CAMPAIGNERS have hit out at the progress of the spycops inquiry after new figures showed the total cost of the probe has reached almost £50 million. 

The Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), chaired by retired judge Sir John Mitting, has cost the taxpayer £47.3m, according to figures released by the inquiry earlier this week. 

Campaigners said the “mind-boggling” sum is at odds with the investigation’s slow progress, which has only concluded two rounds of hearings since it began in October 2020. 

The third round was moved from October 2021 to May 2022, with the final report not expected until 2027 at the earliest, meaning the total cost is likely to be far higher. 

Spied on campaigner Tom Fowler, who is a core participant in the inquiry, told the Star that the costs raise questions about how much has been spent on the “very long-winded method” of redacting police files and documents.

“I don’t believe the majority of the money has been spent on investigating, I believe the majority of the money has been spent on obfuscation,” he said. 

Mr Fowler said the costs were particularly frustrating in light of the “complete lack of support” campaigners have had to participate in the inquiry. “We’ve had to fundraise in order to simply attend,” he said. 

The inquiry was set up in 2015 to investigate abuses by officers serving in two secret police units, which infiltrated more than 1,000 protest groups over four decades. 

But the hearings did not start until five years later, with delays largely caused by anonymity requests by police witnesses, of which dozens were granted. 

By this time the inquiry had already run into costs of £30m. “Extra spend hasn’t resulted in speed to actually get things done,” Mr Fowler added. 

A UCPI spokesperson said: “As part of the Inquiry’s commitment to transparency, each quarter, we publish on our website updated figures for expenditure to date with a breakdown of where the money has been spent.

“These figures include all costs associated with delivering the Inquiry including those spent on the legal representation of core participants and running oral hearings as well as the Inquiry’s own pay and infrastructure costs.”