Police Spy Accused of Inciting Arson in UK Undercover Inquiry

Published: 03 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

A UK inquiry has heard claims that an undercover police officer attempted to incite activists to commit arson. The focus keyword, police spy, appears early as witnesses described how the officer suggested firebombing a shop linked to far-right fundraising. Three anti-fascist campaigners testified that the officer, Carlo Soracchi, proposed the act twice, although they firmly rejected the idea. Soracchi, who infiltrated leftwing groups for six years, denied the allegations and faces questions about possible exaggeration or fabrication of surveillance reports. The inquiry is probing undercover police conduct stretching from 1968 to 2010.

The activists said Soracchi, posing as a socialist campaigner between 2000 and 2006, encouraged them to target a London shop allegedly tied to far-right operations. Witnesses emphasised they had no intention of engaging in criminal acts, categorically rejecting the officer’s suggestion. During his deployment, Soracchi also formed intimate relationships using his false identity, raising serious ethical concerns. The inquiry will examine both the alleged attempt to incite arson and the deception of individuals close to him.

Joe Batty, one of the activists, testified about an incident on New Year’s Eve 2002, when the police spy Carlo Soracchi raised the topic of Roberto Fiore, a far-right figure linked to a suspected bombing in Italy who reportedly ran a charity shop in London. Batty said the police spy implied it would be “terrible” if the shop were attacked. A few days later, the police spy allegedly repeated his suggestion while driving Batty and another activist past the same shop in Maida Vale. Batty insisted they would never act on the police spy’s suggestion, reinforcing that no criminal intent existed among the group.

Soracchi has denied the accusations and claimed that Dan Gillman, another activist, suggested the firebombing. Gillman refuted this allegation, calling it an “absolute lie.” No reports were filed by Soracchi to superiors about Gillman making such a suggestion, which witnesses argue undermines Soracchi’s claims. “Every conversation, however mundane, was meticulously recorded, yet nothing supported his version,” Gillman said.

Steve Hedley, the third activist, described telling Soracchi not to be “so stupid” when he raised the firebombing proposal. He suggested the police may have sought to entrap activists who were largely law-abiding, as Soracchi had spent years infiltrating their circles without uncovering illegal activity. The inquiry’s chief barrister, David Barr, confirmed that witnesses have questioned the credibility of Soracchi’s surveillance records, which are now under scrutiny for potential fabrication.

The inquiry will probe not only the alleged attempt at incitement but also broader issues surrounding undercover policing ethics, including deception in personal relationships. Soracchi’s conduct could shape future reforms and guidelines for covert operations in the UK, raising critical questions about oversight and accountability. Experts note the case highlights the tension between intelligence-gathering and civil liberties, particularly when a police spy interacts intimately with activists.

The allegations, if proven, underscore concerns about “agent provocateur” tactics in British policing. Historical cases and ongoing investigations reveal patterns of undercover officers potentially encouraging criminality among targeted groups. Critics argue such methods risk undermining public trust and violate ethical standards. Police authorities have repeatedly emphasised that undercover work by a police spy is essential for national security, yet transparency in operations remains a persistent challenge.

Observers note that the Soracchi case is particularly sensitive because it combines personal deception with alleged attempts to provoke criminal acts. Campaigners emphasise that activists’ rights must be protected, even when they are engaged in lawful protest or political campaigning. The inquiry may therefore set a precedent for how undercover operations are monitored, including the limits of permissible entrapment and the safeguarding of individuals’ civil liberties.

Witness testimony at the inquiry has already highlighted the psychological impact on activists, who described feeling manipulated and surveilled for extended periods. Legal experts stress the importance of independent review in such cases to ensure accountability and prevent abuses of power. While Soracchi’s defenders argue that all surveillance was lawful and aimed at legitimate targets, opponents maintain that ethical boundaries were crossed, particularly when personal relationships were exploited for operational purposes.

This case continues a broader conversation about the use of undercover policing in the UK, drawing attention to both historical misconduct and current regulatory frameworks. By examining past deployments alongside present practices, the inquiry seeks to balance effective law enforcement with respect for individual freedoms. Soracchi’s upcoming testimony will be pivotal, potentially clarifying his actions and the extent to which undercover officers may have crossed legal or moral boundaries.

The inquiry also raises questions about training, oversight, and the transparency of internal police reporting. Evidence suggests that officers sometimes exaggerated threats to justify prolonged surveillance, which could mislead superiors and the public. The ethical implications are substantial, particularly when covert operations intersect with personal lives and intimate relationships. Civil rights organisations have called for clearer rules and independent auditing to prevent future abuses.

As the inquiry progresses, scrutiny is likely to intensify over how police spies interact with civilians, the accuracy of intelligence reports, and the ethical limits of undercover work. Experts suggest that the lessons learned could reshape policies, aiming to prevent misconduct while still enabling effective monitoring of extremist or criminal activity. Ultimately, the outcome may influence public confidence in the police and the perceived legitimacy of undercover operations across the UK.

Check our latest news