3rd Report - Operation Kenova: naming Stakeknife

It is not normal practice to name agents of the state, but in this one instance it is appropriate, proportionate and strongly in the public interest for the Government to name the agent known as Stakeknife. We have been reassured that naming Stakeknife would not put any active agents at risk, discourage existing agents from continuing their work, or deter the recruitment of new agents. We are strongly of the view that, for this single case, naming Stakeknife would help to build trust and confidence in the agencies of the state among all communities. Our conclusion is reinforced by the understanding that a discrete decision to name in this instance would also indicate to agents guilty of conduct beyond acceptable limits that they will not be protected or shielded from the consequences of their actions. (Conclusion, Paragraph 16)

The Government should formally name agent Stakeknife. (Recommendation, Paragraph 17) Outstanding Kenova recommendations

The implications of Operation Kenova’s investigations, for future legacy inquiries, the policy of Neither Confirm Nor Deny and the Government’s approach to reconciliation, are of considerable continuing interest to us. Through ongoing and bespoke pieces of work, we plan to monitor Government progress on the implementation of Kenova’s conclusions and recommendations. (Conclusion, Paragraph 20)

The Government should review, in consultation with MI5 and the PSNI, the application of NCND in all legacy related cases, considering specifically the principles outlined in this Report. (Recommendation, Paragraph 21) 11