Met police named two officers in undercover police sex case

The Metropolitan Police has disclosed the names of two officers who are accused of having relationships with female members of groups they had infiltrated while serving as undercover cops.

Jim Boyling and Bob Lambert have been facing charges for establishing relationships with women while living under assumed identities.

The names were revealed after High Court judge Justice Bean ruling came last month after the force lost a legal battle for keeping secret the identities of both officers, since a group of women launched a lawsuit three years ago.

The victims have brought the claim against the Met saying they have suffered intense emotional trauma and pain after learning they had been deceived into forming long-term relationships with undercover police officers.

Justice Bean ruled that the force could not use its policy of “neither confirm nor deny” (NCND) in response to damages claimed by affected women.

The NCND policy aims to protect the identities and safety of undercover officers.

The claimants are among a number of people demanding compensation for the damages done by officers who used fake identities to infiltrate environmental activist groups.

The claims include deceit, assault, negligence and misfeasance in public office arising out of long-term and sexual relationships the women shared with members of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), between 1987 and 2007.

The names of the officers who violated the force’s guidance were publicised in response to the claims after an ultimatum was issued by Justice Bean who said it to be “simply unsustainable” for the Met to conceal the identities of Lambert and Boyling.

Following the court ruling, the Met spokesperson has stated: “In compliance with the order of Justice Bean the MPS has confirmed in its defence that Jim Boyling and Bob Lambert were undercover police officers.”

The lawyer representing women, Solicitor Harriet Wistrich has said: “The police have been on notice of this case for three and a half years and until this judgment, they have wilfully refused to engage in any meaningful way with the most serious allegations put to them.

“Their on-going refusal in the face of an overwhelming body of evidence in the public domain has greatly aggravated the distress caused to my clients, who want answers from the police as well as justice and accountability.”

Article viewed on Oye! Times at

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Confirm you are not a spammer! *