UCPI Designated Lawyer Officers Core Participant Group v Sir John Mitting (Chairman of the Undercover Policing Inquiry) — High Court Judgment
- Jun 9
- 2 min read
Updated: Jun 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE — KING'S BENCH DIVISION — DIVISIONAL COURT
Case No: AC-2025-003798
Today, the Divisional Court (Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Jay) handed down judgment in the judicial review proceedings brought by the UCPI Designated Lawyer Officers Core Participant Group against Sir John Mitting, sitting as Chairman of the Undercover Policing Inquiry ("UCPI"). The Court dismissed the application for judicial review in its entirety.
The proceedings concerned a notice issued under section 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005, requiring a former undercover police officer — anonymised as HN86 — to attend in person to give oral evidence before the UCPI at hearings scheduled for 13, 14 and 15 July 2026 in London. HN86 has resided overseas for approximately 25 years and had refused to give evidence either in person or remotely. The Claimant contended that the Chairman had no power under section 21 to issue such a notice to a person resident outside the jurisdiction, and further that the notice had been issued in a procedurally unfair manner.
The Court rejected both grounds of challenge. On the principal issue of jurisdiction, the Court held that the issuing of a section 21 notice to an overseas-resident witness does not constitute an exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction. The offence of non-compliance under section 35 of the Inquiries Act 2005 is, in substance, one of omission that crystallises in England and Wales — where the witness fails to appear — and a substantial measure of the relevant activities therefore takes place within the territory of the United Kingdom. The Court further held that the Chairman had acted fairly in all the circumstances and that the notice did not come as a "bolt from the blue.”
The judgment is of significant importance to the integrity and effectiveness of public inquiries. It confirms that in public inquiries, the chair has the power to compel the attendance of witnesses who are resident abroad, where the public interest demands it, and that the long wait of core participants and victims for answers and accountability cannot be frustrated by a witness's choice to reside overseas.
Imran Khan KC appeared on behalf of Baroness Doreen Lawrence of Clarendon OBE, the Third Interested Party, instructed by Imran Khan & Partners.
Baroness Doreen Lawrence of Clarendon OBE said:
"I warmly welcome this judgment. For over 30 years, those who may hold vital answers about what was done to my family and to others have been able to avoid scrutiny. This decision makes clear that no one — however far they may have travelled from this country — can simply ignore the call of a public inquiry established to get to the truth. Inquiries are set up when things go terribly wrong, and there is a pressing need to find answers and ensure that things change for the better. I hope this judgment brings us one step closer to the full and honest account that individuals like me have waited so many years to receive."
For further information, contact Daniel Cooper, Partner, at danielc@ikpsolicitors.com
