SDS
officer’.

19   P a g e

 9.

How was the SDS funded by the Home Office?
The Home Office authorised and provided the separate and secret budget
allocation to specifically meet the costs of SDS accommodation and transport only,
from 1969 to 1989. This was deliberately kept outside of the mainstream
Metropolitan Police funding, possibly either due to the national significance of SDS
work or to maintain the level of secrecy. The level of funding requested grew
significantly year on year. There is no evidence of challenge to the budget request
or scrutiny of expenditure by the Department once the allocation was agreed.

9.1

Between 1969 and 1989, the Home Office provided a separate and secret budget to
the Metropolitan Police to meet certain costs of the SDS on the basis of the annual
request outlined above. The annual budget started as £3,000 and had grown to
around £49,000 by 1988/89. The budget request was specifically for accommodation
and related costs plus transport only. In 1989, annual authorisation of the specific SDS
allocation ceased and the SDS was funded from within the overall Metropolitan Police
allocation until 2008. The last figure seen in the files quoted a budget of £108,788 in
1995.

9.2

The table below indicates the budget allocations throughout the period:
Exhibit 7: Budget allocation from Home Office for direct funding 1969 – 1989.
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972/73
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76

Budget £
3,000
3,500
4,000
5,5001
6,500
7,500
8,600

Year
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
81/82 update

Budget £
8,600
9,800
11,200
16,8802
19,400
22,310
25,000

Year
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
1985/86
1986/87
1987/88
1988/89

Budget £
30,000
35,000
42,000
42,000
45,000
46,575
48,996

9.3

The peculiar point about the funding is that it was a specific and separate allocation
requested by Special Branch and just in order to pay for accommodation and transport
costs which were authorised by the Department. For 20 years from 1969 to 1989, the
Home Office provided this annual budget separately rather than within the main
allocation to the Metropolitan Police.

9.4

Most letters were personally addressed to the Permanent Secretary or a Deputy
Under Secretary and classified as Secret or Top Secret. This point has been discussed
in the interviews with former officials who were the addressees and signatories of the
annual letters. The passage of time is acknowledged and none could recall the process

1
2

Change in financial year from calendar year. Budget allocation for 15 months.
Includes consolidation of £4,000 previously funded from the Met Police Incidental Fund.

20   P a g e

 of annual budget approval or why the budget was separate. However, one former
Permanent Secretary speculated that it may have been an agreed method to maximise
the secrecy because of the unconventional nature of the expenditure. Keeping it
outside of the mainstream allocation would have enabled knowledge to be contained
within a few people without the need for a formal audit trail.
9.5

Another Permanent Secretary helpfully suggested that there always was a special
arrangement for the financing of Metropolitan Police work of national significance.
This was based on an argument that the Metropolitan ratepayer should not bear the
whole cost of Ministerial and Royalty Protection for example. The same point was also
suggested by a former Deputy Under Secretary and if correct, this was a natural
precedent for a special arrangement for the Special Demonstration Squad.

9.6

In my view, both of the above provide a plausible rationale for separate funding in
order to minimise scrutiny. There is no record to indicate why this suggested rationale
(if correct) changed from 1989 and became part of the mainstream funding.

9.7

The level of funding requested from the Home Office included modest increases
slightly above inflation from 1969 until after 1980. At this point, the annual increases
in the budget requested from the Home Office were in the order of £5,000 to £7,000
or 17% to 25% when inflation was significantly lower than this. In 1983 and 1984, the
large increases related to growth in strength of the unit and associated
accommodation costs.

9.8

The graph below illustrates the funding growth over the period under Home Office
authority with a comparison made against basic RPI data for the period as a crude
comparator.
Exhibit 8: Graph of growth in budget from 1969 to 1989 compared to inflation.
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000

Budget £
RPI

10000
0

21   P a g e

 9.9

The correspondence reviewed for the period gives no indication of challenge from the
Home Office in respect of the funding in any year. It appears that the request from
Special Branch with a figure was readily agreed to without any comment, negotiation
or scrutiny unless this was off the record. Given the significant growth in some years,
this is surprising, although possibly explained by the fact that it was such a small part
of overall police expenditure.

9.10 Once the allocation was approved and provided to the Home Office, it was managed
within the Metropolitan Police Finance Departments. Evidence indicates that certainly
in the early years of the SDS, all dealings were in cash with covert officers being
provided with cash sums to pay accommodation costs and other expenses directly. It
is not possible to confirm how long this continued for. There are occasional references
to audits from the Metropolitan Police Finance Department which reconciled cash in
hand to receipts and dockets. There is no evidence of review by the Home Office in
relation to financial control and value for money from its resources in the entire 20
year period until the budget became part of the overall allocation.
9.11 The expenditure details in the two annual reports reviewed in 1983 and 1986 are the
only references that would definitely have been seen by the Department but there is
no commentary available to indicate any judgement on this. In order to provide some
context and background detail, the analysis of expenditure from 1982/83 is provided
below:
Exhibit 9: Expenditure details from 1982/83 as shown in Annual Report
Item
Rents
Gas and electric
Phone
Rates
Operational expenses (equipment for flats, subscriptions and fees,
publications, transport costs, etc.)
Total

Expenditure £
14,732
1,275
1,032
1,663
12,768
31,470

22   P a g e

 10. What controversial operational activities were the Home Office aware
of?
The correspondence and the history demonstrates valuable intelligence gathering
over a long period by many brave and committed officers. However, the SDS is
tainted by some controversial aspects which are in the public domain. In relation
to these, only a small number of officials in the Department had any knowledge of
the SDS over the period.
On the basis of the document review and interviews with former officials, I have
seen:






no evidence that anybody in the Department was aware of the practice by
some officers to use identities of dead children;
no evidence that the Department was aware that the agreed
arrangements and Home Office funded accommodation included a risk of
SDS officers forming relationships with individuals within groups under
false pretences and the potential implications of this;
no evidence that any Justice Campaign groups were ‘targeted’ by the SDS.
This includes the Stephen Lawrence Justice Campaign;
no evidence that the Department had any direct knowledge of any criminal
activity and court appearances by SDS operatives which could lead to
allegations of miscarriage of justice at a later date.

However, given the absence of documents and the passage of time, I cannot rule
out the possibility that, at some point, an individual or individuals within the
Home Office may have:
a) been aware of the tactic to use the identity of a dead child;
b) acknowledged that the squad it was funding included inherent risks of:
 inappropriate relationships forming with individuals within groups;
 criminality; and
 court appearances using a false identity.

10.1 Covert identities
10.1.1 The first report by Operation Herne referred to the practice by some SDS
officers to use identities of dead children as part of the cover story. Operation
Herne has confirmed in its reports that this practice was used by some, but not
all of the SDS operatives over the period. The report suggests that over 40
officers used this tactic from around 1971 until the practice ceased around
1995.
10.1.2 This practice was set out in the informal rules and guidance for the SDS, the
‘Tradecraft’ manual and endorsed by SDS management. This investigation has
identified no evidence that the Home Office had any awareness of this tactic at
the time. Former senior officials interviewed as part of this investigation are
23   P a g e

 aware of the practice now via media reports and some were adamant that had
the Department been aware, the practice would not have been tolerated.
10.1.3 Whilst acknowledging the strength of opinion of those interviewed, it is clear
that the tactic was accepted as routine and promoted by SDS management. I
cannot therefore rule out the possibility that, at some point, someone in the
Home Office may have been aware of it.
10.1.4 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX

10.2 Relationships with undercover officers and individuals in groups
10.2.1 This issue remains subject to legal action and has been reported in the press in
some depth. In relation to this brief, the issue is whether the Home Office was
aware of the implications and risks of relationships developing between SDS
officers and individuals within the groups being targeted.
10.2.2 There is no evidence or reference to this in any of the documents reviewed.
However, the correspondence in the early years stresses the nervousness of
the Department and in 1969 this refers specifically to ‘the unconventional
nature of the accommodation’. It is not possible to explain exactly what this
meant.
10.2.3 In a situation where young officers were assuming a separate identity and
encouraged to infiltrate groups, it is likely that they would need to gain the
trust and confidence of individuals over a long time. As a result of this, recent
records in the public domain allege that certain officers had intimate
relationships with group members and further allege these developed under
false pretences. This will continue to be tested at some point in the future by
the courts and therefore no further comment is appropriate here.
10.2.4 I have discussed this point with retired officials who could not recall the risk
being considered. When tested on the specific point, the universal view was
that this would have been a matter for SDS management to deal with through
promoting the appropriate culture and dealing with any issues as they arose.
10.2.5 During the period of the SDS, there were only a small number of officials in the
Department who were close to SDS matters and understood the method of
deployment. In my opinion, it is reasonable to suggest that some of these may
have acknowledged and accepted that there was a risk of relationships forming

24   P a g e

 which could potentially cause significant difficulties at a later date. However, in
the absence of evidence, this is only speculation.

10.3 Issues referred to in Ellison Report - Justice Campaigns
10.3.1 The brief for this review followed the Ellison Report into the Stephen Lawrence
investigation and Inquiry. This report in March 2014 included consideration of
‘whether there was inappropriate undercover activity directed at the Lawrence
family’. The report was unable to arrive at a definitive conclusion on this point
which drew on allegations from a former SDS operative.
10.3.2 The activity of SDS operatives in relation to this and other justice campaigns
was reported separately in the third Operation Herne report in July 2014. This
concluded that ‘There is no evidence of covert operations targeted against any
of the respective families or Justice Campaigns’. The Herne report thus
provides a response to the issue on ’targeting’ the Stephen Lawrence campaign
that was not definitive in the Ellison report. I have seen no evidence to
contradict this conclusion.
10.3.3 In the two years when the Home Office did have access to the detailed SDS
activity (1983 and 1986), the list of groups includes a small number of justice
campaigns (not disclosed here). I have confirmed that these were included on
the list as peripheral to larger groups they may have allied to. The larger groups
were targeted and peripheral intelligence on justice campaigns gathered as a
result. I have seen no evidence that justice campaigns were infiltrated directly.
10.3.4 Outside of the above, there is no documented evidence of any Home Office
involvement or awareness in any SDS operations in the entire period under
review and no feedback on any intelligence gathering post 1989.

10.4 Issues referred to in Ellison Report - involvement in criminal activity and
potential miscarriages of justice
10.4.1 The Ellison report included a postscript on Undercover Policing which
mentioned the potential for SDS operatives to become involved in criminal
activity because of the nature of their deployment. Indeed, the report
concludes that ‘the concept was, it appears, approached flexibly by some
officers’. Records show that where this happened, officers went through the
court process in the undercover name and the Ellison report poses the
question of whether this deceit may have led to unfairness in proceedings. This
is now part of a separate investigation.
10.4.2 The evidence suggests that the risk was understood and accepted by Special
Branch. There is no evidence that the Home Office was directly aware of any
25   P a g e

 instances but it is argued that, at some point, someone within the Department
may have acknowledged that the risk existed in the same way as the
relationships point above. In an interview with one former Permanent
Secretary, he suggested that either the Department may not have thought it
through properly or, alternatively may have chosen not to do this on the basis
that it was an operational matter for the police who would manage any issues.
10.4.3 The brief for this investigation is solely related to the SDS. However, for the
record, the file review does show that the Home Office is now aware of some
evidence of criminal activity from within the National Public Order and
Intelligence Unit created in 1999. This information arose in retrospect
following the investigation of actions by a former undercover officer.

11. Are there significant operational issues that the Home Office should
have been aware of?
The records indicate some actions by SDS officers which would have been of interest
to the Department at the time due to either the high level of risk involved, or the
potential for embarrassment or illegality. There is no evidence that the Department
was made aware of these matters at the time.
11.1 The records available as part of this review included examples of operational activity
arising from long term infiltration into groups which involved significant individual and
wider risk. It is not appropriate to repeat these issues here but the records have been
reviewed to assess whether the Home Office was aware.
11.2 There is no evidence available to indicate that the Home Office was aware of these
issues. Operational issues are clearly for the police to decide but in some cases, it is
possible that:
 the risks were so significant to be unacceptable; or
 there was potential for embarrassment to the Government; or
 there was potential illegal activity by covert officers.
11.3 In such cases, it may be argued that the Department should have been made aware of
the potential risks. In discussions with some former officials, this view was shared.
Details have been provided separately for the record.

26   P a g e