Former Met police chief admits force failed to properly control spycops unit

Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Paul Condon has acknowledged that the force failed to adequately oversee its controversial undercover unit, which spied on the family of Stephen Lawrence during the 1990s. During testimony before the ongoing public inquiry led by retired judge Sir John Mitting, Condon admitted that the surveillance of the Lawrence family met the criteria of institutional racism. The inquiry, which was initiated following revelations by The Guardian about the activities of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), is examining widespread misconduct by undercover officers. The SDS operated under the Metropolitan Police from 1968 until 2008, deploying officers in long-term undercover roles, typically lasting four years, to infiltrate left-wing activist groups. These officers assumed false identities and engaged in deceptive practices, including forming long-term relationships with women, fathering children, stealing identities of deceased children, and fabricating evidence in court. The unit's operations spanned nearly four decades, targeting tens of thousands of individuals, many of whom were politically active. During his testimony, Condon described the SDS as having committed “horrendous” abuses and expressed deep dismay over the conduct of individual officers. He stated that the unit’s culture encouraged deception, with officers being instructed daily to “lie, cheat and deceive as a way of life.” However, Condon emphasized that the greater responsibility rested with the Metropolitan Police for failing to impose sufficient oversight. He argued that the force did not recognize the potential for corruption unless strict ethical guidelines were enforced. Condon, who served as Metropolitan Police Commissioner from 1993 to 2000, admitted that he was unaware of the specific abuses carried out by the SDS during his tenure. He explained that it was unrealistic to expect him, as the head of the police force, to be fully informed about the day-to-day operations of a small and secretive unit. Despite this lack of awareness, he acknowledged that the Met should have recognized the risks associated with such covert work and taken steps to prevent abuse. The inquiry, which has been ongoing for several years, is investigating not only the actions of individual officers but also the broader systemic failures within the Metropolitan Police. It is examining how the force allowed the SDS to operate with minimal supervision and how it failed to address the growing concerns about the unit’s methods. Among the key cases under review is the surveillance of the Lawrence family, whose campaign for justice following Stephen Lawrence’s racially motivated murder in 1993 was undermined by the covert monitoring. Doreen and Neville Lawrence, the parents of Stephen, were subjected to surveillance by SDS officers as they sought to secure a proper investigation into their son’s death. The officers gathered information about the couple’s personal lives, including their marital difficulties, and relayed it to their superiors. Condon acknowledged that this form of surveillance constituted institutional racism and contributed significantly to the erosion of public trust in the police force. The inquiry is also looking into other instances where undercover officers manipulated relationships, fabricated identities, and engaged in fraudulent behavior. These actions, according to Condon, were not isolated incidents but rather part of a larger pattern of misconduct that reflected deeper flaws in the Met’s internal controls. He called for accountability not just for individual officers but also for the leadership that permitted such practices to persist for so long. As the inquiry continues, it is expected to release further findings on the extent of the Metropolitan Police’s involvement in enabling the SDS’s activities. The revelations could lead to legal consequences for those responsible and potentially result in reforms aimed at preventing similar abuses in the future. For now, the testimony of Condon marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing examination of one of the most controversial aspects of British policing history.