Those of us involved in the so-called spy cops scandal have followed with interest the recent media coverage of the men-only Garrick Club and its membership list of high-profile individuals. It is not news to us that senior judges and powerful men in the security services have been members. Included among the elite was the chair of the public inquiry into undercover policing, John Mitting. Since his appointment as inquiry chair in 2017 we have been calling this out, as we believe it is an obvious conflict of interest – yet our concerns have predictably been ignored.
The inquiry had been established two years earlier by the then prime minister, Theresa May, as a direct result of investigations by women like me into the disappearances of our ex-partners, and the subsequent revelations of their true identities as Metropolitan police undercover officers. The abuse of women, and institutional sexism in the police, are fundamental to understanding the significance of this inquiry.
Aware of Mitting’s membership of the Garrick Club from the outset, we made repeated requests to the Home Office to appoint a panel of experts to assist him in his investigations. A panel with experience and understanding of institutional sexism and racism could contribute to ensuring the final inquiry report is a comprehensive and robust account of the truth. The scope of the human rights abuses perpetrated by these undercover units and how they were allowed to happen must be fully understood if we are to have confidence this cannot happen again to other women.
In March 2018 at the inquiry hearing, representing campaigners involved in the inquiry, Phillippa Kaufmann KC read a statement criticising Mitting, stating: “I’m sorry to say this: we have the usual white, middle-class, elderly gentleman whose life experiences are a million miles away from those who were spied upon.” On our behalf, she asked him to recuse himself or to install a panel. Of course, neither of these happened.
A year later, in April 2019, the supreme court upheld an appeal that challenged a controversial ruling by Mitting in the case of Stocker v Stocker from 2016. This was a defamation case brought by a man against his ex-wife, whom he had subjected to domestic violence after she attempted to alert his new partner to the risk of violence. In a Facebook post she referred to her ex-husband trying to strangle her. Mitting had ruled that Ms Stocker was guilty of defamation on the basis of the dictionary definition of “strangle”, since the husband had asserted he did not intend to kill her and was only trying to silence her. This case had particular resonance for us, as we saw in this ruling what we believed to be Mitting’s reductive and erroneous approach to interpreting the law. He stripped away the context of the relationship, seemed blind to their power dynamics and, in our view, discriminated against the woman in his judgment. We do not believe he is the right person to preside over an investigation at the heart of which is discrimination against women.
Today, campaigners and lawyers have gathered outside of the Garrick in protest at the club’s sexist membership policy. And in November 2020 we carried out an action of our own, projecting a campaign message on to the Garrick club’s exterior drawing attention to our arguments. Despite our belief that institutional sexism in the police should be one of the key findings in the chair’s final inquiry report (now due in 2026), we are sceptical that Mitting will be best placed to identify this discrimination since he retains membership of a private club that doesn’t accept women members.
Those of us who are core participants in the inquiry feel disappointed with his conduct thus far. The police have extended the whole process with excessive demands for anonymity, and we believe he has failed to challenge them properly. In essence, he seems to have given priority to the undercover police’s demands for privacy over our need to find out the truth.
For women like me, who have been sexually abused by undercover police officers, the whole inquiry process is incredibly upsetting as we read the witness statements of abusers who are trying to justify their despicable actions. We are deeply concerned by the lack of consideration given to the impact on us and to the inquiry’s apparent change in focus from the actions of police officers to the actions of protesters. We have little faith in this inquiry, which appears intent on protecting the police rather than the victims of their abuse.
If Mitting wants to help restore some confidence and show his commitment to getting to the truth of the scandal, he could start by appointing a panel to assist him in his findings and follow the example of other judges by cancelling his Garrick club membership immediately.
Alison is one of eight women who first took legal action against the Metropolitan police over the conduct of undercover officers and a founder member of Police Spies Out of Lives. A core participant in the public inquiry into undercover policing, she is one of the authors of Deep Deception – The Story of the Spycop Network by the Women who Uncovered the Shocking Truth
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
