To What Extent Are Undercover Policing Practices Ethically Justifiable and Effectively Regulated in the UK?

By Ioana-Tatiana Draghici,

London Metropolitan University.

Examining the ethical and legal foundations of undercover policing, this library-based research investigates the extent to which covert police practices in the United Kingdom are ethically justifiable and effectively regulated. It focuses on the role of undercover officers (UCOs) and covert human intelligence sources (CHIS), both used in investigations involving organised crime, terrorism, and other serious offences. While these tactics may contribute to public safety, their use has raised long-standing concerns about abuse of power, emotional and psychological harm, and a lack of transparency. These issues raise serious questions about ethical policing practices and current regulations.

This study adopted a qualitative approach, drawing on UK legislation, official inquiries, academic literature, and policy documents. All material was ethically sourced and selected for relevance and credibility. The research is structured around two core questions: (1) to what extent can covert policing tactics be considered ethically justifiable, and (2) to what extent are they effectively regulated under UK law? These are explored through two central themes: ethical justification, assessing risk of harm, accountability, proportionality, and legal regulation, including human rights protection, supervision and transparency.

The findings show that undercover policing in the UK is only partially justifiable in practice. While covert tactics can disrupt serious and organised crime, their use often leads to emotional harm, particularly when informants are poorly managed. Officers and CHIS handlers also reported insufficient training and a lack of psychological support, raising concerns about their duty of care. Legally, the CHIS (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 does not prohibit serious offences such as murder or torture, and the authorising bodies remain largely self-regulated. Victims are often not informed or offered redress, and there is no public transparency or accountability regarding informant spending. Because there is no disclosure, victims are deprived of their rights and unable to seek justice or understand the extent of their involvement in covert operations.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16039709

Click Here To Download