 | Rotating the co-ordinator of the lawyers group. | 12 Members |
| Rotating the co-ordinator of the lawyers group. | 1 Servers |
| Rotating the co-ordinator of the lawyers group. | 12 Members |
| Rotating the co-ordinator of the lawyers group. | 1 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 9 Mar 2018 | ||
 carolynlondon | yes, it was discussed at least twice at CP gatherings in the past. there was an agreement that we (the Spycops Communications group) should address this in a letter to the lawyers' group. Here is the letter that Donal and I have drafted - we propose sending it as soon as possible ( before Monday at the latest) . | 12:42:48 |
| carolynlondon | Dear Lawyers As you know, a meeting of Core Participants took place in London on 20th January. At it, the RLRs' group coordinator role was discussed. One of the concerns raised was that the Inquiry seemed to have treated Tamsin as more than just a coordinator, and expected her to be able to 'represent' the views of other people's clients. We feel that this is unreasonable, and that if the Inquiry expects other clients' views to be properly represented, then they need to fund those CPs' RLRs to attend. We understand that when this Inquiry began, it was thought that the coordination role would be for a maximum of three years (!). However, as it is now apparent that this Inquiry will probably take at least twice as long, we think it is worthwhile to rotate the role, so the responsibility is shared more fairly, rather than falling on the same person for the entire duration. We believe that if the role was rotated, the Inquiry would be forced to understand that it is merely a coordinating task. We think it is important to make this point, politically, to Mitting and the ILT. A number of CPs have proposed that this role rotates every two years. Following discussion, it was thought impractical to make the length shorter than this, as we appreciate that there would need to be a proper handover of information. We estimate that this could take a few months, and that you're all so busy that the new person would need to schedule this new role well in advance. It was also noted that this may help with diversity issues. At the meeting, there was unanimous agreement that we should write to you on behalf of those CPs present, raise this proposal, and invite you to discuss it further amongst yourselves. Given current timescales, it seems that an ideal timeline would see a new coordinator appointed, and in position by “this summer”, with a view to recruiting their replacement by the summer of 2020. Please advise us of your response – we will forward it to the CPs. Yours in solidarity Spycops Communications Group PS: As noted, this was decided at the meeting of January, and we have been drawing up this letter to take into account what was expressed then and some subsequent discussions. However, in light of recent events, it is apparent we need to raise this matter at this point. | 12:43:30 |
| carolynlondon | unless anyone has a huge problem with the way this is worded, we'll send it before the end of the weekend | 12:44:05 |
 sarahdawnh joined the room. | 13:54:36 | |
| sarahdawnh set a profile picture. | 14:01:55 | |
 lililons | No problem with that from me. Diplomatically worded I think. Thanks Carolyn and Donal! | 14:45:04 |
 kimtrapese | Very good | 14:51:33 |
| carolynlondon | sorry for the length of these notes - tried to capture what everyone said: Ceri’s concerns re Tamsin’s previous client (the “WTF?!” late-night email he sent to the COPS list) Tamsin: Former M15 operative, linked to Inkerman Group, she acted for him in 2009 JR vs Home Office, to help him publish his whistle-blowing memoirs, tried sending it to IPT, went to Supreme Court but lost… didn’t publish in the end. Worked undercover (30 years ago?) for Manchester Police (football drugs and crime?) before MI5 – no contact with SDS apart from one refused request re training (supposedly he was critical of their 'professionalism' levels) – he says. Tamsin says she is bound by client confidentiality, but got his permission to share this level of info. Duwayne: clearly still your client. This guy was a UCO, and we don’t know for sure his involvement with other police units. Unhappy that CPs weren’t told about this possible conflict of interest. Asked Jules & Mike when they learnt about Bindmans running this case? Mike: says he knew about memoir case but didn’t know this guy had been a UCO until seeing Ceri’s email last week. Jules: knew he was ex-MI5 but didn’t know about UCO until today, may have known about refused SDS request though. Duwayne: feels a breach of trust here. Carolyn: we don’t know how much his role at MI5 meant that he took part in meetings with Met etc and shared info – didn’t know about the memoirs – any chance of him whistle-blowing in the future? Tamsin replied: She will ask him. Imagines he could help with ‘framing’ questions but may not be able to provide information. Harriet has also been approached by other kinds of undercovers – disgusted at actions of SDS etc – and has met with them, although not taken any on as clients! She thinks Birnbergs maybe represented David Shayler years ago too. Richard has also spoken with Neil Woods in the past, in the hope of gaining info for his clients. Jane pointed out RLRs should go back to their clients for instruction on this issue, talked about some of the earlier ‘unpleasant’ arguments amongst the RLRs about anonymity & general issues. His reported thoughts about SDS’s ‘professionalism’ seems to = material evidence. Is this not a conflict of Tamsin’s two different duties of care. Suggested Tamsin seek legal advice. Real worry. Tamsin apologised for not telling us about this, and will think about it more. Guardian article – Mosaic effect? Paul: would like more explanation to share with his clients please. He’d already raised issue of MI5 involvement in Socialist Party files (40 peoples’ files sent by PF to MI5?) with Ruth, so is concerned about the crossover. Richard asked: would he like to come and speak to us? Tamsin: will ask him. To clarify: doesn’t think he had any reasons to lie when he told her he had no involvement in SDS/ NPOIU etc. Shamik: wanted to confirm that nobody ever argued against getting cover names – others remember the discussion as being around what was ‘legally tenable’. Jane: worried that Tamsin felt bound by confidentiality and this meant she withheld info from CPs & RLRs. Richard: remembering that he originally wanted to publish about his work.. can’t he provide useful info to us? Lydia: the revolving door issue has come up more recently – there is a link to the Inkerman group. Donal: still researching another case involving a UCO in Manchester at that time, who probably had a relationship with an activist while deployed (this is not to be included in the minutes, please!) Jane: maintaining confidentiality – these minutes – concerned how much info Tamsin feels obliged to share with him – this is why many of these firms do not act for the State. Tamsin says she has no duty to reveal anything said in these meetings to any other clients, never mind him, who is no longer a client in any case. She represented him as an individual acting vs the State Jules confirmed that his firm wouldn’t act for State agents. DG Law represented a Turkish woman police officer in the ‘70/ 80s but this led to conflict with other clients, so they haven’t done it since. Jules: hard to find barristers’ chambers that are not contaminated by police work – maybe Garden Court is the only one? (Doughty St and others have done this work) Shamik confirmed that he and Ruth acted in one case of a black police officer alleging racial discrimination. Tamsin does work around ‘publications’, libel and whistle-blowing etc – wide range of clients from different backgrounds – the memoir case was about libel and Art 10 not about his actual work. Didn’t consider it relevant to this group/ work. Mike: three layers here.. i) Legal interests of that client at that time – in conflict with other clients? ii) Any info from that case/ advice that might be relevant to CPs? iii) Trust and open-ness is more about how we work as a group. | 16:14:33 |
| carolynlondon | Ceri and Duwayne can explain more about their concerns | 16:15:20 |
| sarahdawnh | Do we have any ideas of who would be good or interested in stepping in? | 18:18:33 |
 duwaynebrooks | Redacted or Malformed Event | 19:21:59 |
| duwaynebrooks |  Download Studio_20180307_213218.png | 19:22:27 |
| duwaynebrooks | Redacted or Malformed Event | 19:22:40 |
| duwaynebrooks | Henri Exton was an under cover officer who went on to run under cover operations at MI5. No one knows what he did and for Tamsin to say he told her what he didn't do in my opinion is just nonsense.
If Tamsin had disclosed this information before being given the role, it's fair to say she would not have been the co-ordinator for a group of people spied upon, misled and many other things we don't know about as yet, by undercover cops or security forces. Once Tamsin agrees to step down so the role becomes vacant. I am confident other lawyers will be happy to lead. I also think other smaller firms should have the opportunity to benefit from this Inquiry. | 19:37:47 |
 Riot-bot | Sorry, I didn't quite get that. Please try again | 19:38:10 |
| Riot-bot | Type 'help' for a list of commands, or 'faqs' for a list of frequently asked questions | 19:38:10 |
 martyn | This might seem like a very obvious question, but just what does the co-ord job entail ? If it means keeping a track of what work is doing done then that is one thing. Then what does the inquiry lawyers think it consists of ? If the inquiry lawyers & Mitting think that it is to represent rather than act as a voice for our lawyers, then there is a very great need to tell them that it is not so. We are all represented by our individual lawyers, and then by the barristers, but not by the co-ord for the lawyers. This in turn comes down to - a. Just how this co-ord work is being billed by the court. & b) The need for more of our individual lawyers to be presnt at any future hearings. | 21:11:43 |
| martyn | As to who might take over the co-ord role. It seems to me we do need to get an idea of how many hours this task takes per month, and if some of the tasks could be shared around. | 21:17:25 |
| carolynlondon | Usually, when our lawyers want to communicate something to the Inquiry, it's Tamsin who sends the email on behalf of the group, and circulates whatever response she gets. It would be her job to -for example- set up a doodle poll to fix a date for our lawyers to meet, to arrange the venue for that meeting, and arrange for somebody to take minutes. Usually she chairs these meetings; when she hasn't been able to do this herself she's organised for someone else to. In terms of funding, I believe the Inquiry have provided some additional funding (above what she'd get from them for representing her clients in the Inquiry) for this role. When there was a semi-closed hearing last year (about Carlo Neri's family?) i think Tamsin was allowed to attend but i have no idea if she was paid to do so | 22:04:57 |
| 10 Mar 2018 | ||
| martyn | Thanks for this very useful explaination. | 06:11:34 |
| 12 Mar 2018 | ||
 @kimtrapese:disroot.org joined the room. | 08:12:26 | |
 @evelspycopscomms:disroot.org joined the room. | 10:11:36 | |
| 13 Mar 2018 | ||
| carolynlondon | the letter was sent today. will post any responses in here | 13:02:56 |
| duwaynebrooks | I am hearing Tamsin has resigned. | 15:37:59 |
| Riot-bot | Sorry, I didn't quite get that. Please try again | 15:39:30 |
| Riot-bot | Type 'help' for a list of commands, or 'faqs' for a list of frequently asked questions | 15:39:31 |
| carolynlondon | here is the response she has sent us: Dear all This has actually come at an opportune time as I have already been in discussion over the past couple of weeks with a number of the lawyers and counsel about my forthcoming work load and the need to find an alternative arrangement (I have a Court of Appeal case coming up in April and a very time-heavy whistleblowing case). This has become more urgent as I last week made a formal complaint about Jane Deighton’s behaviour at the recent meeting which has yet to be resolved. There could be difficulties in me continuing to coordinate the group whilst that dispute is ongoing. So for all those reasons, as well as the good ones you identify, I think it best that someone else takes over coordination for a period. I am happy to continue to work with that person or hold the reins until someone is appointed as you wish. I would add that the period for coordination may well be nearing an end in any case as it was always intended to be in relation to common legal preliminary issues, of which there are not many left. I suggest we discuss that at a meeting after the next hearing. Best, Tamsin | 15:46:07 |
| carolynlondon | i didn't know about the "formal complaint about Jane Deighton's behaviour" - or even who this complaint might have been made to | 15:48:39 |
| carolynlondon | it appears that this refers to a complaint made to the other partners at Jane's firm | 16:23:08 |
| carolynlondon | Ruth Brander (one of the counsel) sent this: Dear all I appreciate that I come at this from a different perspective, but for what it's worth, my view is that Tamsin has done an amazing job at co-ordinating the group. It is a really difficult task to bring together the views of such a large and disparate group of people. Understandably there is frustration that Mitting, and before him Pitchford, has repeatedly refused funding for CPs to be separately represented at hearings and to submit separate written representations when differences of views arise. However, that was not of Tamsin's making and she has always worked incredibly hard to try to find ways to make the group work. Whoever takes over from Tamsin, it needs to be recognised that the co-ordinator's role is a difficult and largely thankless one and their role in holding things together should be appreciated, as should Tamsin's work in having done so to date. Many thanks from me Tamsin, Ruth | 16:23:29 |