A crucial directions hearing where Sir John Mitting rules on whether evidence in Tranche 2 Phase 2 should be live-streamed. Core participants argue for maintaining live streaming with safeguards, while the Inquiry raises concerns about protecting privacy through Reporting Restriction Orders. The Chair ultimately rules against live streaming but agrees to provide live links to registered core participants with a 10-minute delay.
00:27:57 e e
00:28:46 good morning everybody um this is going to be the sixth day of evidence The Eighth Day of hearings in phase two of TR
00:28:55 TR 2 uh
00:29:00 2 uh today is going to begin with submissions which will be made publicly and openly uh they will be uh live streamed uh the live streaming will be subject to a 10-minute delay the usual restrictions
00:29:12 10-minute delay the usual restrictions apply on those who have got electronic devices uh in the hearing room you may use them uh subject to the 10-minute delay to uh say to the outside world
00:29:29 delay to uh say to the outside world what is going on but you may not use them to record or photograph yes Mr wood sir um May I start by saying that we recognize in our submissions on your
00:29:47 recognize in our submissions on your ruling uh the very significant amount of work that's been going on from the side of the
00:29:49 of the inquiry a and the lawyers on behalf of
00:30:00 inquiry a and the lawyers on behalf of the inquiry and the time that is being expended on on that and the pressures that that is bringing to Bear are evident by this morning with Mr Morris
00:30:12 evident by this morning with Mr Morris due to give evidence are still unable to uh communicate with Council who's to lead him through his evidence about the matters or the details of the matters
00:30:29 matters or the details of the matters which are sought to be led from him say for a brief email my Lord uh uh this morning setting out some topics and drawing our attention to uh some of the uh documents but my Lord sir we
00:30:44 uh documents but my Lord sir we certainly say that uh uh the order that you have made on the 31st of October came to all of us as a very significant
00:30:55 significant surprise so in that order you stated that a late application for a reporting restriction order had been received which was granted on the 31st
00:31:14 received which was granted on the 31st and that by you and that the Practical consequences of this order and the consequential impact of the other reporting restrictions orders which are in place it is that the inquiry is
00:31:25 in place it is that the inquiry is unlikely to be able to live stream evidence subject to a 10-minute DeLay So we look at the circumstances of that and the evidence that is to be
00:31:41 that and the evidence that is to be given and we find when considering for example Mr Morris this
00:31:50 morning difficult to see any aspect of his evidence that is potentially touched by such or orders such as to require the departure from the procedure that has
00:32:01 departure from the procedure that has successfully been adopted by the inquiry uh thus far so we we first heard of this proceedings this this your your desire
00:32:22 proceedings this this your your desire to hear us this time uh late on Saturday afternoon via an email from the inquiry so um uh we responded and cooperated and were of course in the
00:32:39 cooperated and were of course in the dark about exactly what it was that had led to you giving your order sir your your
00:32:40 your order uh that gave rise to this change
00:32:52 order uh that gave rise to this change obviously related to miss steel and was set out in in paragraph one o of the email that was sent to her representatives in which you indicated that
00:33:00 that actually you would leave in the public
00:33:10 domain a large number of aspects key aspects of of her evidence so I'm completely aware that she challenges some of that and submissions will be
00:33:23 some of that and submissions will be heard uh on her behalf so far as some of that is concerned as I understand it from Miss Kilroy later this afternoon but so what we do say is that that gave a broad breadth of uh public material
00:33:43 a broad breadth of uh public material that was going to be available and the amount of material that we could see might be
00:33:45 might be restricted was extremely limited so on receipt of of that uh
00:33:56 limited so on receipt of of that uh email addressed also to Mr Morris who was to give evidence the question was raised by uh the officer of the
00:34:08 the officer of the inquiry as to whether his evidence might be touched upon by the order that was being made his response was was prompt and direct to the inquiry and I'm going
00:34:23 and direct to the inquiry and I'm going to read it out sir lest it has not come to your
00:34:27 to your attention he wrote to the inquiry promptly
00:34:28 promptly at 20 to7 on Saturday I am confident that this can be managed that is the rro sensitivities
00:34:46 managed that is the rro sensitivities during my evidence in the same way as in all previous hearings for example being given written copies of any relevant rros or other guidance in advance of my
00:34:57 rros or other guidance in advance of my appearance to have with me a summary of of T2 R was available two weeks ago I'm happy to read carefully any updated
00:35:16 updated version undercover officers were given a list of real names for ciphers to check whilst in the witness box there were times when the chair asked for a specific reply or named to be written down by the witness and handed directly
00:35:28 down by the witness and handed directly to him and so we saw this yesterday with the dealing with the photographs with the witness yesterday sensitive material being dealt with perfectly properly in a public forum so that the sensitive
00:35:40 public forum so that the sensitive nature of the material need not be made public he
00:35:45 public he continued being alerted by Council during my
00:35:46 during my examination under the undercover officers have been regularly asked when a question is about to be put by Council to be
00:35:58 to be careful or don't men mention any names and he then continued as suggested in your letter below my examination could be part
00:36:11 below my examination could be part closed I.E when there is a section of questioning that is particularly sensitive this could be scheduled in advance such as to go offline for 30
00:36:27 advance such as to go offline for 30 minutes or as we suggest in our skeleton to you sir uh uh at the end of each of the w is evidence there be a private session not online that would avoid the necessity of what we submit is the
00:36:46 necessity of what we submit is the DraStic step that you have provisionally taken uh uh in the order that you made Miss steel and I simply say this was obviously concerned uh uh about not just the Ambit
00:37:03 concerned uh uh about not just the Ambit of the order but she wants to be able to make it perfectly clear in public that she was not involved in the deams uh uh incident at all and that it is and will be her
00:37:17 all and that it is and will be her surmise that the officer Mr Lambert was indeed the person who perpetrated that offense and has sought effectively to blame her for it sir all of that on your
00:37:28 blame her for it sir all of that on your orders at the moment should and would be in the public domain so can I then turn having given that uh uh short prey uh to the skeleton argument which we drew
00:37:41 the skeleton argument which we drew overnight this evening sir in paragraph two we identify as uh a point of
00:37:53 two we identify as uh a point of principles that these Co participants favor maximizing the extent of live streaming as far as possible in order to implement the principle of open Justice at common law and so I'm at
00:38:10 Justice at common law and so I'm at paragraph two of my skeleton argument submitted to you sir this morning
00:38:12 morning so I know that my learned friend uh Council to the inquiry will site the thoral inquiry as a precedent for the
00:38:24 thoral inquiry as a precedent for the course that he seeks to adopt but can I say this uh in advance o of his submission so far as that is concerned that inquiry is in connection with very many private matters whereas this
00:38:42 many private matters whereas this inquiry is to do with a public Scandal involving uh uh undercover police officers behaviors over many years in a what we submit is a department that was poorly supervised and Ill
00:38:59 poorly supervised and Ill directed so as as a matter of principle the proceeding should be live streamed
00:39:12 the proceeding should be live streamed unless a limitation on this is strictly necessary and so of course we don't in any way dispute the need on occasions for respecting of the Ros and for a facility to go into
00:39:25 Ros and for a facility to go into private but the DraStic step which you are now proposing to take sir to take this inquiry off live streaming will have enormous consequences it's therefore submitted on behalf of all of the clients who I represent that issues arising from the rros can be
00:39:38 issues arising from the rros can be managed by live streaming the bulk of the evidence to be given by Witnesses with if necessary a short non-li stream section at the end of their evidence all
00:40:01 section at the end of their evidence all some other appropriate point if it comes in the Middle where if there is a need covered by the Ros can be addressed so um we have invited Council to the inquiry to indicate the extent to which questioning of these Witnesses is
00:40:14 questioning of these Witnesses is anticipated to contravene the rros I'm afraid so far as Mr Morris is concerned we've been unable to have that
00:40:28 we've been unable to have that discussion uh which was suggested to be this
00:40:32 this morning and to inquire why it is not possible to deal with such matters discreetly so we've we've looked at what is suggested to be the matters that uh Mr Morris has to address this morning
00:40:46 Mr Morris has to address this morning and we failed to be able to see any area in which the orders would actually be engaged it may be that some questions
00:41:00 engaged it may be that some questions about one of the rro may arise but there is absolutely no reason sir why so far as his evidence is concerned there should be any and and so far as the rest of the witnesses to be called this week and into next is concerned any of these matters should be without the public
00:41:11 matters should be without the public domain at all saved to a limited extent in relation to particular individuals so I go to paragraph 11 of my
00:41:24 I go to paragraph 11 of my note there are a number of clear advantages to live streaming they have sir been uh uh set out for you clearly in a
00:41:40 um note sent to the inquiry by Kate Wilson uh last night a core
00:41:51 Wilson uh last night a core participant who sets out in a practical terms what your order will mean for the a participation of core participants in
00:42:10 a participation of core participants in this inquiry at this stage we list those matters in paragraph 11 of our skeleton to
00:42:21 you the live stream means that the public are able to follow proceedings in a near real time without having to attend the venue this flexibility ensures that a greater number are able to engage with the inquiry on the areas which are of interest and
00:42:41 the areas which are of interest and importance to them it also saves money avoids limitation on the numbers of persons who are able to attend the hearings
00:42:43 hearings so key call participants and legal Representatives with an interest in
00:42:57 Representatives with an interest in evidence are able to follow up questions in the 10 10minute period and that will cease to be possible completely cease to be possible so so for example when witnesses that pertain to my clients are called I'm not able to be there under the procedures
00:43:08 able to be there under the procedures that have previously existed Uso would rise for 10 minutes I could dial in and say this matter should be raised and
00:43:20 say this matter should be raised and that process sir is now so far as we can see going to be completely impossible over the steps that you proposed to take so it's in an it's an interesting the evidence are able to propose
00:43:32 the evidence are able to propose follow-up questions uh uh uh legal Representatives can and core participants uh without having to attend the hearing and that is going to be impractical if oral evidence is taken in the form where evidence subject to an
00:43:44 the form where evidence subject to an rro is dealt with separately to non rro evidence then there is no need for time consuming and costly editing a video
00:44:02 consuming and costly editing a video footage which would otherwise have to be done under time pressure so if this is designed to make work easier for those who share the heavy burden sir in our submission it adds to the burden of work for the
00:44:14 adds to the burden of work for the inquiry in the process of editing Miss Wilson set out in her note the concerns
00:44:25 Wilson set out in her note the concerns about the time taken for that process of editing and we share those concerns it certainly is uh beneficial to the media if material subject to the
00:44:36 to the media if material subject to the Ros is clearly delineated by the use of non-li stream evidence sessions which is what we seek to Advocate given the number of core
00:44:50 Advocate given the number of core participants and other persons who have an interest in this inquiry it is not practical to provide live stream feeds on an individual basis in such a way that would address concerns about
00:45:03 that would address concerns about ensuring compliance so what we say is that the step that you are now proposing to
00:45:10 to take is one that is wholly inappropriate for an inquiry such as this
00:45:19 this inquiry into these particular kinds of matters so we urge you and I urge you to
00:45:35 matters so we urge you and I urge you to pull back from the order that you you're proposing to make really to think about the consequences it what it means for The credibility of the process that we're engaged in now sir The credibility of this
00:45:42 of this process and the public awareness about it and why it was set up it was set up so that these matters could be AED in
00:45:55 so that these matters could be AED in public in front of you sir but the steps that you are now proposing to take for whatever reasons sir are ones that should not be taken so far as this inquiry is concerned it needs a public airing of this
00:46:07 needs a public airing of this material appropriately and we say looking for example at Mr Morris and the other Witnesses this week there is very limited area for questioning for example
00:46:22 limited area for questioning for example about Miss steel of the matters that you haven't
00:46:24 haven't included in the public forum in the terms of your order very little Ambit for those kinds of problems arising and
00:46:37 for those kinds of problems arising and being well managed as I'm sure this team will be able to do it should be dealt with in the way that you have already with the 10minute time lapse no blurting and it's worked really well
00:46:51 blurting and it's worked really well beforehand so so my submissions are this is one step too far and certainly too soon and uh in those circumstances so we invite you to row back from the order that you've proposed to make and to
00:47:09 that you've proposed to make and to continue to seek to make this work with the 10-minute deadline as it were the procedure that you've already had in place that has worked perfectly well thus far so I simply say I know not what what it was that triggered this I
00:47:23 what it was that triggered this I understand many of the difficulties that may have Arisen so far as the representatives of Miss deal are concerned but actually on the terms of your order that you made last
00:47:37 your order that you made last Thursday a lot of the key material on your order is in public and therefore there is no need to prevent the public from seeing it and I of course accept that that will be
00:47:48 of course accept that that will be litigated further this afternoon when Miss Kilroy is here the exact Ambit of what is permitted but miss deal herself
00:48:04 what is permitted but miss deal herself is clear clear that she wishes to speak publicly and be able to speak publicly uh rebutting the allegations that are being made against her so sir I in my
00:48:17 being made against her so sir I in my submission and behalf on on on behalf of all the uh uh core participants who who I represent I invite you to step back from uh the order that you're now proposing to make about the further conduct of these proceedings thank you Mr wood there a number of um points that
00:48:35 Mr wood there a number of um points that I would invite you to deal with um first until I have heard uh the submissions of on behalf of
00:48:46 of on behalf of Mel uh I do not know uh precisely what it is that she seeks to have restricted um as you know exchanges have taken place uh over the months with her representatives and nothing has been
00:48:58 representatives and nothing has been forthcoming from her of a distinct and positive kind I need to know what it is that she seeks to have restricted that
00:49:11 that she seeks to have restricted that will take place this afternoon and until it does uh I do not know the full scope of what will eventually be restricted in relation to
00:49:24 relation to her secondly the Restriction orders are not made for the benefit of any state participant or former police officer they are made for uh the benefit of 11 non-state
00:49:40 non-state parties uh to protect their legitimate privacy and other rights I've got to protect those rights thirdly I am told by Council who are going to question Witnesses this
00:49:57 are going to question Witnesses this week and next and in in this part of the hearing that um questions are going to be asked even of Mr moris uh about matters that are covered by uh existing restriction orders uh it is simply not possible to
00:50:14 orders uh it is simply not possible to extract coherent evidence by uh adopting a last minute uh segregation of questioning by Council it is simply too complicated and too
00:50:27 difficult thirdly the um point that you make about legal Representatives uh not being in the room and therefore needing to listen to the evidence uh will be cated for by
00:50:42 evidence uh will be cated for by Zoom uh so that the point that you make about delay uh should not
00:50:58 arise final point I would make is this uh
00:51:05 uh that my statutory obligation is either to let members of the public hear the evidence in a hearing room such as this or to transmit it it's not both it's not both and
00:51:29 you say that the experience to date has been the procedure has worked satisfactorily my view is that it has interrupted
00:51:40 interrupted proceedings very frequently in circumstances where one would not expect them to be interrupted if um given the nature of restriction orders and their
00:51:53 nature of restriction orders and their number and the areas covered by them uh remain in place as they're going to be uh these problems are going to multiply and instead of hearing coherent evidence from a witness who I hope will
00:52:07 from a witness who I hope will be relatively relaxed and able to give coherent evidence I'm going to have repeated interruptions this is not a satifactory method of hearing and
00:52:18 satifactory method of hearing and determining evidence sir can I can I can I just quickly address that of course sir sir first of all uh I'm going to deal with it by way of an using Mr moris as by way of an example uh we have received an email which is
00:52:33 uh we have received an email which is the only correspondence we have so far as the matters to be covered with him this morning it reads as follows the list of topics for Mr Morris here with one local activism in haringay and Tottenham briefly a few examples of
00:52:46 Tottenham briefly a few examples of right two London Greenpeace as a group its structure aims and sort of campaigns involved
00:52:55 involved in three
00:52:59 in three Morris's own position influence in London Green Peace four relationship between London Green Peace and animal rights activism activists in particular Alf so I simply
00:53:13 activists in particular Alf so I simply paused there to say all of these matters were covered openly yesterday five campaign against McDonald's and the leaflet that led to
00:53:24 McDonald's and the leaflet that led to the m liable litigation involvement of Lambert six commen ment of mlal litigation setting up of the MSC
00:53:35 litigation setting up of the MSC involvement of Dimes effect on lgp London Green Peace seven tsdc sir in in our submission there is nothing there that requires to be in
00:53:48 nothing there that requires to be in private and Sir if there is matters that might touch upon allegations against third parties who should be protected that we say can be dealt with perfectly
00:54:03 that we say can be dealt with perfectly satisfactor uh during a 10minute session afterwards closed If there really is that kind of material but sir my submission to you is I know that your team are under the most enormous stress
00:54:14 team are under the most enormous stress and difficulty sir it is not going to be accommodated by undermining this inquiry by going into the kind of close session that you're proposing to go into and disabling people from participating
00:54:31 and disabling people from participating in this inquiry and viewing it so sir I really do urge you to pause and think before going down this step it is not a step that is necessary and it is one that I really
00:54:44 necessary and it is one that I really urge you not to take uh at this stage how will people view your outcome if actually what all they have about what you have heard is summaries presented
00:54:55 you have heard is summaries presented later in the date in in time unredacted transcripts that they have to go through forgive me may I correct you on what the public will hear and see and I'll do it
00:55:16 public will hear and see and I'll do it by reference to Mr Morris's evidence um if the course proposed is adopted uh a transcript of his evidence will be published tomorrow at lunchtime edited to the extent that is necessary I accept what you say the editing is like it to be very
00:55:28 editing is like it to be very limited secondly a video will be um broadcast which will take between three and 5 days to to
00:55:39 and 5 days to to prepare this is a shorsh delay in having not made public because the evidence will be given in public but but being
00:55:54 being broadcast so it's a quite unnecessary step and we know the news Cycles and uh it has the effect sir I simply say to you of R disarming your your your inquiry it it will make it uh sir I I
00:56:07 inquiry it it will make it uh sir I I fear it will make it a laughing stock that it should not be looking into these these historic matters that there is nothing for the public to view about what is going on they're going to ask
00:56:18 what is going on they're going to ask why is this being held in secret and why sir are you protecting not being held in secret well so it is for a period of time
00:56:26 time there will be a short delay in broadcasting what is uh being heard in public you really mustn't overstate the
00:56:41 public you really mustn't overstate the position well so all I can say on behalf of my clients is this is a really drastic step that is not justified by the the particular circumstances which you have encountered sir I can
00:56:53 you have encountered sir I can completely understand and do so the irritation which both the inquiry team and yourself sir may have felt about some of the times and and delays that
00:57:06 some of the times and and delays that there may have been there is of course another side to that that the inquiry may not have been as prompt as it should have been in the disclosure of materials to people who had to comment on them but sir I really do urge you not to go down
00:57:24 sir I really do urge you not to go down the step that you you have have embarked upon now this will work perfectly well everybody wants it to work perfect ly well and everybody wants your inquiry to sustain The credibility that thus far it has and we fear that it will lose that
00:57:43 has and we fear that it will lose that if you Embark upon this uh uh uh process which is going to lose all of the um
00:57:55 um uh public confidence in what is going on everybody is going to say what's being withheld from us why is it being withheld from us why is the inquiry not being held in a proper and open way that people can see uh and go online I I pause sir the orders that you're going to make are
00:58:06 orders that you're going to make are going to make it really impossible I think for example about some of our my clients who are giving evidence at the back end of next week who are going to need to know
00:58:21 week who are going to need to know what's gone on in uh in this this week's hearings and yet what you're saying is no no no the they can't see it live they can't understand they can't give instructions on it so it's it is too
00:58:35 instructions on it so it's it is too radical a step that you are proposing to take and I can understand all of the pressures that there are on this inquiry but I I do sir and I I only say it this
00:58:48 but I I do sir and I I only say it this last time please rethink this it is not a good thing to do it will undoubtedly undermine the process that you're involved in the confid that people have have in it and what has
00:59:05 people have have in it and what has transpired and the inevitable irritation that undoubtedly arose last week sir I I simply say please bite the bullet on this once I I hope and expect you've come to the
00:59:25 I I hope and expect you've come to the end of that process let it proceed as it is at the moment sir uh a and uh I know that all from the uh uh uh uh core participants will cooperate if you do row back from this disorder that you're you're making at the moment sir thank
00:59:43 you Mr Johnson she's on9 um Miss Johnson I do apologize I i' I've made the same mistake again um Miss Johnson um forgive me good morning sir can you see and hear me yes I can I'm grateful um sir I
00:59:58 me yes I can I'm grateful um sir I appear at this morning's hearing on behalf the category H core participants um who and I I'm Keen not to R tread ground that has been um so eloquently and forcefully put by Mr wood this
01:00:09 and forcefully put by Mr wood this morning um save to say that we adopt those submissions and the submissions of Miss
01:00:17 Miss Wilson Miss Kilroy King's Council will address you this afternoon on matters relating specifically to miss Steel's rro I address you only this morning in respect of the question of live
01:00:28 respect of the question of live streaming um that said Miss steel has asked me to make clear as as part of our submissions in in response to an observation that that sir you made just now that her first application for
01:00:41 now that her first application for privacy was made in September 2023 and she asks that the inquiry consider this application or her application as a renewed application rather than a new
01:00:53 renewed application rather than a new application that was made that's LED r she makes that point to address um the
01:01:04 she makes that point to address um the observations that you made sir about the time pressure that the inquiry has been put
01:01:06 put under the category H core participants as a group feel very very strongly about the principle of open Justice and the
01:01:17 the principle of open Justice and the importance of live streaming their goal has always been to shine a light on undercover policing practices and indeed so I would go so far as to say that
01:01:28 so I would go so far as to say that without some of their them some of their work and some of their cooperation this inquiry would not exist in the state that it does today they feel enormously strongly about the importance of this evidence being heard in public they recognize of course the importance of
01:01:44 recognize of course the importance of balancing privacy and the question of open
01:01:45 open Justice they as people who have themselves had their privacy violated
01:01:57 themselves had their privacy violated understand perhaps better than most the importance of the inquiry taking steps to ensure privacy to those who give evidence to it but for the reasons that Mr wood has has set out they submit that it is
01:02:10 has set out they submit that it is possible for the Restriction orders to be adhered to without live streaming being terminated Miss Fuller in particular wishes me to state that she absolutely does not want her restriction order to prevent Matt rainer's evidence being live streamed Miss Steel in
01:02:27 being live streamed Miss Steel in particular has asked me to emphasize the importance that she feels of of live streaming and the category 8 core participants as a group some of whom sir as you know have difficulties in attending physically in person have
01:02:42 attending physically in person have asked me to emphasize the importance to them of live streaming being available and their submission that with the measures put in place as outlined by Mr wood and by Miss Wilson it is possible for the inquiry to do so and to retain that access to those core participants
01:02:57 that access to those core participants who are unable to be there in person on a daily
01:03:04 basis thank you very much indeed thank you
01:03:09 sir Mr sorry Shany Saran I do apologize I I I I have trouble with first names of course sir um sir I appear on behalf of TBS um at
01:03:25 um sir I appear on behalf of TBS um at the offset he does wish to assist the in quiry and its investigations and he's grateful for this opportunity to address you on how decisions relating to public access the hearing will affect his
01:03:41 access the hearing will affect his rights under article 8 and his rights to effectively participate in the hearings as a core participant as a preliminary point we share the regret of the non-state core participants that the decision of 31 October 2024 was made without prior consultation with core participants and we anticipate that
01:03:54 participants and we anticipate that today's hearing will prove fruitful in finding alternatives ways forward TBS does endorse the submissions of the other non-state core participants requesting that the hearings continue to be live streamed as far as possible and
01:04:08 be live streamed as far as possible and that there's a transition to a live link for pre-registered core participants when evidence moves into areas falling under the umbrella of a restricted reporting order we have adopted the terms used in the thoral decision and I
01:04:23 terms used in the thoral decision and I just repeat those for clarity here today and we use the term live streaming in reference to the transmission with a 10-minute delay via YouTube and live link to refer to live transmission of proceedings to pre-registered individuals following the proceedings at a remote
01:04:35 a remote venue we wish to make clear that we do not challenge the Ros and we have heard your observations on their import we challenge or ask you to rather to revisit the decision regarding public
01:04:54 revisit the decision regarding public access to hearings via live stream and live link We recognize the challenges facing this inquiry in relation to numerous restriction orders and restricted reporting orders that affect multiple core participants and we do not underestimate them however we submit that they are not
01:05:07 that they are not insurmountable these submissions also having heard your observations to um Mr wood KC are premised just on the understanding that the decision of 31
01:05:19 understanding that the decision of 31 October 2024 means that the public and core participants can only access evidence if they attend in person and there would be no provision of live stream by YouTube and there have been no opportunity for pre-registration by live link so we have heard your observations
01:05:33 link so we have heard your observations today in relation to that there will be publication of a transcript and an edited video at a later date however we submit that that won't be sufficient to engage their um tbs's effective participation in this
01:05:49 participation in this inquiry before turning to his specific circumstances we do note that the principle of open Justice weighs strongly in favor of the recording and broadcasting of the inquiry proceedings via an on online platform the decision to broadcast the
01:06:01 platform the decision to broadcast the open seizings to date suggests that you do recognize that open Justice is not served by simply opening the doors to the hearing room alone and it should be complemented with public access to the hearings by live streaming the
01:06:12 hearings by live streaming the significance of live streaming to to facilitate Public Access and a public inquiry is embedded in the statute and as you have noted yourself section 181a
01:06:25 as you have noted yourself section 181a of the inquiry act 2005 does explicitly recognize
01:06:26 recognize that simultaneous transmission of proceed proceedings can be an important element to ensuring public
01:06:38 element to ensuring public access the live streaming of significant Court proceedings as you have heard and I do believe note advances the open Justice principle so that the public can observe and understand the legal process it does build on their trust and the justice system and it undoubtedly
01:06:51 justice system and it undoubtedly underpins the decision to broadcast live proceedings in other venues such as the Supreme Court and the court of appeal and that is indeed why it is adopted and many public inquiries to date the greater the significance of the
01:07:04 greater the significance of the proceedings to The Wider public interest we say the greater the imperative to facilitate public access to those hearings and in this inquiry the factors weighing in favor of live stream include first the number and breadth of core
01:07:17 first the number and breadth of core participants which means that even if willing and able not all core participants could be accommodated in this hearing venue the SDS operations also affected the wider public public and the restrictive approach to Corp participant status has meant that many
01:07:29 participant status has meant that many individuals whose lives were touched by the SDS do not have recognized standing before the inquiry but may still be following the proceedings via live stream secondly the subject matter of this inquiry which relates the public
01:07:41 this inquiry which relates the public trust and proceed in policing has been Prof um sorry the subject matter of this inquiry of ways in favor of live streaming as it relates to the public
01:07:52 streaming as it relates to the public trust and proceed and policing which has been profoundly damaged by the actions of a sec of the secretive SDS unit the formation of this inquiry under the 2005 Act is premised on the need for public exposure and ventilation of the SDS act
01:08:07 exposure and ventilation of the SDS act actions without which it is not possible to rebuild that trust and policing and closing the Main Avenue for the public to access these hearings that being through live streaming undermines the very purpose of this
01:08:22 very purpose of this inquiry and finally live streaming acts as a counterbalance to the extent of closed hearings this inquiry has suggested there will be more closed hearings than in any other in uh public inquiry to date and there is a greater
01:08:36 inquiry to date and there is a greater imperative for transparency and access to those limited hearings in open to weigh against the fears of evidence being heard and closed we say there's no adequate substitution substitution to listening to the live testimony of witnesses as publication of redacted written
01:08:48 publication of redacted written transcripts on the inquiry website amongst a plethora of published documents do not assist the average person landing on the inquiry website to understand the evidence before the inquiry so while TBS does share the
01:09:02 inquiry so while TBS does share the general concerns of non-state CPS in relation to public access to these hearings you will also no doubt be aware of the added weight of responsibility that you hold in relation to his particular circumstances as his article
01:09:16 particular circumstances as his article 8 writes to obtain information necessary to know and understand his Origins and the circumstances of his early years are engaged in evidence that will be uced in this inquiry in the opening in his opening statement for trch 2 the
01:09:28 opening statement for trch 2 the relevant case law recognizing the positive obligations of a state body to ensure that an individual can access
01:09:39 ensure that an individual can access information about the circumstances of their Origins is set out in detail at paragraphs 20 to 42 we do rely on um that relevant case law at paragraph 22 we have cited a number of decisions of
01:09:50 we have cited a number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the relevant references are set out there I don't repeat those references as they are within his opening statement but we recall the principles from those
01:10:03 but we recall the principles from those earlier decisions of the European Court specifically that persons seeking case records regarding their Care by authorities when a minor have a vital interest protected by the convention in receiving the information necessary to know and understand their childhood and early
01:10:15 early development article 8 protects a right to Identity and personal development and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and outside and the outside outside
01:10:27 and outside and the outside outside world and the preservation of mental stability is in that context an indispensable precondition to effective enjoyment of the right to respect for private
01:10:39 private life a person's interest in discovering the circumstance in which they're born as well as identity of their biological parents Falls within their private life rights and further a person's interest in discovering their parentage doesn't
01:10:51 in discovering their parentage doesn't disappear with age quite the reverse and an applicant showing a genuine interest in knowing their parents identity over a prolonged period implies mental and psychological suffering even if this has not been medically
01:11:03 not been medically attested I repeat these authorities because this inquiry's role in informing TBS as to the circumstances of his Origins including who knew of his
01:11:14 Origins including who knew of his existence and when and the extent to which information was deliberately suppressed by whom and for what purpose are matters that directly engage his rights and common law and pursu statutes as such we say that this inquiry Bears particular particular
01:11:25 inquiry Bears particular particular responsibility to extend to TBS the appropriate treatment so as to uphold his human
01:11:34 his human dignity excluding TBS from hearings by preventing the live streaming of hearings which will elicit relevant evidence to those circumstances and which are necessary to protect his legitimate interest forgive me for interrupting yes of course sir um I I I
01:11:50 interrupting yes of course sir um I I I for my part and it's subject what I may be told later can see no reason no earthly reason why a Zoom facility should not be set up for him to listen to those parts of the evidence that he wishes
01:12:01 wishes to so um I did refer back to the decision of 31 October because we had been led to believe from that that there wouldn't be any facility for a live link to be made available to core
01:12:12 to be made available to core participants if um if there is a live link that would be made available to TBS that would be very much of assistance so he could follow the um evidence in
01:12:27 he could follow the um evidence in livetime I I need to establish this clearly um plainly I I must do it because the point you make is an important one um I and and one that I accept he must be able to uh hear um or hear and see a transcript of uh
01:12:43 um or hear and see a transcript of uh the hearings the evidence that affects his
01:12:44 his position
01:12:46 position rapidly we're very grateful for that recognition um that does somewhat coil the rest of my submissions but I would just add um on tbs's part whilst his
01:13:02 just add um on tbs's part whilst his situation is particular to him and so to his knowledge singular in this inquiry he does recognize that there are many other core participants that may be similarly affected who are unable to attend the hearings in person for
01:13:16 attend the hearings in person for reasons that might be in ways related to him and would hope that that would extend to other core participants as well and not just for him um so make
01:13:27 well and not just for him um so make that brief obs a response we're grateful for that indication regarding the zoom link I I I plainly need to be um precisely informed on that but um if as I hope uh a zoom facility can be made
01:13:46 I hope uh a zoom facility can be made available to those who legitimately need to hear it uh then I this this point I think is dealt with that it is some somewhat dealt with um I would just conclude by asking that you do consider in line with the
01:13:57 you do consider in line with the submissions that you've heard from those who've come before me the possibility of live streaming the hearings within 10minute delay so far as possible and
01:14:11 10minute delay so far as possible and then evidence subject to the Ros should be reserved to the end of the hearings and moved to the live link as you it will be possible for TBS there are problems with doing that of a kind as I have already mentioned to Mr wood that um I have got to hear
01:14:24 Mr wood that um I have got to hear evidence on issues of vital importance where Ence differs very starkly and I may well need to have to determine the truth of what I'm being told as well as its accuracy and I must not interfere
01:14:40 its accuracy and I must not interfere with the ordinary process of listening to live evidence from witnesses to determine whether they're telling me accurately what they remember and the truth and so we very much wish to assist
01:14:52 truth and so we very much wish to assist you in that endeavor and we do hope that that will be um the process has followed what we submit is that there is a suitable arrangement in which you can
01:15:03 suitable arrangement in which you can elicit hear the best evidence by having it compartmentalized where you have evidence that's not subject to Ros first
01:15:14 evidence that's not subject to Ros first and later elicit evidence is a simple as that I these These are issues which you would expect have been discussed with Council and lists to the inquiry and me um and I do very much
01:15:28 inquiry and me um and I do very much have to go by what they say they can do practically to assist me so those are my um submissions on those points and what we would invite you to consider and we would hope that you at least keep that as an open mind
01:15:42 you at least keep that as an open mind following the hearing today and consider it we are very grateful for the indication that TBS will be afforded the opportunity for a zoom link you are aware that I also represent the category
01:15:54 aware that I also represent the category F co- participants who some of whom have been following the hearings on a very regular and daily basis and providing instructions and would also wish to apply for a similar Arrangements thank you
01:16:12 sir thank you sir sir as you know I represent the nonp police non-state uh co-participant cooperating group so can I start by making clear that the non-state cooperating group and indeed the non-state core participants do seek to work collaboratively with the inquiry to
01:16:29 work collaboratively with the inquiry to explore practical solutions to allow for as much as the forthcoming evidence as possible to be live streamed and to ensure a proportionate and fair approach is taken to the management of multiple overlapping reporting restriction orders and as of course as Mr wood Casey
01:16:41 and as of course as Mr wood Casey mentioned a moment ago the own Rous obligations and workload on the inquiry is also recognized in that regard so you've had suggested to you a moment ago
01:16:54 you've had suggested to you a moment ago a number of practical Solutions and I'll come back in a moment to those and and add these for your consideration but to be clear the position of the non-state group is that all efforts should continue to be made to ensure that live streaming of the evidence can continue in T2 P2 and that
01:17:11 evidence can continue in T2 P2 and that there is continued use of live links as you touched upon a moment ago with a 10-minute delay before I get to these
01:17:22 10-minute delay before I get to these practical Solutions I just want to make some initial comments so the non-state group do wish to record their disappointment that there was no consultation with them about
01:17:35 consultation with them about proportionate alternatives to a complete ban on live streaming before you took your decision which as we know was published on the 31st of October now the non-state group understood that the process relating to the procedure to be followed in respect of rros was that set out in the letter
01:17:54 of rros was that set out in the letter dated the 15th of January 2024 from Miss Ross to the non-state Corp participants and I'll just remind you sir of what that letter stated um it stated as follows applications for any such rro will not be published where to do so would undermine the protection
01:18:09 would undermine the protection sort CTI will prepare a note setting out the effect of the restrictions sought and the inquiry will invite submissions from state core participants and the
01:18:20 from state core participants and the media it may list a hearing at which oral submissions can be made if necessary once applications have been received and considered before final decisions are reached we consider that this process is necessary to ensure
01:18:35 this process is necessary to ensure fairness to all cor participants and to ensure that private information of non-state cor participants Witnesses is protected in so far as it's necessary to do
01:18:43 do so it therefore came as a surprise to the nonp police state Corp participants that the decision of the 31st of October was made without the inquiry hearing
01:18:56 was made without the inquiry hearing from core participants in a hearing and in the absence of a note from CTI setting out the intended effect of the Ros that had been granted the nonp police state Corp participants very much hope that the fact of this hearing
01:19:10 hope that the fact of this hearing indicates that the inquiry and Uso will reconsider the decision on live streaming and that you will um reflect on some of the Practical approaches despite the difficulties that you've
01:19:23 despite the difficulties that you've indicated um in today's hearing Before You remake that decision on live streaming
01:19:25 streaming so can I remind the inquiry that the vast majority of non-p police state Corp participants including those with a direct interest in T2 P2 are unable to
01:19:36 direct interest in T2 P2 are unable to travel to London to attend the hearing in person either because of pre-existing commitments such as work or personal commitments so I'll just give a few
01:19:49 commitments so I'll just give a few examples that have just been brought to my attention recently but of course there are many more so for example Lindsey German John ree Chris nyam
01:20:00 Lindsey German John ree Chris nyam Hannah cell and Judy B Bon are unable to attend due to work commitments and were planning to listen to the proceedings whilst working it's been brought to my attention that Donna mlan a category hcp who has a direct and specific interest
01:20:13 who has a direct and specific interest in the evidence of Bob Lambert is unable to attend in person due to a very serious family medical issue so of course these are just a few examples there are many CPS um including those of
01:20:29 there are many CPS um including those of the direct interest in the next phase of evidence who are unable to attend and are in a very similar position as is also been pointed out in the written submissions that you received yesterday from the litigant in person Miss Kate Wilson the last minute nature of the
01:20:41 Wilson the last minute nature of the decision on live streaming on the 31st of October and of course it's understood why that was a late decision but nevertheless it did leave um core
01:20:53 nevertheless it did leave um core participants such as Miss Wilson with insufficient time to be able able to make the necessary arrangements to allow them to attend in person to actually hear the evidence in
01:21:07 hear the evidence in court so it's also important to remember that certain core participants consider that attending in person is likely to exacerbate the existing trauma that they are suffering as a result of the matters you are investigating and so they do not feel able to attend the use of live
01:21:22 feel able to attend the use of live streaming and live links is of course consistent with a trauma informed approach approach and such an approach must always be at the Forefront of the inquiry's
01:21:35 inquiry's mind so so it's obvious the STK reality is that in the absence of any form of live streaming or any alternative mechanism to view the proceedings remotely um core participants will be simply unable to effectively participate
01:21:48 simply unable to effectively participate in a public inquiry in which they have a direct
01:21:50 direct interest now the group has of course not seen the applications for our r that you have received including the one that led to the decision on the 30th 31st of
01:22:04 to the decision on the 30th 31st of October you've had suggested to you some practical Solutions including from Mr Morris which were read out a moment ago by Mr wood King's Council um the group endorsed those submissions um and develop them slightly if I may so you
01:22:17 develop them slightly if I may so you indicated a moment ago that it's simply not possible for Council to the inquiry to extract coherent evidence
01:22:30 to extract coherent evidence by adopting last minute segregation of evidence as I've just indicated we've not seen the rro applications but I simply note that it's not unusual in proceedings involving open and closed
01:22:45 proceedings involving open and closed and or sensitive evidence for Council to the inquiry to Cluster questioning in a way that allows for sensitive evidence covered by an RO to be heard in silos and preferably uh on a given time or day
01:22:56 and preferably uh on a given time or day which can be indicated in advance now we of course understand that this may not be a straightforward approach in this public inquiry and we recognize the very onerous last minute burden that this clearly places on Council to the inquiry
01:23:13 clearly places on Council to the inquiry but we still contend that there ought to be at least some attempt to Cluster questioning non police state Corps participants stand ready to indicate lists of areas that they consider can be live streamed and Mr wood Casey indicated a moment ago um lists in
01:23:29 indicated a moment ago um lists in respect of Mr Morris live streaming can of course then be turned off but only during the portions of the evidence that really need to be heard in private now just very briefly sir a few other practical suggestions all
01:23:42 other practical suggestions all Witnesses um have a pre- meeting with Council to the inquiry prior to giving evidence where they are reminded of the contents and implications of the rro and it's understood that they have been
01:23:53 it's understood that they have been successful meetings uh that have already taken place with CTI uh before Witnesses give their evidence witnesses can be given a hard copy of the r during the
01:24:07 given a hard copy of the r during the hearing CTI can alert witnesses to the fact that their evidence May trespass into areas covered by an rro and warn them to be careful consent the rro and or avoid giving specific details Witnesses should be given the
01:24:19 Witnesses should be given the opportunity to provide an answer in writing which is shown to counil to the inquiry or to use as we know has already happened with certain undercover officers um who gave
01:24:35 certain undercover officers um who gave evidence likely to breach a restriction order the inquiry may wish to consider the use of ciphers for non-state Witnesses granted an rro to allow for evidence to be live streamed so some individual cor participants may be concerned about the Mosaic effect so
01:24:50 concerned about the Mosaic effect so such an approach may require redaction of documents before they are put to Witnesses in a live hearing or uploaded onto the website or that documents are not placed on screen during the hearing and of course individual core
01:25:09 and of course individual core participants could be invited to specify specific documents for redaction and in any event um you have the blurt out 10-minute delay facility which has already been used so so that's just a development of some of the Practical suggestions that of course you've already been sent in writing by Mr
01:25:20 already been sent in writing by Mr Morris can I move off that subject now and briefly deal with the provision of live link uh the live link Zoom facility with a 10-minute delay subject to
01:25:34 with a 10-minute delay subject to undertaking so that's obviously what you touched upon a moment ago clearly different to live streaming now you you potentially made a concession a moment ago in relation to TBS um and the zoom facility not a
01:25:47 TBS um and the zoom facility not a concession I what I'm trying to do is to ensure that the legitimate rights of those who are participating in and affected by the inquiry are protected uh
01:25:58 affected by the inquiry are protected uh I need to hear little further about that from yes sir Council to the inquiry um and I may need to um reflect upon it when i' I've um heard what they have to say but yes sir I I I note that um I'll withdraw the word concession but you you
01:26:12 withdraw the word concession but you you did deal with that the reason I raise it is because when we received the email from the inquiry legal team on the 31st of October we were told that a risk assessment had been undertaken um in relation to that that
01:26:23 undertaken um in relation to that that Grant on the 31st of October of the rro and in order to be able to enforce that and other Ros that it would not in fact be possible to supply Zoom links to
01:26:36 be possible to supply Zoom links to watch this evidence live or even subject to a 10-minute delay and I obviously appreciate you'll be hearing submissions later on today the the simple point is
01:26:48 later on today the the simple point is this in relation to that Zoom link issue we simply invite you after speaking to CTI and the inquiry legal team to reconsider the position in respect of live links provided to core participants with a direct interest and indeed rlr
01:26:59 with a direct interest and indeed rlr teams who are not able to be present in the hearing room we simply note that of course you have um the decision from Lady Justice thall in the thur wall
01:27:13 Lady Justice thall in the thur wall inquiry as you've heard that inquiry was dealing with very serious and extensive matters of privacy and had to maintain orders from other courts nevertheless in that inquiry the suggestion of live links to CPS was supported by Council to
01:27:31 links to CPS was supported by Council to the inquiry in order to quote allow core participants to participate in the way they choose and we simply repeat that such an allowance should surely be provided to core participants certainly with a direct interest in the next phase of
01:27:41 of evidence it's all this would also be consistent with a trauma informed
01:27:52 consistent with a trauma informed approach in the thir wall inquiry as you will obviously well know the chair felt confident there that such Live Links could be granted subject to to undertakings and we simply suggest that
01:28:03 undertakings and we simply suggest that this inquiry should also be So Satisfied by a similar procedure of undertakings and of course the combination of a reporting restrict an rro and an rr's professional obligations should also be sufficient to address any privacy concerns
01:28:14 concerns so we again urge you to explore all possible alternatives to the complete ban on live streaming but equally we ask you to Recon consider in addition and in
01:28:31 you to Recon consider in addition and in the alternative um so far as you can the provision of live links with a delay um to affected cor participants and rlrs subject of course to that undertaking being signed so so those are my submissions unless I can assist you further thank you thank you very much indeed Mr
01:28:47 indeed Mr bar so thank you this morning I appear with Miss cble uh I'll start with the the legal position it as said out in our notes from April
01:29:03 notes from April 2024 and I wish to add very little to that I should say first of all in response to my learned friend Miss Heaven's um procedural Point uh that the notes of April and the hearing uh that
01:29:17 April and the hearing uh that followed put into practice what uh solicitor uh for the inquiries TR two had said would happen so our position is
01:29:34 had said would happen so our position is that the opportunity to make submissions about legal principles in relation to restricted reporting orders and to make and have considered such applications happened
01:29:47 applications happened then uh the other legal point that I should like to make at this stage is to to refer to my Leonard friend Mr Wood's
01:29:59 to refer to my Leonard friend Mr Wood's submission at paragraph two of his note that live streaming is the starting position from which a derogation must be justified that as he rightly recognized is at odds uh with the conclusion of
01:30:15 is at odds uh with the conclusion of Lady Justice thurl wall sitting as the chair of the thur wall inquiry at paragraph 23 of her ruling she concluded uh that these questions are fact
01:30:30 are fact sensitive uh and of course uh subject to the statutory framework with which you are very familiar I respectfully align uh myself with her analysis on this
01:30:44 uh myself with her analysis on this issue her ruling in any event may help to bring some perspective to the issue in that inquiry there will be no live streaming in order
01:30:57 live streaming in order to avoid the risk of breaching the privacy of the bere families and Associated court orders in other words the privacy issues there are of great
01:31:12 the privacy issues there are of great importance but also relatively narrow Ambit participation for core participants and the media has been maximized uh in that inquiry through the use of live links
01:31:25 use of live links in this
01:31:31 in this inquiry we have very extensive and very sensitive public interest and privacy issues they come with the territory of conducting a public inquiry into
01:31:45 conducting a public inquiry into undercover policing of people's private lives we have already developed a significant and sophisticated system for making restriction orders and calling evidence in open with measures to
01:32:02 evidence in open with measures to mitigate risk there is already a high degree of
01:32:06 degree of transparency in the evidential mure in which we are working the additional use of restricted reporting orders helps to maintain a high degree of
01:32:21 high degree of transparency by enabling evidence which cannot be widely broadcast to be at least given and importantly explored in an open hearing to which
01:32:35 explored in an open hearing to which core participants and members of the public including the media can attend the alternative would be more redactions more documents withheld and more private
01:32:51 withheld and more private hearings what my learned friends now propose goes significant Beyond uh the already elaborate protections that we have in place it would involve the inquiry seeking to spot and remedy not
01:33:13 inquiry seeking to spot and remedy not just accidental breaches of restriction orders but policing in real time
01:33:15 time questions
01:33:17 questions answers document posted which are intentionally deployed and answers which are
01:33:29 deployed and answers which are intentionally sought and which are necessary for the forensic process in addition they would have to be monitoring of social media
01:33:40 have to be monitoring of social media posts should point out as you mentioned at the outset sir that there are a thing stand restricted uh reporting orders
01:33:55 stand restricted uh reporting orders affecting 11 people made on one or more of the grounds set out uh in our April notes they vary considerably in extent from those which protect specific
01:34:10 from those which protect specific matters to those so wide as to protect the witness's real identity in many cases evidence which is and is not the subject of an rro is
01:34:22 rro is interconnected it is of often the cumulative effect of multiple orders that is the
01:34:34 problem proposals which are well-intentioned and which sound viable in principle are not always viable in
01:34:47 principle are not always viable in practice a good example of this is the case of incidal in which a select few accredited journalists were admitted to a trial held largely in camera because of National Security
01:34:59 of National Security issues it is easy to imagine the cautionary words of the then Lord chief justice Lord Thomas at paragraph 69 of the court of appeal's second ruling on
01:35:15 the court of appeal's second ruling on the issue being applied to the question that you face today
01:35:27 that you face today sir we are considering on a Case by case basis the best solution to each witness in Mr Lowe's case we were able to live
01:35:38 in Mr Lowe's case we were able to live stream but we are much more pessimistic about our ability to conduct a proper forensic exercise and to elicit best evidence from forthcoming Witnesses if you acceed to the proposals being made today you will recall how difficult
01:35:58 today you will recall how difficult giving and eliciting evidence became in TR 2 Phase 1 when with at least one witness there were repeated stoppages in answer to my leared friend Mr Wood's submissions about Mr
01:36:11 Mr Wood's submissions about Mr Morris my learned friend Miss Gara is going to call uh Mr Morris but I understand from her that there are allegations subject to restricted
01:36:25 allegations subject to restricted reporting orders which do need a to be explored multiple such allegations it is Our intention to
01:36:41 allegations it is Our intention to publish redacted transcripts documents and hopefully also edited audiovisual recordings in slower time when Ros prevent live streaming in response to the point that was taken that in the case of the
01:36:52 was taken that in the case of the witness who gave evidence on the 21st of October there has been some delay in producing uh those uh documents in so far as it will be possible um that is itself an indication that these matters
01:37:04 itself an indication that these matters are not always straightforward and give grounds for caution to trying to police matters in real
01:37:17 matters in real time on the question of Zoom sir you are right to express uh caution uh and it is also uh right of my learned friends to press the point uh that as much participation as possible
01:37:36 that as much participation as possible uh for core participants uh should be uh given the arrangement at present uh is that attendance is through a pre-booked slot in the public Gallery in other
01:37:48 slot in the public Gallery in other words the time honored way of making proceedings public up and until the lon inquiry in
01:38:10 2011 Arrangements have not been made for Zoom Live Links a risk assessment was indeed carried out and the result of that risk assessment uh was against doing so after there were problems uh with the P2
01:38:28 openings it May well be an issue that you wish to consider with the team and to
01:38:33 to revisit given the issue that now arises and where the balance of risk Falls uh but our inquiry is very
01:38:45 Falls uh but our inquiry is very different to the Thor wall inquiry we have matters of public interest to protect as well as just privacy
01:38:56 unless I can assist you further sir those are my
01:39:03 submissions I want to um explore a little more deeply the question of providing uh Zoom facilities to those who uh need to hear the evidence in
01:39:18 who uh need to hear the evidence in circumstances in which um questions may arise from what they hear my understanding and it may be there's only a limited amount I can assist you with now uh is that it is
01:39:29 assist you with now uh is that it is technically possible we have done it in other cases in the past it comes down to a risk
01:39:37 a risk assessment uh and there are various different circumstances which have to be considered I understand that one of the
01:39:51 considered I understand that one of the problems uh arising from the openings in phase two was that some of the links uh were forwarded and keeping control of who was watching was
01:40:20 lost um I want to rise to reflect upon the submissions I've heard I also wish to explore with our team um that issue uh as rapidly as can be
01:40:34 um that issue uh as rapidly as can be done um if anything further arises out of that then uh I may need to come back in before I give my ruling on these submissions but I Will Rise
01:40:46 submissions but I Will Rise um short part to let the Shand writers have a break and also to explore those issues
01:41:22 is
02:54:47 e e
02:55:46 with apologies for the long delay it has been caused by PR i l by uh the need to resolve technical problems arising from the transmission to core participants
02:56:02 the transmission to core participants and Witnesses who need to hear evidence which is the subject of a restriction order
02:56:07 order uh they have now I think been satisfactorily
02:56:16 resolved restriction orders have been made
02:56:19 made in respect of 11 private individuals to protect their privacy and similar
02:56:41 rights they have not been made to protect any state interest
02:56:51 the nature of the Restriction order in each
02:57:02 case is that certain aspects of evidence concerning them may not be
02:57:09 be publicly
02:57:19 distributed stud will be given in the hearing room about them but reporting it will subsequently be subject to
02:57:36 restriction the restrictions only apply to those aspects of the evidence which if broadcast publicly uh would or might
02:57:48 publicly uh would or might infringe their legitimate priv and similar
02:57:58 rights Mr wood King's Council for uh a group of core participants including as it
02:58:09 of core participants including as it happens four who are the beneficiaries of uh such orders
02:58:13 orders uh submits that the evidence should be live streamed subject to a 10-minute
02:58:29 delay that those aspects which uh are or might be the subject of reporting restriction orders uh should be dealt with discreetly and
02:58:45 separately and by that means the majority of the evidence given which touches upon the 11
02:58:53 individuals and all other evidence can be
02:58:57 be given and distributed with a 10-minute delay
02:59:08 publicly he submits that uh although section 18 of the inquiries act does not require that in
02:59:19 act does not require that in terms uh it is in keeping with the spirit of uh section 18 this issue as he acknowledges uh has arisen uh in uh the inquiry conducted by Lady Justice
02:59:36 thurwell in paragraph 18 of her ruling on the issue uh she said in terms that are not controversial open quote section
02:59:47 are not controversial open quote section 181a of the ACT provides that subject to any restriction under section 19 open quote the chair must make must take such steps as she considers reasonable to ensure that members of the public including
03:00:02 members of the public including reporters are able a to attend the inquiry or to see and hear a simultaneous transmission of proceedings at the inquiry close quote as Council to the inquiry points out the duty is
03:00:17 the inquiry points out the duty is satisfied if there is either attendance in the hearing room or there is open quote simultaneous close quote transmission all core participants who deal with this issue were in favor of the public and media attending the
03:00:33 the public and media attending the hearing by being present in the hearing room Council of the inquiry made the same
03:00:40 submission close quote
03:00:57 she went on uh to uh direct that there should not
03:01:04 be live streaming of the proceedings of the inquiry and did so on a fact sensitive basis as she observed in paragraph 24 of her ruling open quote whether I direct live streaming
03:01:17 whether I direct live streaming worldwide or Live Links or neither will have no effect on the rigor of my Approach nor on the approach of all who have responsibility for helping me to get to the truth because
03:01:43 quote the problem that I face is not precisely that which she did
03:01:48 it is as
03:01:59 follows a very significant part of the evidence which is going to be given in dra 2 Phase
03:02:08 2 concerns the actions of Robert Lambert
03:02:18 and in
03:02:24 particular whether he
03:02:26 he played an active part in the planting of incendiary devices in devam stores on the night of the 11th of July
03:02:47 1987 which when activated caused damage from sprinklers in two stores and fire damage in the
03:02:58 third I must report on my findings on that and similar
03:03:09 on that and similar issues to enable the court of appeal to determine the pending appeal of Shephard and Clark who were convicted of
03:03:22 placing incendiary devices in the devam stores on that
03:03:31 night the evidence is
03:03:34 is contested one of the issues that I must determine is who is telling me the truth about these
03:03:50 matters I must also determine the accuracy of those evidence of the evidence of those Witnesses who I am satisfied are telling me the
03:03:56 me the truth these are complex and difficult
03:04:08 truth these are complex and difficult questions and it is of vital importance that evidence about them is given by
03:04:13 given by Witnesses who are subject to the least possible interference
03:04:17 in the giving of
03:04:26 evidence in other words it is of vital importance to me that the evidence of these Witnesses is given in the same manner as if it
03:04:43 is given in the same manner as if it would be uh at a trial criminal or civil in other words calmly without interruption
03:04:57 and in such circumstances as permits them uh to do their best and to give me the
03:05:03 the opportunity uh to make a conventional assessment of truthfulness and
03:05:18 accuracy this cannot be done if the evidence is to be repeatedly interrupted by the need to enforce reporting restriction orders as
03:05:32 enforce reporting restriction orders as well as other uh restriction orders that have been made of a different kind experience to date has shown
03:05:43 that repeated interruptions of the evidence of significant Witnesses has occurred and is likely to occur
03:05:57 if live streaming of the evidence of such Witnesses
03:06:10 occurs principally for that reason I therefore reject the submissions that have been made on all sides that uh evidence of witnesses
03:06:22 whose
03:06:27 account
03:06:33 involves matters that are subject to reporting restriction orders should be live
03:06:43 streamed I am reinforced in that conclusion by the observations
03:06:59 of the court of appeal in inre Guardian news and media limited and others 2016 one weekly law reports
03:07:07 reports 1767 at paragraph 69 in which problems of a not to similar kind occurred in a case involving
03:07:21 kind occurred in a case involving National Security tried in a criminal court uh
03:07:23 court uh when what turned out to be complex Arrangements were put in place to give effect to a variety of
03:07:40 interests what the court observed at paragraph 69 was open quote it was not possible for this court to have foreseen these difficulties but the experience of the way in which it affected the conduct of the trial leads us to The Firm
03:07:54 of the trial leads us to The Firm conclusion that a court should hesitate long and hard before it makes an order similar to that made by this court on 4 June 2014 given the unexpected effect it had on the conduct of the trial close
03:08:10 had on the conduct of the trial close quote I fear precisely such an effect on uh the conduct of the inquiry if I were to accept the submissions made by Mr wood and others about live
03:08:23 about live streaming a subsidiary reason but no less
03:08:24 less important is that counil to the inquiry have prepared their questioning of these
03:08:39 of these Witnesses on the footing that they would be able to do so in the conventional Manner and without
03:08:48 interruption to require them now uh to start again and to subdivide uh their proposed questioning of
03:08:59 of witnesses into two sections those which can be live streamed and those which can't at this stage in the proceedings of the inquiry is not sensible anymore than it is not
03:09:19 practical for those reasons I reject the submission that the evidence of the witnesses relevant to this issue should be live
03:09:41 be live streamed a further submission is made by Mr wood uh supported by Miss Johnson Miss Civ granan and Miss Heaven that those affected by the
03:09:54 affected by the evidence who may wish to communicate questions to be asked by
03:10:06 Council during the course of the hearings should be able to hear the evidence
03:10:13 evidence given if not by live stream uh then by a live link
03:10:25 this possibility was initially rejected on behalf of the inquiry because of perceived practical
03:10:41 difficulties in particular the difficulty of ensuring
03:10:48 that what was heard on the live link Was Heard only by the person who who it was intended should hear it and should not be uh widely
03:11:04 hear it and should not be uh widely distributed in a manner that would put the Restriction
03:11:09 order put in place to protect the legitimate interests of private
03:11:13 individuals at risk or Worse made futile
03:11:25 intensive discussions uh have now uh produced an answer which can be put into effect from Thursday
03:11:45 onwards I will not spell out the details of it now that is not necessary as part of this judgment but those who need to hear the evidence of
03:11:54 of Witnesses in TR 2 Phase
03:12:01 2 including the
03:12:14 media will be able to do so subject to certain requirements which they should not find burdensome
03:12:25 at the very least it is worth trying this
03:12:27 this exercise if uh experience demonstrates uh that it cannot sensibly be
03:12:38 be controlled uh in a manner which gives effect to the Restriction orders uh then the issue will have to be Revisited but from my understanding is and I do not wish to spell out the
03:12:51 and I do not wish to spell out the technicalities now my understanding is uh that
03:12:52 uh that um that ought not to
03:13:07 arise those who receive the evidence will do so on a live link subject to a 10-minute
03:13:14 delay it will be communicated to them and only to them
03:13:34 those I think uh deal with the uh substantive issues that have been addressed with two immediate exceptions Dave Morris is due to give
03:13:45 exceptions Dave Morris is due to give evidence uh and will now do so after the uh lunch and break he wishes to give evidence in public his view throughout has in my opinion commendably been published and
03:13:58 opinion commendably been published and bamned and he is uh Keen to ensure that the public should understand what he has to say about the issues about which he is going to be questioned
03:14:30 he also wishes those who need to hear what he has to say to be able to hear it I cannot exceed to his
03:14:39 request if he remains willing to give evidence I will ask him to do so this afternoon uh his evidence will not be live streamed
03:14:51 live streamed nor will it be capable of being sent by uh live link to uh identified
03:15:04 individuals if uh his evidence is not complete and if there are matters that can be publicly ventilated uh conceivably by live stream uh
03:15:14 stream uh then uh
03:15:21 then uh I will invite him to return uh to give evidence on Thursday
03:15:30 morning in any event the evidence which he gives
03:15:38 he gives will be made public a transcript of it will be published by lunchtime
03:15:50 will be published by lunchtime tomorrow uh and a video recording of it will be made public within 3 to 5 days of it having been
03:16:01 given because of the need to set up uh Arrangements it will not be possible for the evidence of
03:16:10 uh Mr Bailey uh to be given tomorrow
03:16:21 with uh links in place to permit those who need to hear it to do so because of his personal circumstances it is
03:16:28 it is unlikely uh that uh he could be asked uh to be recalled uh should there be any uh subsequent
03:16:45 subsequent questions arising out of uh the evidence that he's given which were not apparent uh to those interested in it who would under the arrangements that are going to be put in place uh have heard it by
03:16:59 it by link but for the fact that that cannot be set up satisfactory until
03:17:06 Thursday the solution is not perfect but it is the best that can be achieved uh and the inquiry needs to get on with its hearings we will resume now until 5 to
03:17:24 2 sorry we will resume act 5
03:17:45 to2 e