It is right to draw up a clear legal basis for the conduct of undercover agents who protect us. But the current bill is unfit for purpose
On 12 February 1989, two men burst through the door of Pat Finucane’s home in Belfast as he sat down to dinner, shooting him 14 times in front of his wife and children. Twenty-three years later, David Cameron, then prime minister, apologised for “shocking levels of collusion” between security forces and the lawyer’s loyalist killers.
Undercover operatives have saved countless lives, including by averting terrorist attacks. The public understands the need for them, and the fact that at times such sources may even need to commit offences to maintain their cover – joining a proscribed organisation is an obvious example. But the risk that they will go much further than they should, and act for much less reason than they claim, is not merely hypothetical, as Mr Finucane’s family can attest. So can the women who were “raped by the state”, in the words of one of those deceived into a relationship by a “spy cop” posing as an activist.
