A Call to Action: Future Scholars Must Provide Further Enlightenment On The Currently Shaded Notion Of The ‘Aftermath Of Covert Policing’.

In this lecture, the speakers discussed a range of critical issues which arise in their state-of-the-art review article on the ‘Aftermath of Covert Policing’ that has recently been published in the Howard Journal of Crime and Justice. From the outset, the speakers made it very clear that the purpose of the paper is twofold. Firstly, to examine a range of theoretical and conceptual considerations to explore and better understand the hidden injuries and wider harms to communities subject to covert policing. And secondly, to lay a roadmap for future empirical research into the harms of covert policing on the surveilled by illuminating potential points of access, but also methodological and ethical challenges that are likely to arise when conducting such work. Overall, the paper embodies an inspiring call to action as the authors make a combined appeal to criminologists and policing scholars to engage with the hidden harms of covert policing and to a adopt a human-centred approach, placing the surveilled, and their lived experience, at the heart of future research.

To begin, the speakers drew a conceptual distinction between undercover policing, where police engage in face-to-face encounters with surveillance subjects, and covert surveillance, which is often a more distanced, technological and remote endeavour. Both are the focus of the paper. It was noted that despite being prominent features of British policing, questions concerning how these practices are felt or experienced by those subject to them remain largely unanswered. Primarily, The Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI) into the morally troubling culture and practices of undercover officers in England and Wales, but also the recent passing of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021, which grants exemptions for unethical and harmful activities, were introduced as providing the context in which answering such questions is now more pertinent than ever.

A particularly engaging aspect of the seminar was the discussion of the surveillance ‘victim’. What does victimhood look like in this context? Given some people subject to covert policing will be dangerous and cause significant harm, can victimhood be stretched to refer to everyone that is subject to surveillance? Do some people make themselves ‘morally liable’ to intrusions and manipulations by covert officers? When asked by Professor Ian Loader where they landed in answering these questions, the speakers were incredibly transparent, admitting they remain conflicted within and between themselves on this issue. Specifically, Benjamin Goold conceptualised the ongoing dilemma as a ‘pendulum’, signifying that the speakers’ views continue to swing back and forth, particularly as they present the paper to broader audiences and receive diverse responses and views. Ultimately, the speakers coalesced to the view that their intention was not to reach any firm conclusions about surveillance victimhood but instead to make it clear to future scholars that they need to carefully consider issues of victimhood when researching the harms of covert policing.

The conversation then moved towards exploring a range of parallel literatures and theoretical and conceptual considerations pertinent to advancing understanding of the hidden injuries of covert policing.  A distinction was drawn being watched as part of a population, mass surveillance, and being targeted as an individual, covert surveillance, with the latter being a greater intrusion and personal violation. A shift from analysing covert policing through a lens of privacy to a lens of dignity was advised, to more comprehensively recognise the potential consequences of covert policing for damaging an individual’s sense of self, their relations with others, and the state. The speakers then illustrated the utility of research from beyond the UK context for understanding the harms of covert policing. Case studies of state-sponsored surveillance in authoritarian states and political conflict were introduced. These demonstrated self-policing, retreating from the public domain, anxiety and distrust as common consequences of the realisation one has been subject to surveillance. Finally, a case is made that in order to apply the ‘pains of policing’ to the covert world the traditional notion must be extended to recognise that different people may be subject to and experience different harms.

As discussion moved towards the latter stages of the paper, the speakers began to layout their roadmap for future research in the area. First, they recognised that there is tension inherent in calling scholars to centre the lived experience of the surveilled given many will simply never become aware that they have been subject to these practices. However, they proceed to provide a tangible ‘list’ of various potential research access points and methodologies future scholars could utilise to understand the lived experiences of the surveilled and visibilise the harms of covert policing. These included conducting narrative analyses of evidence and testimony from the UCPI, analysing national level data on surveillance authorisations and local case files and enabling the surveilled to provide their own narratives through The Biographical Narrative Interview Method (BNIM). It was suggested the surveilled may be reached through the UCPI, campaign groups, former prisoners, ex-offenders and their families. An additional note was made that these methods should be extended to understand the experiences of family, neighbours and friends of the individual covertly targeted who are often harmed through processes of ‘collateral intrusion’.

The discussion concluded by recognising the ethical dilemmas intrinsic to researching the harms of covert policing, therefore a trauma-informed approach was advocated. The speakers clarified that despite the many concerns and challenges they raised throughout the discussion they too recognise the merits of covert policing; hence their purpose is not to advocate for its abolition. The perhaps naive assumption underpinning the discussion, that presenting the lived experience of the surveilled will help to move covert policing towards less harmful practices, was recognised. But ultimately, the seminar concluded with a sense of optimism by reinforcing the call to action for future scholars, for them to water the seed that this paper sews and provide further enlightenment on the currently obscure ‘Aftermath of Covert Policing’.

Post By: Scarlett Pickford, MSc Student, Oxford Centre for Criminology