How far should undercover policemen be allowed to go?

[jake-the-peg]

With the collapse of the trial against the Environmental activists it's emerged that the undercover policeman was rather deply involved in their activities.

Renting vans to transport them and activities and casing the joint for example, identifying good entry points.

Is this acceptable behaviour - if so how much further could he have gone - would finding new targets and planning attacks recruiting new members be OK?

Where exactly is the line here?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12158198

[eyethenkyew]

The most disturbing revelation in all of this is the fact that this guy had been undercover for 10 years. He clearly forgot he was a Police Officer and his own Force, and the Home Office, have a lot to answer for as they authorised and condoned it.

Information and intelligence gathering is one thing, but this guy appears to have been brainwashed by the very people he was meant to be reporting on. A drastic reappraisal of Police tactics is called for. Not to mention the total PR disaster which this has turned out to be.

This isn't even a case of "Big Brother's watching", it's more like he might even be sleeping with you!

[jake-the-peg]

Clearly eyethenkyew.

Absolutely no possibility that the police were asking him to give evidence against people that he did not think should be prosecuted then?

[Hymie]

The real story here is not whether the undercover police officer should have done what he did; but the fact that the Crown prosecution lawyers knew of these material facts – and were willing to withhold this information from the court – knowing full well that they were under a duty to disclose such information to the defence - (New Judge – discuss).

When lawyers acting for the Crown cannot be trusted to act with honesty, our society is indeed corrupt.