The Undercover Scandal: Helen Steel’s Story
Helen Steel was just 22 years old when she first crossed paths with John Barker at a London Greenpeace meeting in 1987. Initially, she didn’t feel any romantic attraction, but she found him to be a “nice, friendly guy.” Barker often offered rides to fellow activists in his van, where he and Steel would engage in conversations about their shared passions: the environment and animal welfare. Before long, they had become a couple.
One memorable summer, they took a trip to the Outer Hebrides and rented a cozy cottage. “I remember John leaning over and telling me that he loved me,” Steel would later recount. “It was the first time anyone had ever really expressed that to me. It was the best summer of my life, and I fell completely in love with him. It felt like I had found the person I was destined to be with forever.” However, unbeknownst to her, John Barker was not who he claimed to be. The man she had fallen for was actually John Dines, an undercover police officer sent to infiltrate activist groups, including the very ones Steel was involved with. He was just one of many officers; reports suggest that at least 60 women have been misled into relationships with undercover policemen, some even having children with them.
Their harrowing tales are being brought to light in a shocking new three-part ITV documentary series, The Undercover Police Scandal: Love and Lies Exposed. Steel is one of five women sharing their experiences on camera for the first time since they brought the so-called “spycops scandal” into the public eye. The similarities in their experiences with the undercover officers are striking: all had vans to transport people, all constructed tragic backstories, and all mysteriously vanished after struggling with mental health issues. The result is a compelling – and infuriating – viewing experience.
Helen Steel is perhaps best known for her role as a self-represented defendant in the infamous McLibel case of the 1990s, where McDonald’s sued her and co-defendant David Morris for libel after they distributed a leaflet criticizing the fast-food giant’s practices. The case became one of the longest-running trials in British legal history. When we connect with Steel at her home in Yorkshire, her language is precise, almost court-like.
“He engaged in a systematic pattern of grooming me,” she states, referring to John “Barker.” “He leaned on me for emotional support, sharing fabricated tragedies from his life – including the death of his parents.” In reality, Dines’s parents were alive. “He even asked to borrow money to travel to New Zealand for his mother’s funeral. This tactic of borrowing and repaying money is a classic manipulation technique to build trust.”
A year and a half into their relationship, Dines, while masquerading as Barker (an identity he had unlawfully adopted from a deceased child), appeared to undergo a mental health crisis. “We had plans to move to York together, and we transported all our belongings there in his van. But when he returned it, he vanished.” Steel received two letters from Dines, allegedly sent from South Africa, wherein he apologized for his sudden departure and ended their relationship.
Something felt amiss, prompting Steel to investigate her ex-boyfriend. “Every time I attempted to dig deeper, I discovered more inconsistencies and lies,” she recalls. Over many years, she gradually unveiled the shocking truth: John Barker was, in fact, a police officer named John Dines, who was secretly married throughout their relationship and had appropriated the identity of a deceased child. “I was completely devastated,” she reflects. “The person I believed I knew so intimately turned out to be a complete fabrication. I didn’t even know his real name. It leads you to question everyone around you.”
Her breakthrough came 19 years after Dines’s abrupt exit when a mutual friend connected her with another woman who had experienced a similar betrayal. This woman, who goes by the pseudonym Alison (granted anonymity by the courts), also shares her story in the documentary, revealing that the man she had lived with for years, posing as joiner Mark Cassidy, was actually undercover officer Mark Jenner. For Steel, this was the answer she had been seeking: her ex-boyfriend had been spying on her on behalf of the police. “Even then,” she says, “nobody really believed us.”
The Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), the undercover unit responsible for these infiltrations, was established in 1968 under the watch of Harold Wilson’s Labour government. Steel notes that the practice of police infiltration into progressive movements has a long, troubling history. “The first camera lenses purchased by this branch were used to surveil the Suffragettes. They had previously infiltrated the anti-apartheid movement,” she states. “This unit was created in response to massive protests against the Vietnam War and has continued its operations ever since.”
Alongside Steel and other women involved in activist circles, the SDS covertly investigated the family of murdered teen Stephen Lawrence, sending an undercover officer to infiltrate the campaign for justice amid fears that public outrage over the botched investigation might ignite riots. “Most people recognize that racism and sexism are wrong and acknowledge the urgent need to combat climate change and environmental destruction, yet the police were focused on undermining those very movements,” Steel asserts. “If they were truly concerned about addressing violence or injustice in the world, they would target the corporations responsible for manufacturing weapons instead.”
In 2011, eight women, including Steel, initiated a legal case against the Metropolitan Police, alleging that undercover officers had violated their human rights, specifically citing Article 3, which prohibits inhumane and degrading treatment, and Article 8, which guarantees respect for private and family life, including the right to form relationships without unjustified state interference. The case was settled four years later, with the Met issuing a formal apology, describing the officers’ conduct as “totally unacceptable” and acknowledging that their relationships with the women constituted “a gross violation of personal dignity and integrity.”
“They attempted to claim that Dines was a rogue officer, but the eight of us who came forward had cases involving five different men over a span of 25 years,” Steel explains. “This was a systematic exploitation of women rooted in institutional sexism. They believed they could utilize women to bolster their fabricated identities and extract supposed intelligence. They severely underestimated us.”
As their stories have gained attention, Steel perceives attempts by the police and media to downplay their experiences. However, the entire practice represents a profound violation of the women’s consent. “Every aspect of their persona – their age, their profession, their personality – was fabricated,” she emphasizes. “No one would consent to a relationship under such deceitful circumstances. Their willingness to engage in intimate relationships showcases a blatant disregard for women’s rights to personal autonomy.”
One woman featured in the documentary goes so far as to describe the experience as “rape by the state.” Steel concurs, stating, “They disregarded our right to make informed decisions about our intimate relationships. They were aware that they were having sexual relations with us without our consent, had we known their true identities. The psychological trauma they inflicted on us has resulted in long-lasting effects.”
When she served as Home Secretary in 2014, Theresa May announced a public inquiry into undercover policing, which was expected to issue its findings in 2023. However, this inquiry has faced repeated delays and remains ongoing. The affected women have articulated several demands for the inquiry. They seek to explicitly prohibit intimate sexual relationships while undercover, allow civil litigation against undercover officers, and grant individuals the right to access their police files after a certain number of years to ensure oversight.
“Maintaining secret police files that no one, not even the subject, can access is a recipe for granting excessive power to men who have historically abused women,” Steel argues. The women also insist that the complete list of “cover names” – the false identities used by the officers – be disclosed. “A significant number of undercover officers have had their cover names kept secret, meaning some women will never learn the truth about their former partners,” Steel adds, noting that there are undoubtedly other victims who remain unaware that their ex-boyfriends were actually undercover officers.
Filming the documentary proved challenging for Steel, and she is somewhat reluctant to delve into the intricate details. “I don’t particularly want to discuss the relationship, and I suspect the other women feel similarly,” she admits. “Constantly reliving and reflecting on the experience is emotionally taxing. It drains you, as you confront the level of callousness and sheer inhumanity exhibited by those men.”
Nevertheless, she and her fellow survivors hope that sharing their stories will help ensure that such abuses never occur again. “It’s the only way to convey the seriousness of the harm caused by these relationships,” she asserts.
‘The Undercover Police Scandal: Love and Lies Exposed’ premieres tomorrow at 9 PM on ITV1.
