Kate Wilson

In summary, the "intelligence" case is just a very broad set of groups and activities with unspecified examples of how they may occasionally lead to criminal offences, very few of which could be described as serious.

"Collareral intrusion" is mentioned but was clearly understood to be privacy of information, not intrusion in terms of forming intimate friendships or moving into people's homes.

Judge pointed out the extensive reporting on my parents in the documents as an obvious example of the extensive collateral intrusion that did take place. In fact, MK reported on over 500 people despite only 11 people ever being targeted in his authorisations.

These operations were about as bad as they could be, which is why SOCA are so critical. It is rare that an internal report would be quite so brutal, and that is because the #spycops compliance with the Human Rights Act really was non-existant.

They just put #spycops into a community centre to collect ad hoc intelligence on whatever was going on.

There is simply no way that this #spycops operation can be describes as necessary in a democratic society. It is far too broad, it has no proper goal and it does not meet any of the legal criteria that would make it in accordance with the law.

From the Sumac Centre - community centre and vegan cafe - MK's #spycops operation expanded to include Cornerstone Housing Coop, which police claimed was a similar kind of community centre. In fact it was a housing coop - effectively a residential home.

The judges seem well aware that the authorisations only play lip-service to the idea of preventing collateral intrusion. The operations continue to be hugely broad and if anything get broader, not more focussed, as the deployment goes on. #spycops

I am made a named target of MK's operation in May 2005. I am described as a "main planner and organiser at Cornerstone", even though I had almost no invovlement with Cornerstone at all. The basis on which I was targeted by #spycops was entirely false.

No information is given explaining why I was thought to be linked to any of the so-called serious acts the police imply might take place (but never do). No intelligence is provided linking me to any crime. Yet I remain a named subject of a #spycops operation for the next 2 years.

Looking at a RIPA authority - lots of officers of various ranks sign off on applications before it is granted by an officer of commander rank. It would have been clear to officers such EN107 and EN31, that I had nothing to do with Cornerstone and I was living in Spain.

I do not deny that I was involved in political protest and campaigning. I was very involved. My case is that is political campaigning is vital to a demoncratic society and a protected human right. #spycops should not have been anywhere near it, let alone in my house and my bed.

We have not received the RIPA authorisations in disclosure. We have only been given a selected few examples in gisted form. The last gisted authorisation we have is for 2007.

I am named as a target in the NPOIU authorisations from May 2005 to October 2006. On 29th Jan 2007 Operation Pegasus moved to W.Yorkshire police. From that point on I am no longer named on the authorisations. However my contact with MK did not end there.

MK should have left me alone. Instead, he sought me out, made arrangements to meet me, took me out to dinner. He started the relationship on an unlawful basis and everything about the authorisations, and the contact that MK had with me. The whole thing was unlawful.

To be clear, although we talk about specific aspects of this operation that were particularly unlawful, our case is a root and branch attack on the lawfulness - the operation. These broad #spycops operations on politically motivated fishing expeditions should never have happened.

SOCA note that MK's authorities almost always referred to him undertaking activities and deployements in order to enhance his #spycops legend. That seems to have become an end in itself, and the links to actual policing of domestic extremism in the UK became less and less clear.

It became a rolling, openended, self-justifying #spycops deployment. The police claim that was worth it because they gathered some intel on the G8 summit, but SOCA is very clear that the lack of objective aims makes any sensible assessment of proportionality very difficult indeed

SOCA also identifies an over-reliance on Kennedy as the only source of intelligence to justify the operation. That is reflected in the logs and decisions - it was a self-justifying process and there was no reasonable way of assessing whether it was really necessary. #spycops

SOCA also attacks the relationships that Kennedy had with his cover officer, noting that Kennedy was driving the agenda and notes that the operational head thought that both Kennedy and his Cover Officer were withholding information from him.

MK's #spycops operation did generate a huge amount of intelligence, however that in itself is hugely problematic - the vast majority of the more than 500 people reported on by Kennedy were clearly doing nothing wrong. Which brings us to Art 10 & 11

Article 10 HRA is the right to freedom of expression. Article 11 HRA is the right to freedom of association. MK spied on me because I was involved in political protest and campaign groups.

It is indisputable that #spycops did interfere with my rights to freedom of expression and freedom assembly, because I was exercising those rights and that is why I was targeted. The police have already admitted that MK violated my Article 10 rights by sleeping with me.

Articles 10&11 stand together because protest involves both expressing your views and meeting to organise with others. Acts of surveillance have been found to violate article 10.The police have again said that this is *not important* and should be ignored by the Tribunal.

The target of all these RIPA authorisations and the deployment of MK and all the other #spycops was the exercise of my Article 10 and 11 rights. The entire goal was to spy on people for expressing our political views.

The judges seem to take issue with the idea that spying on people for being involved in lawful protest violates their human rights. They seem to think that a ruling saying that would be "a step too far".