HN348 ‘Sandra Davies’ joined Special Branch in January 1971. She was recruited into the SDS by senior officer Peter Imbert a few months after joining and probably left the unit at the end of January 1973. Along with HN346 Jill Mosdell, she was one of only two women in the SDS at the time.
Davies’ target group was the Maoist Women's Liberation Front (WLF) later known as the Revolutionary Women’s Union (RWU) whose private study-group meetings she attended on an almost weekly basis. As part of the WLF/RWU she also attended and reported back on several national women’s liberation movement conferences and various other groups whose actions were discussed at meetings.
Her deployment was ended as a precaution after HN45 ‘Dave Robertson’, who was deployed in other north London Maoist groups, was recognised as a police officer by a friend of WLF activist Diane Langford. After leaving the SDS, Davies spent a short time in other Special Branch squads before leaving the Metropolitan Police later in the 1970s to start a family.
Core participant Diane Langford, a founding member of the WLF, gave an excoriating critique of Davies’ evidence in her statement to the Inquiry, pointing out that far from merely acting as an observer, as she claimed, Davies had taken a position of influence in the organisation and played a role in the expulsion of founder members Langford and her husband Abhimanyu Manchanda.
Unless otherwise referenced, the material in this profile comes from Sandra Davies’ witness statement and oral testimony to the Inquiry.
HN348 ‘Sandra Davies’ joined the Metropolitan Police Special Branch in January 1971 and was recruited into the SDS a few months later. Her undercover deployment began three months after feminist protesters flour-bombed the Miss World pageant in London in November 1970 and expressly targeted the women's liberation movement. This is noted in the 1971 SDS Annual Report, which stated that her deployment had 'proved invaluable in the comparatively recent field of Women's Liberation'.
Documents released by the Inquiry show that Davies was deployed undercover from at least 17 February 1971 to 12 December 1972. Her principal target was the small but active Maoist Women's Liberation Front (WLF) co-founded by core participant Diane Langford and her husband Abhimanyu Manchanda.
Through the WLF Davies was able to report on the activities of a wide variety of groups and events in north London Maoist and/or feminist circles. Her senior officers at the SDS who provided most of her tasking were HN1251 Phil Saunders and to a lesser extent HN294.
According to her witness statement, Davies recalls little of her undercover work because of overshadowing events in her personal life. Her evidence, therefore, included hardly any comment on the reports bearing her name. She was certain, however, that the groups she spied on were not violent or criminal:
The activities [of] the groups I infiltrated were hosting meetings and demonstrations. They were all within the bounds of the law. The political ideology of what they were promoting did not spill over into what they were doing. They were just very vocal.
Explaining the rationale for what was included in her reports, Davies said:
I was expected to report back what I saw as much as I could so the powers-that-be could make a decision about their relevance and their links with any other groups. I was aware of this at the time, but I never found any links.’
She further noted that part of the justification for her reporting was to give an idea of attendance at upcoming demonstrations, but while she recorded mentions of forthcoming demonstrations in her reports, she does not give any details of numbers planning to attend or the intentions of those she knows are going.
It is unclear why senior management at Special Branch was interested in the women's liberation movement. Asked about this, Davies offered the explanation that they might have wanted to learn more about small groups to see if they had links with larger ones and assess their threat to the state and democracy.
Reflecting on her time in the SDS she concluded: ‘I do not think my work really yielded any good intelligence, but I eliminated the WLF from public-order concerns.’
As Inquiry chair Sir John Mitting concluded in his Interim Report, it should not have taken the SDS more than a year of invasive intelligence-gathering to conclude that the group posed no threat. Core participant and former WLF founder Diane Langford also pointed out in her evidence that Davies was only withdrawn because another undercover had his cover blown, and otherwise might have continued spying for even longer.
Davies justified her deployment by saying the Metropolitan Police was worried the women’s liberation movement might ’spill over’ into Irish politics. Mitting, however, found no possible justification, writing in his Interim Report:
Her contemporaneous reporting must have made it clear to her superiors that the groups on which she was reporting posed no threat to public order or to the state… It is hard to credit that penetration of or even reporting on these groups could have been thought worthwhile.
Recruitment
A few months after joining Special Branch in January 1971, Davies was approached by Detective Inspector Peter Imbert. Davies' statement described Imbert as a senior SDS officer. A prominent police officer, later Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Imbert was not a member of the SDS. In the early 1970s, Imbert was rising through the ranks at Special Branch, where he seems to have played talent spotter, finding recruits for the SDS.
Davies recalls that Imbert took her out for lunch and told her about the SDS and what was involved in working undercover. He said she should observe and report and not get directly involved in the groups she infiltrated, to avoid the risk of acting as an ‘agent provocateur’. After this lunch she says she did not see Imbert again.
Davies thinks she was approached because the SDS needed a female officer to help it to infiltrate the growing women's liberation movement. She claimed in her witness statement that: ‘The Angry Brigade were linked to the women's movement and so were lots of other left-wing extremist groups that were latching on to it.’ This is firmly denied by one of her targets, Diane Langford, who founded the Maoist WLF on which Davies spied.
Studying for her sergeant’s exams at the time of her recruitment, Davies calculated that joining the SDS might help her career. She also said she had a personal interest in women’s equality as she was herself a victim of structural sexism:
Even in the police service, women had the same powers as men but I was only paid 90% of what the men were paid. I was interested in women's issues, such as contraception and nurseries. I was genuinely interested when those topics were discussed in the bigger meetings, but not the extremist activities.
It is not clear what extremist activities Davies is referring to here, as she says the group she spied on did not undertake any direct action or break any laws.
No senior officers discussed with her what the impact on her family of joining the SDS would be. Looking back, Davies believes this was bad practice: 'It was not something that concerned me at the time but, in hindsight, I think it should have been discussed’, she wrote. ‘It was all rather casual.’
She also criticised the lack of back-up she had as a lone female undercover and took the unusual step of enlisting her husband’s support:
Some of the meetings finished quite late at night and I was concerned about travelling home alone....So I always told [my husband] where I was going and what time to expect me back and, sometimes, he would meet me somewhere down the line or at the tube station. This was a back-up that I arranged for myself; it was for my own protection.
That said, Davies recalls she did not feel threatened by her targets. ‘At the time, I felt quite detached from the activists and that I was not in any particular danger, especially at the public meetings which were open to anyone.’
Training
Davies says there was no formal training: ‘I do recall having discussions with the senior officers, but I cannot recall any particular advice before I was in the field.’ She says that once deployed, undercovers supported each other in meetings at the safe house, although she claims they did this without sharing details of their deployments.
The closest to formal training she recalled was that after she was deployed HN45 ‘Dave Robertson’
, who infiltrated similar groups in north London, gave a presentation on Maoist politics at the safe house to give undercovers a better understanding of the ideology.
Davies says there was no written advice on working undercover; any she might have been given was in conversation with the senior officers. Although she wrote that nothing was said, Davies believes relationships of any kind would have been frowned on. ‘I knew we were not allowed to enter sexual relationships – that is one thing I can feel quite certain about, although it was never discussed explicitly.’
Recalling that there was ‘definitely a feeling amongst the UCOs [undercovers] that it was “them and us”’, Davies was sure that relationships of any sort would have been discouraged by managers. ‘As far as I was concerned, we were not to get involved in any depth in the lives of the activists.’
Challenging Davies’ interpretation of her actions, WLF activist Diane Langford, whose home Davies regularly visited for meetings, asserted that the undercover had been intimately involved in her life, writing: ‘It feels incredibly violating to know that HN348 entered my family home to spy on me.’
Tradecraft
Davies recalled adopting the name ‘Sandra’ for her undercover work, though not the surname she used. She accepted that, based on the documentary evidence, it was likely to have been Davies. She believes that she would have been given advice on how to choose a cover name by senior officers, but said she was unaware of the practice of using dead children’s names.
Her cover story was that she was studying at Goldsmiths University, though she did not enrol and says she never attended. She rented a room in a large shared house in Paddington in west London, which served as her cover address throughout her time in the SDS.
The 1971 SDS Annual Report shows that the Metropolitan Police was paying for this room by 28 October 1971.
Davies says she visited her cover room about once a week, but did not get to know the other tenants.
Unlike other undercovers, Davies did not change her hair or clothes, though she stopped wearing makeup and took off her wedding and engagement rings, as her cover identity was of a single woman. She told the Inquiry she did not need a car for her cover as public transport was sufficient for her needs and that she did not have any identity documents in her cover name.
Unlike other undercovers who said they used their own initiative about which groups to infiltrate, Davies said she simply followed orders: ‘I did not suggest my own tasking and I did not question my tasking or suggest infiltrating any other group. I did not challenge the value of what I was doing at the time; I trusted my senior officers as they had more information.’
Her primary target was the Women’s Liberation Front (WLF) , which reconfigured with a new constitution as the Revolutionary Women's Union (RWU) in 1972. Davies appears to have been elected treasurer of the RWU and attended meetings of its executive committee.
The WLF/RWU worked with a number of other left-wing groups in north London and helped to organise the 1971 Women’s Liberation Conference in Skegness. Davies’ reports, therefore, cover other groups and events she encountered and participated in from her position as a member of the WLF/RWU.
Other groups mentioned occasionally in Davies reports included Clann na h'Eireann , Palestine Solidarity Campaign , Angela Davies Defence Committee , Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist) , Artists Liberation Front , North London Claimants Union , Society of Anglo Chinese Understanding and the Anti-Internment League.
Women's Liberation Front
The WLF was founded by women connected with the Revolutionary Marxist-Leninist League (RMLL).
The RMLL was a Maoist group whose general secretary was Diane Langford’s husband, Abhimanyu Manchanda, and which had been active in the anti-Vietnam war protests. Langford was one of the WLF’s founder members.
From 1970 the RMLL was infiltrated by SDS undercover HN45 ‘Dave Robertson’.
In January 1971 he reported on a RMLL meeting at Manchanda and Langford's home, that stated that growing the WLF was part of the group's planned activities for the coming year, including setting up branches in north and south London.
It is possible that Davies was recruited to the SDS in early 1971 specifically to infiltrate the WLF. She claims, however, that although her deployment quickly settled on the WLF as its main target, the choice of who to report on was not preordained. ‘I was not initially asked to target the WLF in particular, but I was directed to attend after I was approached and invited to their meetings.’
This version of events was strongly contested by Diane Langford. ‘This doesn’t seem credible to me’, she commented:
I also note that the WLF had its own Registry File from 1969 and the November 1970 Annual Report mentions the Women's Liberation Front as having been penetrated by the SDS at that time. The organisation was clearly an SDS target and it is obvious that HN348 was recruited to target it.
The first of Davies’ reports released by the Inquiry concerns a public meeting of the WLF held on 17 February 1971 at the Duke of Clarence pub in Walworth, south-east London. The main topic was Diane Langford speaking on the need to 'Smash Fascism'. Davies attended with a detective sergeant who wrote a report on the meeting, noting the various talks and presence of members of the General Post Office Union who were raising awareness of an ongoing strike.
The next report records her attending a meeting of the – in Davies’ words – ‘studious, quiet, orderly and generally quite friendly’ WLF study group on 25 February at a private residence.
The gathering was by invitation only and the report records that she was given a 'personal invitation’ at a previous Women's Liberation meeting. She noted the dates of the next study group and a Women's Liberation Movement demonstration on 6 March 1971 as well as political differences with other groups such as the Women's Liberation Workshop and Gay Liberation Front.
Although Davies told the Inquiry she remembers very little detail about her deployment, the WLF meetings described in more than 50 of her reports were usually small – often between eight or twelve people – and held mainly at Diane Langford’s, or another member of the group’s, home in north London.
Some meetings were more open and held in a public house. The upstairs room at the Laurel Tree pub on Bayham Street in Camden, north London was a regular choice of venue. The meetings were by invitation only and attended mainly by women. In Davies' recollection, they focused on Maoist political thought and she claims she did not say much at the meetings. She did not think her managers had any problem with her entering private homes in her undercover identity.
Davies said WLF members ‘were active at demonstrations’ but cannot remember whether she went to any. She also claims she declined to help distribute any of the group’s literature or flyers for meetings and demonstrations.
Whether she took part or not, Davies reported back on the WLF’s activities. These included that in early 1972 the group had been involved with the North London Claimants Union’s campaign to have the Hillside Eastgate Unit for the Homeless in Archway shut down, which involved picketing Islington Council.
Davies reported from the WLF meeting of 20 January 1972 that the campaign had been a success and the residents were rehomed. This is the first mention of this campaign in the documents released by the Inquiry and it is unclear if Davies took part in the demonstrations.
The North London Claimants Union was also infiltrated by HN299/342 David Hughes as the organisation was of interest to secret Whitehall committees on subversion.
A key focus of the WLF/RWU during 1972 was its involvement in the campaign for universal nursery provision to allow women to work, which Davies reported on regularly throughout the year, including a national conference on the issue organised by the Guildford Nursery Campaign Action Group in May 1972.
The minutes of the WLF's annual general meeting of 6 February 1972 show the organisation had changed its name to the Revolutionary Women’s Union (RWU), adopted a new constitution, ‘formally expelled’ Diane Langford and Abhimanyu Manchanda and appointed ‘Sandra Davies’ as its treasurer.
Davies claims not to recall being treasurer, although she conceded there was no other Sandra in the group. Treasurer was a useful position for an undercover police officer to hold, as it came with access to an organisation’s membership lists.
Immediately after the AGM Davies reported on a meeting of the RWU executive committee on 9 February, suggesting her new role as treasurer had elevated her to part of the group’s decision-making body. As the committee was only a handful of people, it would have been hard for Davies to avoid influencing the direction of the group.
She continued to regularly report on, and presumably participate in, meetings of the RWU Executive Committee in February, March and May, including a small meeting on 10 March 1972, when it took the decision to suspend three members for being disruptive.
Davies’ reports from these executive committee meetings show many concerns of the group remained the same: the nurseries campaign, the relationship with other women's liberation groups and internal political dynamics among leading members.
One of the rare reports that dealt with a public-order situation was in April 1972, in which a group member gave an account of four of them chasing a fascist paper-seller out of Chapel Market. There was also discussion of mobilising around a forthcoming rally by the Loyalist group Vanguard, and it was decided that if there was a counter demonstration, the RWU would support it.
By mid-1972, following internal division and the expulsion of Langford and Manchanda, the group was in decline and actively trying to reach out to other groups to stay in contact with the national women's liberation movement. Though RWU members attended demonstrations, the numbers they could muster by this point were small.
Davies reported on 15 June 1972 that: ‘At present there appears to be very little militant action or campaigns being undertaken or being planned by the Revolutionary Women's Union.’
Regarding a meeting held on 12 November 1972, she wrote that two new members of the RWU had disclosed personal friendships with members of the Stoke Newington Eight, who belonged to the Angry Brigade.
She described the new members: ‘These two have attended a few recent meetings of the RWU and have previously supported the London Alliance. They are extremely militant and advocate direct action. They are lesbians.’
Although the Angry Brigade was a major focus of Special Branch and police activity more generally, Davies barely mentioned the group again in her reporting.
Issues in reporting
Davies recorded intrusive personal details on WLF members that noted people’s appearance, ethnicity, sexual orientation and relationships. In a report on 6 October 1971, she described the Filipino partner of one of the WLF activists having a ‘very thin build, straight black hair, Asian features and colouring, dirty appearance, very poorly clad’.
Another report filed on the same day included a handwritten letter by the acting secretary of the WLF, gathered to provide a 'specimen of [her] handwriting'. On 4 January 1972, she reported that one WLF member had been accused of having an affair with the husband of another.
Davies also reported on people's political opinions. In a report of a 11 March 1971 meeting of the WLF she noted that one speaker had talked favourably about the IRA, writing: ‘On Ulster, [redacted] praised the recent actions of the IRA which she described as 'a good way to start a revolution'.
Other reports contain derogatory comments, particularly about lesbian women. In a report on the tempestuous ‘first National Women’s Liberation Conference called by the National Women’s Co-ordinating Committee’ in Skegness on 15-17 October 1971, Davies wrote that, following yet another major dispute between audience members: 'Lesbian women took refuge in each other’s arms and self-control ceased to exist'.
In a report the next year on the Fourth National Women's Liberation Conference at Acton, west London on 4-5 November 1972, organised by a group called Gay Women, Davies wrote disparagingly that: ‘Lesbian friends in particular made exaggerated and noisy displays of affection openly kissing and hugging each other.’
In May 1973, Davies provided detailed information on a former member of the Schools Action Union that she must have gained by gathering information on the activist when she was still a schoolchild.
At the other end of the spectrum, some of Davies’ reporting was incredibly mundane, for example several of her reports contain updates on a plan for an RWU jumble sale. Another contained the information that RWU members had been asked to bake cakes for a Black Unity and Freedom Party (BUFP) children’s party.
Given content like this, it is hard to see why SDS managers believed her deployment was worth continuing.
Unlike many other SDS undercovers, Davies does not appear to have moved around groups. The close relationship between the Women's Liberation Front/Revolutionary Women's Union (WLF/RWU) and the North London Alliance in Defence of Workers' Rights (NLADWR) meant she gathered a significant amount of intelligence about the latter group as well.
Her knowledge about other groups came from reporting on conferences or gossip she heard at WLF meetings. This included disagreements between the WLF and other groups active at the time.
North London Alliance in Defence of Workers' Rights
The NLADWR was a Maoist group that shared members and worked closely with the WLF/RWU. Minutes of the WLF annual general meeting in February 1972 describe it having been founded in late 1970 by members of the WLF, Black Unity and Freedom Party (BUFP) and Schools Action Union (SAU) with the intention of opposing the Immigration and Industrial Relations bills then being debated in parliament and campaigning against racism and fascism.
It was spied on by HN45 ‘Dave Robertson’
as well as Davies, who attended several of its meetings during the summer of 1971 and reported on any of its activities that had been discussed at WLF meetings, until the end of her deployment in February 1973. Both she and Robertson referred to it as simply the ‘London Alliance’ in most of their reports.
On 21 June 1971, Davies attended a meeting of 15 members of the NLADWR held at a private residence. The focus of discussion was the group's planned demonstration of 25 July, and preparations to advertise it.
During the summer of 1971 she reported on the activities of the NLADWR that were discussed at WLF meetings, including that it was planning a demonstration for 21 August 1971 in north London on 'racialist police attitudes' and was linking up with the BUFP demonstration on 29 July 1971.
On 30 July 1971, Davies was at a NLADWR film screening, after which it was announced that several members of the group who had been arrested at an impromptu street meeting were to appear in court on 6 August for committal proceedings and the group would be doing a picket of the court. A collection for their defence was made.
There seems to have been an overlap in membership between the Alliance and the WLF, as on 18 August 1971 Davies wrote a report on a woman who was in both groups, noting that she had been on holiday in Albania and identifying her from a photo taken on an Indian Workers Association (IWA) demonstration on 21 March 1971.
At another WLF meeting of 22 September 1971 there was discussion of tactics to be used at a forthcoming NLADWR demonstration on 25 September.
Davies reported the words of a WLF member who said: ‘Although they did not wish it to cause trouble, she anticipated that trouble would be initiated by police and in this event they should retaliate, particularly if members of the British Unity and Freedom Party were harassed.’
Though Davies does not appear to have attended further NLADWR meetings, she continued to report on it regularly throughout the rest of 1971 via announcements of its activities at WLF meetings.
For example, her report on a WLF meeting on 25 November 1971 includes information on a long discussion around NLADWR plans for a tribunal into police brutality and a torch-light procession organised with the Irish National Liberation Solidarity Front (INLSF)
to the place in Islington where teenager Stephen McCarthy had been violently arrested by the police resulting in a fatal brain injury.
See the profile of undercover officer HN347 ‘Alex Sloan’
for more details on this.
Following the WLF split and transformation into the RWU in February 1972, it maintained links with the NLADWR and members were encouraged to attend its events, such as a study class at the Laurel Tree pub on 25 February 1972.
After a 20 March 1972 RWU meeting Davies reported that the NLADWR, BUFP and RWU were planning to participate in an Anti-Internment League (AIL)
protest on 29 March.
Two months later she provided Special Branch with a description of the chair of the NLADWR including his links with the BUFP and SAU, and role as a founder of the Artists Liberation Front.
In September 1972 Davies reported that the group was organising a campaign against the National Front
in the wake of attacks on the proposed entry of Ugandan Asians.
In October she reported that someone who was a member of both RWU and the NLADWR had taken employment with the Match Company:
Apparently it is the policy of the[se] groups to encourage members to obtain work in East End factories with the aim of promoting militant activity among the working classes against the 'bosses' and to obtain recruits.
The most interesting of Davies’ disclosures in relation to the NLADWR was her report of 2 February 1973. Written in response to a specific request from MI5 to know whether the addresses of two members of the NLADWR and its organisational headquarters had changed and, if so, asking for the new contact details, including a phone number.
Davies responded that the organisational headquarters remained at the activists’ old location and their new home had no telephone, explaining: ‘Their new address is supposed to be “a secret” and they have said they have no intention of holding political meetings there until they are “well established”. There is no telephone at [redacted] and the number [redacted] remains printed on all correspondence.’
This is evidence of one of the many times when MI5 was contemporaneously monitoring the same groups as the SDS.
Women's Liberation Workshop
Several of Davies' reports mentioned contact between WLW branches and the WLF/RWU but there was not a working relationship between them. One notable report, from 26 April 1972, gave a description of a WLW member who contacted the RWU with a view to establishing a Socialist National Women's Liberation Movement, recording that she had been involved in the organisation of the original Miss World demonstration of 1970 and giving her occupation as a school teacher.
In January 1973 Davies reported plans for joint sessions between the RWU and WLW’s Stratford branch to build support for the women's liberation movement. In the same month she reported that the WLW was planning a national demonstration, 'in conjunction with many other women's extremist groups'.
Gay Liberation Front
The GLF was often mentioned in the context of its role and activities at various women's liberation conferences. Reporting on a conference about nursery provision in June 1972, Davies noted the 'absence of representatives from the Gay Liberation Front, which tends to be disruptive'. Notably, many within the GLF had different politics from Maoist groupings and Davies’ views on their disruptiveness could reflect the opinions of the milieu she was spying on.
Women's National Co-ordinating Committee
The WNCC was mentioned in a number of reports on the WLF, often in relation to the political differences between the two organisations or as the organiser of conferences to which the WLF had sent delegates.
Union of Women for Liberation
This group was politically close to the WLF and collaborated on a number of issues, particularly in relation to the WNCC and its national conferences. There were often serious political disagreements between the two groups, on which Davies reported in detail, in a series of documents between October 1971-April 1972.
Black Unity and Freedom Party
Davies mentioned Black Power organisation the BUFP in several reports, as it worked with the WLF/RWU directly and as part of the NLADWR. BUFP member Leila Hassan gave a talk to the WLF on the oppression of Black women on 18 November 1971, during the course of the Mangrove Nine trial of Black Power activists for inciting riot, which was widely covered in the press at the time.
Asked about this during her oral testimony, Davies said she did not know about the Mangrove Nine trial and was not tasked to report specifically on the BUFP, though it had an existing Special Branch registry file. At a 4 December 1971 meeting, Davies reported that Hassan had asked the WLF to make sweets and cakes for a BUFP children’s Christmas party in December 1971.
In September 1972 Davies reported that the RWU had agreed to a meeting with the BUFP women's group in south London for an informal discussion.
Schools Action Union
Documents from summer 1971 to spring 1972 show Davies reporting on the Schools Action Union (SAU), noting its activities and naming members who attended WLF meetings. Reporting on them continued in 1972, where Davies was able to pass on information gained through the RWU executive in relation to the SAU protest held on 17 May 1972 and to activists’ occasional attendance at RWU meetings.
On 11 May 1972 Davies reported on an 18-year-old boy who was interested in joining the SAU, giving considerable background on him, particularly his involvement in the Welsh Language Society and association with 'extremist members' of that group, and that he had joined the Welsh nationalist party, Plaid Cymru. The report shows that Davies was relying on information given to her by WLF/RWU contacts in the SAU to report back on that group.
In May 1973, after the end of her deployment and probably in response to a request from MI5, Davies provided a detailed political biography and personal description of an 18-year-old girl who joined the NLADWR and RWU, which included information on her activity as a schoolchild involved in the SAU.
Angry Brigade
Davies reported on a 4 December 1971 meeting during which a request was made for members to visit a woman being held on remand in Holloway prison on suspicion of involvement in the Angry Brigade bombings. The members decided not to visit her until they had more details about her situation as some of them feared arrest if they did.
Other Davies reports that mention the Angry Brigade include one on the March 1972 Women's Liberation Conference in Manchester, where she noted that: ‘Several women asked that the next conference should have a firm agenda and a more rigid format. These suggestions were subjected to the usual heckling by the many GLF and “Angry Brigade” members.’
As the Angry Brigade was a clandestine organisation that did not openly have members, it is not clear how Davies knew the group was in attendance. As previously noted, in a November 1972 meeting, two new RWU members claimed to know some of the Stoke Newington Eight – alleged Angry Brigade activists, at the time awaiting trial.
Women's Liberation conferences
Davies attended the first Women's National Liberation Conference in Skegness from 15 to 17 October 1971 as WLF members were among the conference’s leading organisers. She submitted a detailed report of sessions, politics and the many disruptions, which often focused on the actions of Gay Liberation Front members present.
A number of Davies’ reports on WLF meetings both before and after the event focused on the conference and its repercussions, including in relation to the Union of Women for Liberation, another Maoist group.
What is clear is that Davies cast her net wide when reporting back to managers on the rise of left-wing feminist groups.
In 1972 alone, she attended and reported on a National Union of Students conference on women in higher education at the University of London in January and a women’s liberation conference at Manchester University in March. In June, she reported from Guildford on the Women’s Liberation Conference on nursery provision and in November attended its fourth national conference in Acton, west London.
Davies explained that she was ‘withdrawn from the field as a precaution at the same time as HN45 'Dave Robertson' when his cover was compromised as they were spying on connected groups. Jill Mosdell was withdrawn at the same time and for the same reason.’
Robertson was recognised as a police officer by a work colleague of Diane Langford’s who lived near a flat he was using in his undercover identity. Langford gave evidence that her colleague told her that after she recognised him, Robertson had threatened her family, which he denied. For more information on this, see Robertson's profile.
On being withdrawn, Davies was immediately deployed to another part of Special Branch, the detail of which is redacted, but which she testified was not related to her SDS undercover work. Having married during her deployment in the SDS, Davies appears to have left the Metropolitan Police not long afterwards to raise her family.
All the documents relating to this section can be found by selecting the Procedural tab on the documents page.
The Metropolitan Police made an application to restrict Davies’ real name on 31 July 2017. On 8 August 2017 the MPS lawyers submitted an Impact Statement on her behalf in support of the application. In it she revealed concerns that she would be embarrassed if a particular activist she had spied on found out and that her reputation would be tainted if her current colleagues discovered she had been an undercover officer.
She was also worried about media intrusion into her and her family’s private lives. A risk assessment was completed on 3 November 2017 in which the Metropolitan Police assessor found that there was ‘no evidence available to me that [H]N348 would be in physical danger if her true identity was exposed’.
On 14 November 2017 Inquiry Chair John Mitting issued a notice that he was Minded To restrict her real name as she was worried about media intrusion into her private life. A subsequent hearing on the restriction considered submissions from the Metropolitan Police, The Guardian newspaper, SDS undercover-turned-whistleblower HN43 Peter Francis 'Pete Black'
and from the Inquiry's non-state, non-police core participants.
An open hearing on the Restriction Order application was heard on 5 February 2018 and the ruling in favour of restricting Davies' real name was issued on 20 February 2018. Explaining his reasoning, Mitting wrote: ‘No useful purpose would be served by publishing her real name. She can give evidence about her deployment as "Sandra" and so assist the Inquiry to discover why an undercover officer was deployed against an apparently harmless group.’
Davies initially submitted a written witness statement on 8 April 2019, giving an amended version on 14 October 2019 after being shown further documents. She gave live oral testimony to the Inquiry on 18 November 2021.