The judge leading the public inquiry into undercover policing is deliberating on a crucial issue - just how “public” his inquiry is going to be?
Lord Justice Pitchford has been given the task of examining the undercover infiltration of political groups since 1968.
This week, he held a two-day hearing to consider opposing arguments about how much of his inquiry should be held in private. He has now gone away to mull over this question and is due to publish a ruling on May 3.
As we report here, the police are arguing for large portions of the inquiry to be held behind closed doors. This is opposed by those who were spied upon by the police (read this here).
Peter Francis, the only undercover officer who has so far blown the whistle in public, has challenged the police’s attempt to hold much of the inquiry in secret (read this here).
Transcripts of the hearing can be found here, with the submissions to the hearing here.
Amid the intricate legal argument, there will be one moment that will perhaps linger most in the memory.
Helen Steel, the social justice campaigner who was deceived into a two-year relationship by undercover spy John Dines, argued for “maximum transparency and disclosure” to ensure that the police abuses do not happen again. She was the only person to address the hearing who was not a barrister.
When she finished, there was a spontaneous round of applause from those in public gallery and others in the courtroom. It was unclear whether clapping is allowed in the formal confines of the inquiry that is being held in the Royal Courts of Justice.
This from BBC home affairs correspondent Dominic Casciani is a judicious analysis of the issues facing Pitchford, drawing a particular parallel with another inquiry - into allegations of torture and rendition by the British state - in which many of the participants walked out.
