undercover police officer fathers children - possibility of civil action

melissak

I had this open but it was closed for some reason. There was a case in England where an undercover police officer fathered children while undercover. When i first read about it i had no sympathy for the policemen but on reflection it feel that it must have been a terrible position to find himself in. I'm sure he had at least some genuine feelings for his children. I have two questions.
Does or could this happen in this country and would the officer legally have a case against his superiors for putting him in this position?

Mod:

See moderator note below.

The Sun King

This all seems very familiar.

melissak

The Sun King wrote: »

This all seems very familiar.

There is no obligation put on you to read it so. I'm sure you have better things to do with your time.

seamus

melissak wrote: »

Does or could this happen in this country and would the officer legally have a case against his superiors for putting him in this position?

It's happened in the US as well, seems like an unavoidable outcome of long-running deep cover operations.

Not sure if it's happened here or if Gardai run undercover ops that last years.

Ultimately any "case" would depend on whether the operative was specifically ordered to have children.

To a certain extent you have consider the entry conditions of being undercover. The officer themselves would implicitly accept that there are things which someone may find themselves engaged in while undercover, including assaults, relationships, law breaking, possibly even marriage or fathering children.

The assertion would be that no officer was placed into that position by their superiors, but rather they placed themselves in that position, and never indicated to their superiors that they were uncomfortable or unwilling with going any further.

Though as well as that the superiors would probably rest on a certain defence of saying that the officer engaged in sex and/or childbearing without official approval, but they were willing to overlook the infraction(s) for the sake of the operation. My understanding of deep cover is that even senior officials receive little more than the bare minimum of information, to limit any chance of cover being exposed. So things like relationships or children may not even come to light until the operation is over. This means the senior officials would have plausible deniability.

Pat Mustard

Mod:

There was another thread which attempted to discuss the criminal aspect of this story.

This thread will discuss the civil aspect of the situation only.

melissak

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Mod:

There was another thread which attempted to discuss the criminal aspect of this story.

This thread will discuss the civil aspect of the situation only.

I am talking about the possibility of both criminal and civil cases. Why would they be mutually exclusive? If this is contrary to the rules you are welcome to reopen the previous thread

melissak

seamus wrote: »

It's happened in the US as well, seems like an unavoidable outcome of long-running deep cover operations.

Not sure if it's happened here or if Gardai run undercover ops that last years.

Ultimately any "case" would depend on whether the operative was specifically ordered to have children.

To a certain extent you have consider the entry conditions of being undercover. The officer themselves would implicitly accept that there are things which someone may find themselves engaged in while undercover, including assaults, relationships, law breaking, possibly even marriage or fathering children.

The assertion would be that no officer was placed into that position by their superiors, but rather they placed themselves in that position, and never indicated to their superiors that they were uncomfortable or unwilling with going any further.

Though as well as that the superiors would probably rest on a certain defence of saying that the officer engaged in sex and/or childbearing without official approval, but they were willing to overlook the infraction(s) for the sake of the operation. My understanding of deep cover is that even senior officials receive little more than the bare minimum of information, to limit any chance of cover being exposed. So things like relationships or children may not even come to light until the operation is over. This means the senior officials would have plausible deniability.

Do you mean that the officers wouldn't necessarily know what crime they are investigating?

seamus

melissak wrote: »

Do you mean that the officers wouldn't necessarily know what crime they are investigating?

Yep. Deep cover operations often don't have any one specific crime being investigated - the purpose is often keeping track of a group's movement or plans so that they can be effectively countered. Things like gangland crime or terrorism, though often too against groups who may be classed as "subversive" or otherwise anti-government.

This is because arresting these people for petty crimes or sticking them in prison for six months at a stretch is of little use. It can be far more effective to let them get away with the smaller crimes, aiming instead to try and nail them for something much larger later on, while managing to control the damage they can inflict by infiltrating them.

Again, not sure how much it goes on over here, if at all. It's a very small country, deep cover could be difficult to run safely here.

Johnboy1951

I have no doubt in my mind that where undercover operatives get married (bigamously) their superiors are well aware of the situation, and essentially approve as they do not prevent it.

In that case I can see a strong case for the abandoned 'bigamous' wife & children to take a civil case against all concerned.

I am unsure if under such circumstances some of those acts would be seen as criminal acts against the 'wife'.
Maybe ...

melissak

seamus wrote: »

Yep. Deep cover operations often don't have any one specific crime being investigated - the purpose is often keeping track of a group's movement or plans so that they can be effectively countered. Things like gangland crime or terrorism, though often too against groups who may be classed as "subversive" or otherwise anti-government.

This is because arresting these people for petty crimes or sticking them in prison for six months at a stretch is of little use. It can be far more effective to let them get away with the smaller crimes, aiming instead to try and nail them for something much larger later on, while managing to control the damage they can inflict by infiltrating them.

Again, not sure how much it goes on over here, if at all. It's a very small country, deep cover could be difficult to run safely here.

Is this constitutional here? The officer in question admits to being the instigator and brains of an illegal protest, that his colleagues then arrested others for. Do we have laws against entrapment, or if you are seen to be against the government, is it anything goes. Would this not be political policing and thus state terrorism? It would certainly seem contrary to the Gardai oath, does Britain have such an oath?

seamus

You seem to be steering this into a different conversation. The topic here is whether there's a civil case to be answered, where the officer in question could sue the state for being "forced" to engage in ethically dubious, but not illegal, acts.

To the best of my knowledge, "I was only following orders" isn't a defence in any theatre, be that a soldier on the battlefield or a Garda undercover, so it would hard to argue that the state "forced" him to do anything.

That said, he could legitimately have been made to feel that his safety (and that of his family(s)) would be at risk if he were to refuse to continue with the operation.

Pat Mustard

melissak wrote: »

I am talking about the possibility of both criminal and civil cases. Why would they be mutually exclusive? If this is contrary to the rules you are welcome to reopen the previous thread

Mod:

It's not allowed to discuss moderation on-thread. This is a site-wide rule. Please don't do it again or you will be stopped from posting here.

melissak

Sorry If am going off topic. I didn't think I was as to me this is all the same topic. I am just shocked that something so wrong could be not illegal. Am I naive to have more faith in the fairness of the system?
I was under the impression that if you were acting within the law you could not be used as a pawn, or that the forfeiture of your basic human rights be collateral damage in a bid to catch environmental activists committing minor crimes with honourable intentions.
Is the constitution only for those singing from the states hymnsheet. If so it is not worth the paper it is written on?

Little CuChulainn

melissak wrote: »

Sorry If am going off topic. I didn't think I was as to me this is all the same topic. I am just shocked that something so wrong could be not illegal. Am I naive to have more faith in the fairness of the system?
I was under the impression that if you were acting within the law you could not be used as a pawn, or that the forfeiture of your basic human rights be collateral damage in a bid to catch environmental activists committing minor crimes with honourable intentions.
Is the constitution only for those singing from the states hymnsheet. If so it is not worth the paper it is written on?

No, and the remedy for such a breach of your rights would be under civil, not criminal, law. Sometimes something can fall under both, like injuries sustained from an assault, but this particular scenario does not.

meathstevie

I'm hazarding a hypothetical train of thought here; an intelligence operative (police, military or other state security services) can be ordered or operationally put into situations where it is beneficial to the operation that a trusting relationship with a target of the operation is established.

I highly doubt that the same operative can be ordered to father a child with the subject under surveillance.

Johnboy1951

meathstevie wrote: »

I'm hazarding a hypothetical train of thought here; an intelligence operative (police, military or other state security services) can be ordered or operationally put into situations where it is beneficial to the operation that a trusting relationship with a target of the operation is established.

I highly doubt that the same operative can be ordered to father a child with the subject under surveillance.

It is not, IMO, a matter of ordering such, but when the 'service' does nothing about one of their operatives knowingly entering into a bigamous marriage while under cover, then they must bear responsibility for the actions of their employee.

The question that arises for me is whether this could be seen as assault on the 'wife' while committing an illegal act (bigamous marriage).

GavMan

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The question that arises for me is whether this could be seen as assault on the 'wife' while committing an illegal act (bigamous marriage).

You don't see convictions for the likes of bigamy too often but when you do, rarely do you see anything tacked on about the unwitting 2nd wife. Not that I can recall anyway.

Whether you can call the deception an assault is up for debate