Sir John Mitting, heading public inquiry into undercover policing in UK, also criticised for several delays

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

A public inquiry examining undercover policing is refusing to publish a list of more than 1,000 political groups that have been spied on since 1968.

Sir John Mitting, the retired judge heading the inquiry, was urged to publish the list at a preliminary hearing on Thursday by victims of surveillance who are seeking to uncover the extent of the espionage.

UK political groups spied on by undercover police – the list Read more

More than 120 political groups that were spied on by undercover officers have been identified so far. That list was published in October following investigations by the Guardian and the Undercover Research Group, a network of activists that scrutinises police espionage.

It suggested that the police spies overwhelmingly monitored leftwing and progressive groups that challenged the status quo, with only three far-right groups infiltrated.

The victims of the surveillance have long criticised Mitting for making decisions that will permit the police to cover up misconduct.

Mitting has also been criticised for presiding over an inquiry beset by delays. Theresa May, when she was home secretary, set up the inquiry in 2014 to examine the activities of the police spies following a series of controversies.

However, the inquiry, which has cost more than £10m, has yet to hear any evidence in public and is not due to conclude before 2023. The delays have been caused mainly by a large number of applications from the police to conceal the identities of its undercover officers.

On Tuesday, Mitting announced that the first hearings to examine evidence in public – due to be held in June – would be postponed until next year at the earliest.

Undercover policing inquiry will not deliver final report before 2023 Read more

He said the further delays had been caused by a number of issues. One concerned the thousands of individuals named in reports produced by the police spies, along with descriptions of their political activities, and whether privacy laws permitted them to be published by the inquiry.

Gerry Facenna, QC for the victims of the surveillance, said the inquiry should publish a database of the groups spied on and then publicise it to alert people that they could have been monitored.

Mitting said there were a large number of “one-off” mentions of political groups in the intelligence reports that were not infiltrated by the spies.

He said he saw no point in publishing the names of those groups as these mentions may consist of a leaflet from that group or a reference to them at a public meeting.

He publishes the names of the main groups infiltrated by the undercover officers when he identifies them, but not the longer list of organisations about which they collected information.

The inquiry is due to examine a series of issues including the deception of women by undercover officers in sexual relationships, the monitoring of grieving families, and the theft of dead children’s identities.