An ex-undercover drug officer warns more child spies are being recruited to fight county lines gangs after campaigners lost a bid to make it illegal.
Neil Woods fears children could be “tortured to death” by gangs – and face mental health issues by living a dangerous double life.
And the former Det Sgt – who fought gangs for 14 years – claims the Home Office has secretly told police to step up their use after a High Court challenge failed.
Neil, who gave evidence to the court, said: “It’s a recipe for mental health horrors. The kids know they’re living a dual life – they’re afraid of being tortured to death, and they’re afraid of what they’re going to say to the police. I’ve got PTSD. But these kids are still in the middle of this trauma.
“They’re going to grow up. They’re the ticking time bomb.”
The Home Office says 17 children, including one 15-year-old, have been used since 2015.
Neil said: “The Home Office say they’re only used in rare circumstances to tackle terrorism and things like that. I guarantee there’s no child being used to tackle terrorism. We’re entirely talking about drugs.”
Neil joined the Law Enforcement Action Partnership campaign group after branding the war on drugs a failure. He said it was clear why police wanted to use children against the gangs, which recruit vulnerable youngsters to move drugs and money for them.
“When I was working I caught adults carrying drugs and money,” he said. “The logical response to police tactics is using children.
“That’s why we have county lines – children can’t be infiltrated by normal police informants. Using informants is the most important weapon in the police armoury for drugs offences.”
But he warned police have no provisions in place to prevent long-term harm to children, although the High Court ruled the scheme had adequate safeguards.
Last week’s judicial review by Just for Kids Law alleged Home Office guidelines breach human rights law, lack adequate safeguards and put sources at risk of physical and emotional harm.
Chief executive Enver Solomon said the case would continue, adding: “We are disappointed that the court has ruled against us.”
