Judge considers his verdict in women's legal action over undercover officers

The first round of the women's legal action against police chiefs drew to a close on Friday morning.

The judge hearing the case, Mr Justice Tugendhat, said he would go away and consider his judgment. It is not known how long he will take.

He is deciding whether to approve an application by the police to have the women's legal action struck out of the High Court and shunted over to a little-known, secretive tribunal that usually hears complaints about MI5 (see this for some background).

Ten women and one man have launched a legal action claiming they were tricked into forming deeply personal relationships with the police spies. The women say they were duped into forming long-term, sexual relationships lasting years with undercover officers.

See here and here for some coverage of last week's proceedings. For a long account of the hearings, read this from researcher and author, Eveline Lubbers.

The hearings, spread over two and a bit days, were very dry, and full of pretty tedious legal argument. The barristers spent hours arguing over the meaning of specific words and clauses in an act - the regulation of investigatory powers act 2000 - which in itself is complicated and obtuse.

However the hearings are of crucial, tactical importance in the legal action as a whole.

Clearly it would be a significant defeat for the police chiefs if they lose their attempt to have it all moved over to the secretive Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

But what might happen if the judge decided that it should be heard in the High Court?

There is a strong chance, you would have thought, that the police chiefs would settle out of court before it was due to be heard in the High Court.

As we noted here previously, the question is - do the police chiefs really want to endure the bad publicity of a High Court case in which the heart-breaking stories of the women are recounted day after day? Probably not.

After all, this case is about, as the women say, "one of the most intrusive invasions of privacy imaginable", not turgid arguments about obscure clauses in an obscure act.

The women have received support from as far away as Berlin - see this report of a demonstration there.