Search

The spectre of environmental ‘domestic extremism’ has long been postulated by police leaders and security analysts in Britain. It is a narrative that has justified the commitment of enormous amounts of government resources towards police intelligence work directed at non-violent direct action campaigns. Most controversially, this has included the long-term infiltration of environmental (and other) activist groups by undercover police. This article provides a critical analysis of the justifications put forward in support of the covert surveillance of environmental activists in Britain. The paper proceeds by way of a single case study - a high profile, environmental direct action protest in the north of England - in order to reveal the levels of abuse, manipulation and deception at the basis of undercover protest policing. Through their court case, the activists involved with this action were able to obtain rare insights into the police authorisation documents for the undercover operation that had led to their arrests. An analysis of these documents provides us with a glimpse of the contradictory justifications given by senior police officers for infiltration - now under scrutiny by a public inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although UK public inquiries garner huge amounts of public attention, there have been few systematic studies of their role in scrutinising and reforming criminal justice policy and practice. This is despite a growing number of inquiries, held under the Inquiries Act 2005, into critical matters relating to policing, justice and home affairs. This article explores the contested nature of statutory inquiries as mechanisms for accountability and opportunity for policy reform. We suggest that inquiries provide fertile grounds for criminological analysis, if we understand them as sites of contestation where political priorities compete over questions of procedure, scope and participation. Our focus is on the Brook House Inquiry into the mistreatment of detainees in a British immigration removal centre. The analysis shows a tension between the public-facing nature of inquiries and their legalistic processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]