Kate Wilson

Back from the thread and starting a new thread. Live tweeting the IPT final hearing in my case against the Met police. Just back after lunch on the first day. Follow the hearing live here: https://meet.video.justice.gov.uk/go/f2de00d5-fb1d-4729-852d-eca80e8c88f0/ … Or read the thread below...

We have moved on to a culture of discrimination against women that existed within the #spycops units. How is it that my relationship is recorded like this in the cover notes without comment? There was sexist tolerance for abusive sexual relationships in the NPOIU and the SDS

We are asking the IPT to find there was a culture or practice of these abusive relationships. To do this they need to adhere to the case law. A practice that breaches the ECHR stems from multiple individual violations that form a collection of breaches which amount to a pattern.

The judges going into the case law in some depth. My relationship was 1 case, so not a pattern. But many #spycops deceived women into relationships. The existence of a pattern and culture has implications for the responsibility of managers & the severity of the Art. 3 violations.

5 women gave evidence in this claim: Lisa, Anna, Jane Sarah & "C". All had relationships with MK. Lisa's relationship lasted 6 years. The police do not challenge any of those statements, which means that they accept the facts to be true.

One of the judges notes that a single officer having multiple relationships would not amount to a pattern of #spycops sexual relationships.

Fair point. Nevertheless, the length of time and number of relationships MK had was significant. But no, he alone could not establish a practice. And we will come to other #spycops having relationships later.

It is an undisputed fact that the police obtained considerable intelligence and operational from the use of these sexual relationships by #spycops so there was considerable incentive for them to allow the relationships to go ahead.