This hearing contains two distinct parts: (1) Continued testimony from 'Ellie' regarding her long-term deceptive relationship with undercover officer Thompson, including sexual elements that continued for over a decade after his deployment ended, and (2) A procedural hearing concerning whether HN81 'David Hagen' should be compelled to give oral evidence despite medical opinions that he cannot safely do so.
00:24:12 Thank you.
00:24:27 Good morning everybody. Uh today we resume the evidence of Ellie for whom it is good evening. I think good evening. Um, those with mobile devices may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 10 minutes of elapse. They may not use it for recording or photography. Thank you, Miss Koy.
00:24:37 Miss Koy. Yes.
00:24:42 Yes. Good morning, Ellie, or good evening for where you are. Thank you. Good morning. You gave oral evidence um before this inquiry on Thursday the 23rd of October. I'm now going to ask you a few more
00:24:55 I'm now going to ask you a few more questions about some of the things that you were asked about before. Um, I'm going to start off with the beginning of the sexual relationship with Thompson.
00:25:08 with Thompson. Um, it it started in early 2001 as you told the inquiry. Can you um tell us whether you would have agreed to have a sexual relationship with Thompson if you had
00:25:20 relationship with Thompson if you had known that he was an undercover police officer?
00:25:27 I mean, absolutely not. No, not not a chance.
00:25:36 Thank you. Now, you explained that in that relationship you saw Thompson once or twice a week and you texted and called a lot in between those meetings. Is that right?
00:25:55 Is that right? Yes. Yeah. What sort of things did you speak about in those calls and emails in between?
00:26:03 So it be calls or text messages. Um and
00:26:12 good question. So it would be um superficial stuff. How your day went? What have you been up to? Planning on when we're next going to meet up. What we're, you know, what we're doing next. If he was away and we were emailing,
00:26:29 If he was away and we were emailing, he'd tell me a bit about where he was, what he was doing. Um, and I would reciprocate just sharing information.
00:26:40 So, these were all of these text messages sharing information or was there
00:26:45 there was the character flirty or romantic at all?
00:26:49 all? Only from the point of view that we were dating. So, we were we were in a relationship and texting each other from
00:27:03 relationship and texting each other from that point of view. Um, so yeah, caring, nice, relaxing, romantic, nothing too heavy. Any We didn't have deep and meaningful conversations over text messages.
00:27:15 conversations over text messages. So, if we were to compare those messages with some of the emails that we're going to be looking at in a moment that you've already seen and the inquiry has seen last week, how do they compare?
00:27:32 from memory. Um, obviously with with text messages, you don't write as much. Um, but the emails would have been in a in a similar vein.
00:27:41 vein. Thank you. Um, you've explained um to the inquiry that this was your first proper intense relationship,
00:27:56 relationship, correct? and your first love. Correct. Yeah. And also that you could see it going on for a long time.
00:28:08 for a long time. Yes. I was I was very comfortable with it. It felt very relaxed and natural. We got on well. I I saw it continuing. So what exactly can you tell us a bit more about what you thought about the future of the relationship?
00:28:22 Um,
00:28:29 I tend I tend not to try and overthink things like that and just see where things progress. But I saw I definitely saw it continuing longterm.
00:28:39 longterm. Um,
00:28:41 Um, whether we ended up taking the next step, say moving in together. Um, that was a possibility.
00:28:50 Did you discuss the future with him?
00:29:03 I don't believe I did. No. And you explained that the relationship carried on like this for about 10 months.
00:29:06 months. Yes. About that. Yeah. And then one day at the start of 2002, you told the inquiry he turned up for a date and wanted to go on a walk.
00:29:22 date and wanted to go on a walk. Yes. We went round the block. Um, and he explained that he was going to be leaving.
00:29:33 leaving. And he he told you in that conversation that his exartner had decided to move to Los Angeles and take the children with her. Uh, he also said that he had started up a small production company with friends. Yes. So he said that his exartner
00:29:50 Yes. So he said that his exartner had a had a new partner and he had got a job in San Francisco. Um and she was they wanted to move to San Francisco and take the children
00:30:01 San Francisco and take the children and because they're his children, he had to agree.
00:30:05 to agree. Um he had already told me prior to that that he had started up a production company with a couple of friends. It was very small. Um he gave me a a business
00:30:20 very small. Um he gave me a a business card for it at the time, but he said he was going to he would be moving to Los Angeles
00:30:30 Angeles um to be nearer his children so he could still see them regularly and he could work from Los Angeles and be the the American branch as it was. Was this the first time that you had heard all of this?
00:30:44 heard all of this? I knew about the production company, but it was the first time I'd heard about anything else. A move like that um would have taken time to organize, wouldn't it?
00:30:55 wouldn't it? I I thought so. Yes. When When he first told me, he said it was still in the initial stages. Were
00:31:06 Were you surprised?
00:31:16 I was surprised. It It caught me off guard that he was leaving. Um, and I was surprised at how fast it progressed. Were you surprised that it was the first time that he had told you about it?
00:31:27 time that he had told you about it? The impression I got of it was that he hadn't long known about it.
00:31:33 What did you say to him? Do you remember?
00:31:39 vaguely.
00:31:49 Not really. I'm sorry. Now, you said that things moved faster after that. Um, and um that one time
00:32:00 after that. Um, and um that one time when you were at his place, you told the inquiry that he said he would have to leave even quicker than he had anticipated.
00:32:06 I I imagined that we'd have something like six months still while everything was sorted out, but it it was way way quicker than that. And did he give you a reason as to why it moved so quickly?
00:32:22 it moved so quickly? I think it was something to do with the fact that some sort of job had some sort of project had come up and he would then go over and start earlier than he planned.
00:32:34 than he planned. And how did you how did you feel about it moving so much faster than you had thought?
00:32:49 faster than you had thought? Not great. I had I felt like I hadn't really got my head around it and then he was it was moving out of control. What did you say to him? [sighs]
00:32:59 [sighs] I I'm sorry. I can't remember. Obviously, I wasn't happy about it, but I didn't want to
00:33:14 I didn't want to make him feel bad because it wasn't really something that he
00:33:16 he that he could control. Um, and he needed to be with his kids and he wanted close to his kids and I understood that. I respected him for that.
00:33:37 You told the inquiry that he when he left he gave you a motorcycle course and said in a card see you in the south of France.
00:33:48 Yes, there were two. He gave me one for my birthday, the initial course and then this was the follow-up course that he gave me. Um, see you in the south of France. I I took that as a
00:33:58 that as a positive sign that we would maybe keep in touch.
00:34:04 Um, and you that you you said to the inquiry on the last week and then I got that email, this was after he left. And when you said that email,
00:34:16 when you said that email, um, that sounds as if it was significant. Was it significant that email?
00:34:24 email? It was significant. It was lovely. It was quick. Um, so it showed that he made an effort and
00:34:35 so it showed that he made an effort and he said some he said some lovely things in it. Um, so I I printed it out and I kept it.
00:34:39 kept it. Could we take um a look at that email? It's 382892.
00:35:00 UCPI. Yes.
00:35:13 We're just calling it up on the screen.
00:35:33 38289,
00:35:36 page two.
00:36:04 So it's zero. It's UCPI 0000
00:36:08 38289.
00:36:25 It's an exhibit to Ellie's statement. Thank you.
00:36:34 you've been you've had been taken through this and had a look at it um on the last occasion and you'll see in the first
00:36:41 first um
00:36:43 um paragraph [snorts]
00:36:58 uh that he is um so in fact I think it must be the second paragraph because I can't see it there that he makes reference to your ass.
00:37:08 It's the third paragraph. I do apologize. It's the third paragraph. He makes reference to your ass. He says, "Actually, unless I get my ass, that's the local colloquialism for ass in these parts." O, and that's just
00:37:26 in these parts." O, and that's just reminded me of yours. But moving swiftly on, um, is that an illusion to your body?
00:37:28 body? Yes. Yeah. And to your sexual relationship. Yes. That's that's how I took it.
00:37:42 Yes. That's that's how I took it. And he um is telling you, isn't he, that he's thinking about your body in a sexual way? Yes.
00:37:54 Yes. And he goes on later on in that email to give you um compliments about your intelligence and your wit. He says, "You're smarter than you allow yourself to believe."
00:38:06 yourself to believe." And he also refers to your insecurities um and lack of confidence that's in later paragraphs in that email.
00:38:17 So would you agree that this is an intimate email? Yes. Yeah. And then he talks about meeting when you are old and gray
00:38:32 are old and gray and that's in the last paragraph on this page and swapping war stories.
00:38:44 What does this suggest about how long you will continue to stay in touch? Yeah, indefinitely.
00:38:52 and he then suggests um meeting up on the following page
00:39:09 um and asks you to consider that. So there he suggests a meeting before you're old and gray. Yes.
00:39:14 Yes. And he asks you in this email not to tell anyone else
00:39:22 doesn't he? He does. Yeah. Um, so
00:39:31 Um, so does this look as if he's treating you as a friend or something else? No, that
00:39:33 No, that I was I was delighted when I got that email. Um, it it suggested that he still cared quite deeply and didn't want to let the relationship go. um and wanted
00:39:49 let the relationship go. um and wanted to meet up and like there was no way I I wasn't going to meet up with him.
00:40:01 And is that why you told the inquiry you printed the email out and kept it because it meant a lot to you? Yeah, the whole the whole thing. And he said nice supportive things about me as
00:40:13 said nice supportive things about me as well which I appreciated. Um so yeah, I kept
00:40:15 kept I kept it for all of all of it really. Did that email change the way you felt about the end of the relationship?
00:40:27 about the end of the relationship? Completely cuz I thought it was over and it was the contact was continuing.
00:40:34 What did you think it meant for the future?
00:40:48 Honestly, I didn't know. I I didn't I I I thought it meant that we would definitely remain in contact. Um
00:40:54 Um and that we would very least be very caring
00:40:57 caring friends at the bare minimum and that maybe at some point later on something might happen. Who knows? I hadn't I didn't I didn't put any pressure on it.
00:41:12 didn't I didn't put any pressure on it. When you say something might happen, you Do you mean something other than friendship? Yes. Yeah. Something sexual? Yes. A a relationship?
00:41:25 How soon after that email did you meet? I
00:41:28 I I don't know whenever he was back. Sorry. I don't know when that would be. So, so the email um was in the beginning of 2002
00:41:39 of 2002 about May 2002.
00:41:48 Did you meet that same year? Oh, definitely. It's Sorry, it would have been
00:41:51 have been what a couple of months max. Do you remember that meeting that first meeting after he left?
00:42:03 They all they've all sort of blurred together a little bit. I'm sorry. Can you say despite them blurring together what that meeting might have been like?
00:42:15 been like? I mean it would have been like a date.
00:42:23 What does that mean from your point of view?
00:42:34 view? It would have been the two of us. We would have gone out. Um maybe dinner, maybe drinks, intimate conversation. Um basically whenever we met up it was like we picked up where we left off
00:42:48 and where you left off was a sexual relationship. Sorry. Yes. But we didn't sleep together again until later on.
00:43:01 again until later on. But was there touching? Um,
00:43:03 Um, touching, handholding, kissing at the end. Um,
00:43:19 kissing at the end. Um, and just just what what I would consider a normal couple going on a date. So, flirting. Was there flirting
00:43:25 in my awkward way? Yeah, there must have been.
00:43:33 been. Do you remember how you parted on that occasion or on most occasions? You said you kissed at the end. He would walk me to the train station. Um,
00:43:40 Um, wait until my train was coming. We'd have a kiss goodbye and then I would go to the platform and catch a train. Did you say anything about keeping in touch?
00:43:54 We must have done but I can't remember specifics.
00:44:14 Now in your statement you said of picking up where you left off. [snorts] You said this and this is paragraph 52 of your statement at 38206 UCPI 38206.
00:44:22 Our relationship as it was had come to an end. But some other kind of
00:44:35 an end. But some other kind of relationship picked up in its place that was much more than a friendship as it was intimate, loving and romantic in nature. And there was always sexual attraction and intimacy in our interactions, whether in person, on the phone, or in correspondence. Every time we met, it was like being on
00:44:50 Every time we met, it was like being on a date. Every time we parted in person, we kissed like a couple. Is that the character of the relationship that continued?
00:45:03 Yes, it was. Obviously it could never because of geography it can never be anything more.
00:45:12 So I believed but that was in your mind the only thing stopping it being a sexual a full sexual relationship. Yes.
00:45:32 Yes. And you said um in your statement and also to this inquiry um la uh on the last occasion that you remained in regular contact emailing every couple of months and that you met once a year or
00:45:44 months and that you met once a year or twice every 18 months before you moved to Australia. I believe so. Yes. So would that mean meeting perhaps three or four times in total before 2005?
00:45:59 Sounds about right.
00:46:09 You now know that um Thompson was in the United Kingdom, not in the United States,
00:46:13 States, and that he was a working police officer.
00:46:15 officer. Yes. [snorts] So he was in fact lying now in addition about where he was
00:46:26 about where he was completely. He was pretending to be abroad. Yeah.
00:46:34 Yeah. And inventing stories about what he was doing.
00:46:36 doing. He was.
00:46:38 He was. How do you feel about that?
00:46:45 Like like a bit of an idiot really. Um although there
00:46:51 I say like a bit of an idiot because I was deceived but I would never in my wildest dreams have thought that he was that it was all a lie. That would never have occurred to me.
00:47:08 You told the inquiry that after 2005 you moved to Australia. So now you genuinely were in two different continents. Yes. Yeah.
00:47:21 Yes. Yeah. But this did not stop him from emailing you,
00:47:26 you, calling you, and meeting you. It it was the same.
00:47:33 And you you have um we've looked at some of the emails and you've said to the inquiry that they were flirty, caring, and fun.
00:47:44 and fun. Yes. And we've also looked at a call log um suggesting hundreds of calls over this period.
00:47:50 Can you remember what those calls were like?
00:48:01 I don't I don't know if they were calls or texts or a combination of both. Um,
00:48:07 Um, I know there must have been a time when we were in Australia where we called because it was the only way we had contact with anyone in the UK. Um, but I can't I can't really remember enough about what they were like. I'm sorry.
00:48:20 sorry. Can you remember anything about what they were like? I mean, they would
00:48:33 again like whenever we met up, it just carried on. We just picked up where we left off. So, they would have been caring, easy, easy to talk to,
00:48:41 nice, romantic, all all of those things. How many times do you think that you met him between 2005 and 2018?
00:48:57 Oh, it I mean it would have been whenever
00:48:58 whenever I went back to the UK, which was approximately every 18 I tried to get back every 18 months and sometimes it was every two years.
00:49:14 was every two years. So, I don't know. I know six six times. Thank you. Had a guess bad maths guess. you were taken to some of the emails
00:49:26 you were taken to some of the emails that um you found from Thompson when you were in Australia and I want to just go back to some of those emails. Um this again is an exhibit to your statement. It's at 38281 UCPI
00:49:37 UCPI 38281
00:49:46 page 4. It's an email from the 14th of July 2011.
00:49:51 2011. The title is R and you told the inquiry that that um meant sexual frustration.
00:49:59 Yes. Is that right? Yeah.
00:50:00 Yeah. And the email um begins with um a series of illusions and you were taken to this last time to the very
00:50:13 taken to this last time to the very strong sexual attraction he still has for you.
00:50:19 Yeah, that's right, isn't it? Yes. Sorry. Yes.
00:50:30 Yes. Sorry. Yes. And the email begins with a series um with those illusions and he also talks expressly about feeling frustrated and refers to a trip on the bike.
00:50:40 was this a so in this in the first um paragraph
00:50:42 paragraph at the end of that paragraph I was perfectly happy to bin that idea even while on a motorbike.
00:50:58 Okay. Yeah. Okay. Was
00:50:59 Was he referring to something that you
00:51:12 he referring to something that you described in your witness statement? Um, and you also described to this inquiry. You were out in an isolated and public spot.
00:51:17 spot. And you went further, you said, than the usual couple's kiss that you'd been having until then. You said it got heated.
00:51:31 You said it got heated. Yeah. So I don't know if that was that time but um it may have been but I would be I was on the back of the motorbike obviously and he was and he was riding it. Um so it it might be that time.
00:51:45 it. Um so it it might be that time. Yeah. We pulled over and we went for a bit of a walk and you know got a bit heated. So, um, would that have been in about 2011?
00:52:07 I don't know. I'm sorry. And what is it right to say that there was a lot of sexual touching that wasn't kissing on that occasion? Yes.
00:52:15 In this email, is he making reference to that encounter?
00:52:27 I don't know. I don't know if that because it wasn't We went on a motorbike a few times. So, I don't know if it was that encounter or a different time. Well, he says um in that paragraph, "I had a truly wonderful time, even seeing you so briefly brought it all back.
00:52:40 you so briefly brought it all back. As for the attraction, I so obviously still feel for you. Suffice to say, I've never felt as frustrated as I did knowing you were in a hotel near Heithro
00:52:51 knowing you were in a hotel near Heithro without a chaperone while I was stuck in Scotland." He seems to be referring to a particular level of sexual frustration. Yes, he does.
00:53:11 Yes, he does. And then um later on in that email, in the third paragraph, he compares you to a mole.
00:53:13 a mole. Lesson learned. Get a mole. This is at the end of that paragraph. It's sorry, it's this. It's the the sec the second
00:53:24 it's this. It's the the sec the second big paragraph. Put mole on pillion. Give Mole responsibility for keeping an eye on the tire she's on top of. Is that a reference to you? Yes, it is. Yeah.
00:53:37 Yes, it is. Yeah. And throughout the email, he um keeps saying, and we see this in the last paragraph on that page, moving swift swiftly on.
00:53:50 I've just thought of something moving swiftly on. and he suggests fantasizing about you in a uniform on the following page
00:54:02 a uniform on the following page and says he might say something shocking.
00:54:06 This is on the following page.
00:54:16 Are these sexual references? Yes, they are flirty, sexual.
00:54:31 And this email is in 2011, which is 9 years after he left the SDS and claimed to have left the United Kingdom.
00:54:43 All of the emails were very similar to this.
00:54:54 Was this email more sexual than emails which had preceded it?
00:54:59 I don't think so. Not particularly.
00:55:05 [snorts] So all of your emails after Thompson left the United Kingdom, you haven't kept all of them, but all of them were of this character.
00:55:18 of this character. This very similar. Yes. Um, you were taken to another email September 2011,
00:55:35 UCPI 38281, page 7. So it's the same exhibit page seven
00:55:40 seven and again here he is referring to the AR condition
00:55:42 condition which is sexual frustration and he suggests that photos with lingerie will help him with it.
00:56:00 He blames you for leaving him sexually frustrated being in Heathro while he was in
00:56:12 being in Heathro while he was in Scotland. This is This is October 2011. So maybe sorry it's the previous email September 2011. Maybe page six if that's page seven.
00:56:32 Thank you. This is the right email. So he talks about arg condition. He blames you. He says the or a formentioned arg condition. This is in the third paragraph. You left me in by being at Heathrow when I was in Scotland.
00:56:46 Heathrow when I was in Scotland. So he suggests that you have left him sexually frustrated. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. And he says in the last paragraph that he is driling
00:56:57 is is that a reference as well to sexual frustration more like he's just driling on in the same vein. Um and so he was and so he was going to sign off the email.
00:57:12 sign off the email. He then says focus falling apart in fact.
00:57:21 fact. So that is a reference to sexual frustration as well, is it? Yes, it is. Yeah. So
00:57:31 So when he talks about you helping him with the ARG condition, what did you understand that to mean sleeping together? Is having sex on the agenda then? in this email. It was
00:57:44 Yes, it was on the agenda. Yeah.
00:57:54 And then on the following page, page seven, this is the page seven, the October 2011 email. So that's a month later. That's was that frequency of emails normal in this period?
00:58:13 Um, actually that was probably a bit bit closer together. I was normally the one that was terrible at responding. Um, so I know that that was probably
00:58:24 so I know that that was probably if it if it was like three and three months that was a lot closer together than normal. Now, this email
00:58:36 Now, this email also has sexual illusions, multiple sexual illusions in it. You've been taken to some of these. And there seems to have been here a
00:58:48 there seems to have been here a suggestion of a November meeting. You can see that over the page. Sorry, it's on that page. I apologize. Halfway through. It's the third paragraph.
00:59:05 That's my excuse for the slightly slow reply. I anticipate going back very shortly to a job in Asia. So I'm afraid
00:59:18 shortly to a job in Asia. So I'm afraid November won't work. Presumably that is a reference to something you have suggested. Is that right? Yes.
00:59:20 Yes. So I may have suggested that I would be going over in November if he was around. And he then says, "This is a nuisance as I find myself very much suffering from arc all the time with only one cure
00:59:31 arc all the time with only one cure possible and that cure seems to have positioned herself half a world away. Is that a reference to having sex?"
00:59:47 Yeah, that's how I interpreted it. Yes. Um and he then um says uh at the end of that paragraph, "Come the long still watches of the night, but moving swiftly on." This reference to
01:00:02 moving swiftly on." This reference to moving swiftly on which appears multiple times in the emails in the email correspondence. What is that? How did you understand that? Changing the subject
01:00:13 Changing the subject from what? from the sexual um
01:00:21 just from that sort of sexual flirty stuff to kind of trying to not talk about that and move on to another topic.
01:00:37 Um and then he says um at the end of that paragraph, at the end of that page, let me know about any dates for holidays.
01:00:46 Um, and he also talks in the fourth paragraph. Um, I don't recall you have a lot of trouble with being bendy enough. In fact, damn it, I've moved swiftly back again.
01:01:01 again. So, is that a reference to your sexual relationship? Yes, it was. So, this is um an email full of
01:01:13 So, this is um an email full of references to your sexual relationship. Yes. Yeah. Um turning to the next page,
01:01:28 he ends the email with love, which he says in brackets is undiluted by baser desires. again. Is that a reference to wanting to have sex? Yes, that's that's how I see it. Yeah.
01:01:43 Yes, that's that's how I see it. Yeah. And he makes a request for photos with lingerie.
01:01:52 Yeah, he does. Standing back and looking at this email as a whole, can you remember how it made you feel?
01:01:59 No. Sorry, not at the time. Um,
01:02:08 I mean, it it it stopped me moving on because there was still that connection there. Um, and there was still that it there it was still like a very strong reminder of the relationship and the
01:02:23 reminder of the relationship and the sexual relationship that we had and it was still suggesting that that could continue in some form or another.
01:02:32 The next email February 2012 38281
01:02:38 page nine. So this is in the same exhibit.
01:02:45 That email is also full of similar language and references. Um there is there are references to lingerie based photographs
01:03:00 lingerie based photographs for which he I eagerly wait await. He says in the second paragraph
01:03:09 he says um I had intended this email should not descend into a tirade of sexual longing but I'm not sure how that's going to play out as it's only paragraph two. He talks about
01:03:20 He talks about uh nurses
01:03:22 uh nurses uniforms
01:03:25 uniforms in the in in in the last section. No, hang on. Nurses uniforms popping into the head.
01:03:37 the head. He talks about reflections on your bum, the delightfully buoyant bum. and then um says that he is only able to descend
01:03:46 descend into jealousy or lust. That's on the following page.
01:03:58 Again, this is a highly sexualized email, isn't it? This the the buoyant bum is in the last page last section of the following page and
01:04:12 and he talks about jealousy and lust at the end of that page. And then in April 2012, so that's on pages 12 and 13 of this exhibit.
01:04:30 Uh similarly he begins with think uh reference to thinking of you as being laid up that you were taken to this on the last occasion.
01:04:45 And this goes on and on throughout these emails, doesn't it? These references, there's one in June 2012, which is at page 15 of this exhibit. again with reference to lingery photos.
01:05:02 And you told the inquiry, having been through all of these emails, that it became more likely that you would end up sleeping together throughout this
01:05:17 sleeping together throughout this period. Can you explain that? Why did it become more likely?
01:05:30 become more likely? He was obviously saying that he was um well to me I interpreted it as he was saying he was keen for um a sexual interaction um when I was back in the UK um
01:05:38 um and I wasn't I didn't object to that. I was keen as well. So I thought well that's pretty much a given. If we're both quite interested in doing that, it's probably going to happen.
01:05:55 it's probably going to happen. So, this was something was it that came from the emails or from other communications? It was mainly just the emails and then whenever we met up, but it it did seem to build
01:06:10 to build um and I remember saying to Wendy, you know, I think we're probably going to sleep together when I go back.
01:06:16 Is there a date that you can identify for when it started to build or No, the emails were quite similar the whole time. They've obviously just got maybe a bit more intense
01:06:31 maybe a bit more intense those those years sort of leading up to 2015,
01:06:33 2015, but they they were always there was always quite a similar thread to them all from from memory.
01:06:48 Now, one of the things that you can see from the emails is that you met um in 2013. This is at page 20 um of the exhibit. You met in 2013.
01:07:05 There's a reference to a a trip to the United Kingdom from the 15th of July to the 17th of August. Again, he's asking for lingerie photos in this email.
01:07:14 email. Um, do you remember that particular meeting?
01:07:23 Not not particularly, unless this was the Boxhill meeting. You, in your statement, you do refer to the Boxhill meeting being um seen intimately kissing in a public spot.
01:07:38 intimately kissing in a public spot. Yeah, we we were on the we were sitting on the hill and I was in front of him and he had his arms around me and I sort of lent back and we had a kiss.
01:07:55 of lent back and we had a kiss. Um and then these there were these two men that walked past and they looked over at us quite clearly at us and laughed
01:07:58 laughed and I I thought it was odd. Um and I mentioned it at the time. I was like, "Oh, did they see us or something?" thing and he said, "Oh, it must have
01:08:10 thing and he said, "Oh, it must have done." Um, in hindsight, I think I think they knew him.
01:08:20 So, you didn't have sex on that occasion?
01:08:22 occasion? No.
01:08:27 No. Did that meeting play any part in the buildup that you described just now?
01:08:39 buildup that you described just now? It would have done because I think the last couple of meetups there was um a bit more than just a kiss and a
01:08:51 a bit more than just a kiss and a handhold. So yes, it would have just been sort of the next step. At page 21 uh one of this document
01:08:52 document is an email from June 2014. So this would have postdated that meeting in Boxill if it was in 2013, that meeting.
01:09:15 if it was in 2013, that meeting. And he um refers to your bare naked ass in the in the first paragraph and to just reaching out and grabbing it. He says, "Well, you get the idea. More sorted if I'm honest." Um, and he again asks for naked photos.
01:09:40 Um, he talks about thinking of you hanging around his office naked. And on the following page, he talks about not getting distracted by mischief.
01:09:57 Um, so this goes on in that highly sexual vein.
01:10:07 Is this part of what led to you sleeping together in 2015?
01:10:11 Part of it. Yes.
01:10:19 What else led to that? You told the inquiry that you did in the end in 2015 sleep together. We did. Yeah. Um
01:10:38 We did. Yeah. Um cuz I would always sort of have a hotel near the airport prior to the flight. Um,
01:10:47 and so when when I was over in the UK, we'd arrange to meet up. He would arrange to come to the hotel.
01:11:06 So these emails which increased that the emails you said were the same sort of intensity, but he had been indicating he wanted to have sex.
01:11:08 sex. What made it finally happen in 2015?
01:11:21 I don't know. I thought at the time maybe just circumstance. Um
01:11:22 Um I didn't think at the time I didn't think there was anything more to it than that.
01:11:28 that. I mean, I know I know now that that's when he'd come forward to the inquiry, but um
01:11:40 but um I'm not sure. I don't know like I know he was in a relationship. Um I don't know maybe if his relationship had come to an end or I'm I'm guessing. I don't I'm not sure. I'm sorry.
01:11:58 sorry. Did the um initiative come from him? Yes.
01:12:00 Yes. But I like I didn't Yes, it did.
01:12:13 Just standing back from all of this um getting to where you were in in 2015, you have consistently told the inquiry that the relationship was not platonic.
01:12:40 Yeah. It wasn't a friendship. I mean, the only the only way you would call it platonic was was because of the distance. Um, because of how far apart we were, but in in every other way it was more than that. And when you say more than that, do you mean sexual? Yeah. Like you wouldn't you wouldn't talk to your friend like that?
01:12:59 and looking at these emails and um listening to you talking about the meetings, thinking about what you've said. Um did all your meetings,
01:13:12 said. Um did all your meetings, calls and emails have this sexual element to them? Yes.
01:13:17 Yes. So apart from the separation which meant you couldn't have sex regularly,
01:13:32 regularly, would it be right to call this a sexual relationship?
01:13:39 It was it was an intimate relationship and a romantic relationship. Um but there there was no sex apart from that one time in 2015.
01:13:55 Was there sexual touching on other occasions? Yes, there was.
01:14:04 After the after you had sex in 2015, you said that the same type of
01:14:22 you said that the same type of relationship continued with emails and call and calls after that until you discovered that he was a UCO. Is that right? Just carried on as before. Did you meet him again? No.
01:14:34 And then he um told you that he was a UCO and in 2018 an undercover officer.
01:14:47 an undercover officer. You said that that phone call which you described on the last occasion was about half an hour. Yes. Can you um describe what you spoke about for half an hour?
01:14:59 Um
01:15:09 he told me pretty early on in the call he sort of blurted it out quite early. Um he explained that there was an inquiry that someone might be in touch. Um,
01:15:28 he asked me if I still had my old email address.
01:15:39 if I still had my old email address. He told me that he he couldn't tell me a lot of information. He said he was willing to um
01:15:55 willing to um talk about it and tell me what he could. Um, he said that they were they will probably tell me his real name, but his first name was James.
01:16:06 I can't remember much more, I'm afraid. Did he say that he had done something wrong?
01:16:13 wrong? No. No, he didn't. He He said things were different today than they were back then. Um,
01:16:19 then. Um, but he he definitely did not think he'd done anything wrong. Um,
01:16:30 did he apologize to you? There's no apology of anything there. Sorry.
01:16:37 Sorry. I was just going to ask if if he apologized, but you said that he didn't. No, definitely not. No.
01:16:48 Did he um indicate that it was a significant thing that he had deceived you?
01:16:55 No, he didn't. He
01:17:07 No, he he No, he didn't. Did he use the words deceit or lying? No. But I thought I thought throughout that conversation that the relationship had still been real. Um, and that
01:17:32 and the other thing maybe his job was fake. Um, but his friendship with Wendy, his friendship with um the the L guys and his relationship with me and his relationship with Sara, I I assumed that they were legitimate and they were honest.
01:17:42 honest. And
01:17:46 And why did you assume that? What did he say to make you assume that?
01:17:52 He said at one point he said, "My private life is my private life." Um,
01:18:05 I don't know if I don't know. I don't know. I'm sorry. That whole conversation and a week after it matter
01:18:10 matter I hate to say it was like a like a bit of a blur, like a bit of a dream. So, I don't I don't know.
01:18:21 Did he make light of what had happened?
01:18:35 No. I mean, he said he said you might get um a visit from a sweaty English man in a raincoat talking to you about the inquiry. I think from that point of view, it could be seen as I don't know if that was lighthearted or resentful to be honest.
01:18:52 lighthearted or resentful to be honest. He said that that you Ellie might get a visit from a sweaty man. Yeah.
01:18:54 Yeah. Did that sound threatening to you or did it sound What do you think he was trying to do? It was a little It was a little disturbing that the thought that some
01:19:06 disturbing that the thought that some random government official would rock up at my door. Um
01:19:16 but that it never happened. I did wonder if I did wait further a few weeks afterwards. I kept on expecting someone to turn up. He asked you, you told the inquiry not to tell Wendy
01:19:28 to tell Wendy because he said she would be angry. Yes. And I took that again to mean that he was worried that their their
01:19:40 he was worried that their their friendship would be compromised. Um,
01:19:42 Um, did he not think you would be angry?
01:19:58 did he not think you would be angry? I think because when he first said it, it was a bit of a shock and I laughed, which I I like to do in inappropriate times.
01:20:05 times. But, um, I think that caught him off guard and I said like I always knew there was something off.
01:20:09 off. Um and then yeah, so one of the other
01:20:23 Um and then yeah, so one of the other things is I said they did suspect that the um animal rights guys did suspect that he was um not completely who he said he was. Did they suspect he was an undercover officer?
01:20:29 officer? When he first um started out, they said he was textbook
01:20:36 textbook and they said it was really obvious. As time went on, I think they decided that he couldn't be. He was just a little eccentric.
01:20:51 Did you consider not telling? Seriously, not telling Wendy or No, I was going to have to tell Wendy.
01:21:06 In your statement, um, you you say you took some time before you did tell her. How long did it take?
01:21:23 How long did it take? I didn't I didn't know what to do. I got off the phone and I I didn't know what to do. I didn't know what to think. I didn't know what to make of it. Um, so I didn't want to make any rash decisions. So, I went and had a shower and then went to bed and just lay there um and decided that I wasn't going to do
01:21:34 decided that I wasn't going to do anything at all for about 24 hours and see if I had a new perspective on it in the morning.
01:21:51 Did you? Then I I told her the next day. Did you feel that you needed to do what he asked you to do? I felt that I didn't want to um betray him cuz I still thought it was
01:22:06 um betray him cuz I still thought it was I still thought it was genuine. Um and I didn't want to get him in trouble. Um and I didn't want to make things hard for him.
01:22:14 for him. Why do you why did you feel that given what he told you about what he'd done? I still didn't fully accept that it was about us.
01:22:28 that it was about us. I know that sounds weird, especially after he told me, but I still I still didn't like it would make no sense that he would spy on hunts. That
01:22:41 sense that he would spy on hunts. That was just there was no reason for it. Um and I didn't I just didn't accept it. I really didn't accept it. And how do you feel now about your desire not to betray him?
01:22:57 your desire not to betray him? Yeah, I think it was a it was a process getting over that, but um [sighs] I'm annoyed at myself. I I did the right thing telling Wendy and I'm glad I did. And then the more I
01:23:16 and I'm glad I did. And then the more I looked into it, the more I realized that absolutely every aspect of it was a complete lie.
01:23:26 You told the inquiry about the time he contacted you again and you said you felt sick. Oh yeah, I was at work and um I just got that text out of the blue and just
01:23:38 that text out of the blue and just thought, "Oh god, that's horrible. Why did you feel sick? Because he knew and he was contacting. I hadn't expected
01:23:51 and he was contacting. I hadn't expected him to contact me. And then I I had this it was it was quite confronting and um just there's a whole range of emotions that go on that you I was still at that point I think feeling a bit um
01:24:05 point I think feeling a bit um feeling a certain aspect of guilt I suppose although that wasn't logical and I knew it wasn't logical but I still felt
01:24:18 but I still felt quite I was quite intimidated by the text there was no reason. There was nothing intimidating in it, but I felt quite intimidated by it. Why did you feel intimidated?
01:24:33 Because he knew and I didn't know where that where that put me. What do you think he was trying to achieve by telling you that he knew? I don't know.
01:24:45 I don't know. I'm not I don't I can't I can't speculate.
01:24:56 I want to come finally to the impact on you.
01:24:57 you. Um, you were asked some questions about it and you said you hated talking about it.
01:25:03 it. Yeah, I do hate. Yes. Um, I like for a few months after I just went down rabbit holes like I can't
01:25:16 went down rabbit holes like I can't explain the need to know where you need to find out. Um, one of the things I looked at is what kind of personality
01:25:27 what kind of personality would be an undercover officer. And from from what I read, um it's quite similar to con artists and they tend to have this sort of personality triad which means they
01:25:39 personality triad which means they they're able to lie. They don't feel
01:25:51 they're able to lie. They don't feel guilt lying and they don't feel empathy. So they tend to be to have quite strong traits of psychopathy, narcissism, macavalianism, all of that kind of stuff. And the problem with that is people like that do not like being confronted, do not like being called out on their behavior.
01:26:04 being called out on their behavior. And it's very common for them to want revenge.
01:26:08 revenge. So that's something I'm very aware of. And he knows where I live.
01:26:14 So are you saying that you're frightened? I am. I'm sure that there's going to be repercussions. I just don't know when. Um, and I don't know where they're going to come from.
01:26:29 to come from. And is that why you told the inquiry that you couldn't trust people? Yes. Like I'm I'm sure that he's keeping an eye. That's their job to keep an eye
01:26:44 an eye. That's their job to keep an eye and gather intel. Um, and they did that quite freely when it was [snorts] for other people. The thought that they wouldn't do that for themselves is just illogical. They he would have he would have he would have kept tabs. He would have spied for
01:27:02 have kept tabs. He would have spied for And is that why you check your car boot? I I have to check my car boot and my back seat before I get in the car. Otherwise, I can't I'm going to get upset again. I'm so sorry.
01:27:14 Sorry. Are there any other ways in which you have had to change your life as a result of this?
01:27:30 I think I've just closed off from people. I have checked the house for bugs. I don't know what I'm looking for. I haven't gone as far as knocking holes
01:27:42 I haven't gone as far as knocking holes in my wall, but I did take my fan apart and check. There was nothing in that. Um, round about when I round about when I came forward to the inquiry, when he text me, there was a period of time, um, I'm in a dead end street and there would be an SUV
01:27:57 street and there would be an SUV would pull into the street and then pull into my driveway and then sit there for a few minutes and then leave. And I saw them I saw that about three or four
01:28:08 them I saw that about three or four times. So, I don't know if it happened when I wasn't there as well, but you just your mind just just go straight back to that. Like, maybe that's related. Maybe it's an
01:28:19 maybe that's related. Maybe it's an intimidation tactic. Maybe that's what he's doing. I would take different routes to work. Um, not keep my phone on me. God's sake.
01:28:34 I'm so sorry. And how do you see the future, Ellie, in the light of what's happened to you?
01:28:41 to you? Much the same. Really?
01:28:48 Forgive me a moment. Do you want me to pause for a while? No. No. I'm sorry. I'll get my life together in a second. I'm so sorry.
01:28:59 together in a second. I'm so sorry. Not no need at all to apologize. I appreciate that this is not easy for you.
01:29:06 you. If you would like to continue to finish, I'm more than happy to do so or to rise for a bit if you want to. I know this is fine. I'm sorry. This is good.
01:29:15 So, you were just saying it more of the same.
01:29:18 same. More of the same. Yeah. I don't really trust people. Um,
01:29:23 Um, so I'm a little closed off.
01:29:36 Is there anything else that you'd like to say before you finish your evidence today?
01:29:42 today? No, I think that's enough. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ellie. I don't have any other questions. Thank you, Ellie. Um, I apologize earlier when looking uh at you and
01:29:56 earlier when looking uh at you and speaking to you as I thought, but I now know that I have to look at the camera behind. I hope it's completely fine. I [laughter] hope it I hope it looks to you as if I'm looking at you. It did. Yeah, it did. Um,
01:30:13 It did. Yeah, it did. Um, thank you very much for giving evidence to the inquiry. Uh, to speak of these events
01:30:17 events over many years now and the effect that they have had upon you is, I know, not at all straightforward for you. I'm very grateful to you for the evidence that
01:30:29 grateful to you for the evidence that you've given. Uh, it brings matters to life in a way that the written page never can. Thank you very much indeed. No, I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.
01:30:45 you. Uh, I will now rise for just under half an hour. Uh, there is to be a procedural hearing beginning at 11:30.
02:03:35 Mr. Khan, this is your application. Good morning, sir. Um, finally in person, sir. Good to be here in person. Yes, absolutely. I couldn't agree more. Um, nearer we get to oldfashioned procedures, the better. Having said
02:03:46 procedures, the better. Having said that, I've just realized I've left my pen behind. Now I found it. Got it. Um, so I've set out in writing u my submission. And of course, if there are
02:04:02 submission. And of course, if there are matters that you seek clarification, I'm more than happy to do that, but in the limited time that we have, I thought it's best that I set out our submissions. Yes, you have and done so very fully and I've read them and understand. Thank you. I I add a bit here and so so that you're aware this application made
02:04:14 that you're aware this application made on behalf of those who are most directly affected by your decision uh Baron Dorian Lawrence who's I think on uh the video link Mr. Grover of the Mon group as well as Mr. Michael Mansfield Kings
02:04:25 as well as Mr. Michael Mansfield Kings Council and the application sir so that it's clear to everybody is that you reconsider your decision and that HN81 gives oral evidence this inquiry.
02:04:39 gives oral evidence this inquiry. Uh I don't go to your ruling but in your ruling you based your decision on the report of Dr. Trani um together with responses received from uh HN81's lawyers. Uh and so with respect we submit that the process by
02:04:55 respect we submit that the process by which you came to that decision uh is uh fundamentally flawed. Uh we start as we said in the opening statement that the uh application by HN81 should be viewed with caution and suspicion because again as we said in the opening statement
02:05:09 as we said in the opening statement there appears to be a growing pattern of officers raising mental health as a reason that they should not attend the inquiry to give oral evidence and I'll come to the detail of that.
02:05:24 come to the detail of that. We have with the limited information we have available subjected HN81's application to close scrutiny and in so doing we submit that your decision was wrong and we set up why and it should be reconsidered with respect
02:05:38 it should be reconsidered with respect and whilst ultimately it is within your discretion as to whether H81 should be required to give evidence that decision we say must be based by consider consideration of all the relevant factors and not based as we as it
02:05:51 factors and not based as we as it appears to be in relation to the ruling solely on the medical evidence advanced by on behalf of H&81
02:06:02 by on behalf of H&81 and the relevant factors we say that you ought to have considered and should consider in reconsidering your decision uh they would we say drive you to a different conclusion
02:06:13 different conclusion and the first factor which is not set out not considered in the ruling is the importance of the evidence and I suspect that this is accepted by all parties of the inquiry. It is certainly accepted by me
02:06:29 It is certainly accepted by me and therefore this we say the more important the evidence the greater the weight to be given to calling the witness and that is uh necessary in the balancing exercise in terms of your decision.
02:06:44 decision. Again I wholeheartedly agree and it was my sincere hope uh when I made the order restricting um uh publication of his real name that um that would occur. Thank you, sir.
02:06:58 Thank you, sir. Um the importance of his evidence is not only that he was involved in the undercover spying, but it went to the heart of the institution which was responsible for his conduct, sanctioned
02:07:12 responsible for his conduct, sanctioned and rewarded by the then commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. And this uh goes to the very heart of whether this him and others were rogue officers or whether this was an institutional problem. um the whether or not uh the
02:07:25 problem. um the whether or not uh the information that he provided about the Steven Lawrence campaign was sought or
02:07:38 Steven Lawrence campaign was sought or sanctioned at higher levels than the SDS is a matter that will be explored in evidence with those who um made the decisions and have produced documents about it.
02:07:46 about it. Thank you sir. But the point is this and that's the second factor that we come to sir is his evidence is disputed and when you come to consider his evidence
02:07:57 you come to consider his evidence there needs to be a resolution of that disputed evidence. It's critical to get into the truth. And indeed, sir, you may or may not recall
02:08:11 you may or may not recall that the very reason Theresa May, then Home Secretary, set up the inquiry in the first place was because Mark Ellison, King's Council, could not, as he put it, make definitive findings concerning HN43's claims. and he
02:08:23 concerning HN43's claims. and he therefore suggested that the proper course of action was that it should be dealt with in the course of a public inquiry. He had a review on paper in terms of the various accounts given and
02:08:36 terms of the various accounts given and he could not reach a conclusion and uh I recall without giving evidence that when Baron Baroness Lawrence and I met the
02:08:47 Baron Baroness Lawrence and I met the home secretary at the time that one of the key features that influenced the home secretary was whether it was necessary for evidence to be given and tested in order to come to conclusions. But that is not something that I'm putting forward. That was part of the
02:09:01 putting forward. That was part of the Ellison review and the conclusion that he came to. So in order to determine what the truth was as between the accounts given the necessity to call this witness is vital in the course of getting to the truth that was
02:09:12 getting to the truth that was the genesis and foundation of the inquiry. So any material intended to interfere with that i.e. calling of evidence in order to test it. We say in the judicial
02:09:31 the judicial exercise that you have to go through must be given little weight indeed and more so as is noted by those representing HN43. um H&81 has called him a liar, cast
02:09:42 um H&81 has called him a liar, cast other aspersions on his on what he says. And it may be that whilst u our call participants ask that you favor HN43's account um over HN81s. Um and on the face of it, you might
02:09:54 Um and on the face of it, you might welcome we might welcome the fact that he's not giving evidence so that you we can or you can come to any conclusion that you do based upon that fact.
02:10:05 that you do based upon that fact. that there would be no challenge to his evidence. There's a second factor in relation to the importance of him being called to give oral evidence and again it goes back to why the inquiring was set up in the first place.
02:10:19 set up in the first place. uh and Baroness Lawrence has waited over 10 years for precisely this process uh namely that there is a resolution of the central disputes but more importantly
02:10:34 central disputes but more importantly what is being stated by the house of law stat inquiries committee report published in September 24 that public inquiries should provide catharsis to victims and Baron in her opening uh note delivered by me says says that she wants
02:10:51 delivered by me says says that she wants to confront, as she did, officers at the McFersonen inquiry, those officers who she says did her wrong. It was cathartic then and it will be cathartic now. The cathartic element of a public inquiry should not be underestimated.
02:11:03 underestimated. Uh and so when the perpetrators of the wrongdoing escape such public scrutiny, core participants feel cheated, undergo further distress
02:11:17 undergo further distress and are unable to experience disclosure and uh so I had the opportunity of me meeting Miss Sabril after many years and she is incredibly distressed by the fact
02:11:28 she is incredibly distressed by the fact that officers who uh are alleged to have done wrong do not face up to those consequence do not come into public and be exposed to public scrutiny. The third factor that we submit you
02:11:44 The third factor that we submit you should have taken into account relates to HN81's engagement so far with the inquiry. Our clients note with deep concern and some incredul that H&81 was able to participate in inquiry and
02:11:56 able to participate in inquiry and submit a witness statement consisting of 77 pages
02:12:02 77 pages in 2023 but then a couple of years later say that in effect he cannot give oral evidence. So we don't have the underlying evidence material. We have no means of assessing why this was the case. But certainly our clients feel it inconceivable that someone who was
02:12:13 inconceivable that someone who was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder was able to engage in the way that H&81 did in 23, but then a couple of years later find himself unable to
02:12:24 of years later find himself unable to meaningfully engage with the inquiry. And so I think Ms. curse in heaven will address you in relation to whether this this is the true basis of him seeking
02:12:35 this is the true basis of him seeking not to give evidence given what the his uh lawyers said in opening that he would not be believed and conclusions have already been reached but I let her address that
02:12:52 address that it's this later assertion about whether he is unable to meaningfully engage which brings us to the fourth factor and nature of the medical evidence and whilst again I repeat we don't have
02:13:06 and whilst again I repeat we don't have the underlying material we have done our own uh inquiries made our own inquiries and as we understand it Dr. Norin Trani is a chartered occupational health counseling and coaching psychologist
02:13:19 counseling and coaching psychologist and undoubtedly she has expertise in trauma bullying and organizational rehabilitation. Uh she has for example a PhD in trauma from the University of Nottingham and she's the author of
02:13:31 Nottingham and she's the author of workplace bullying a publication uh in 2004. Her practice emphasized psychological screening and trauma support for organizations including police responder well-being posed to Grenfield Fire. Uh we've gone
02:13:46 posed to Grenfield Fire. Uh we've gone on her website and it describes routine production of full psychological assessment reports for organizations across industries but they focus on occupational health trauma support and bullying harassment cases.
02:13:58 bullying harassment cases. and it includes clinical opinions for workplace reintegration often used in employment disputes but not in legal evidential contexts. Her career began in occupational health
02:14:12 Her career began in occupational health at the post office evolving into trauma support for emergency services. So nowhere in her credentials or publications does she demonstrate forensic specialism in witness competency or reliability assessments.
02:14:23 competency or reliability assessments. and and search of cases in which she has given an opinion is limited to one employment tribunal when she was the Surrey Police for Psychologist where she provides occupational health reports
02:14:42 provides occupational health reports assessing PTSD risk in policing roles. And so with respect to her whilst her credentials qualify her as an expert witness her expertise and reports are designed for evidential use in occupational health matters. And so you may not recall this uh much
02:14:55 And so you may not recall this uh much time has passed, but you expressed your own reservation about her opinion. In the interim report in relation to HN55's application not to give oral evidence,
02:15:10 application not to give oral evidence, uh suggesting that she was reporting out with her expertise in relation to the reliability of HN155.
02:15:16 And so our primary submission is that she lacks the necessary expertise to report on matters related to the giving of evidence in these proceedings on
02:15:30 of evidence in these proceedings on which you have solely based your ruling. This is what you said paragraph two of the ruling in her opinion Dr. Tan's opinion there was an 80 to n 80 to 90% chance that he H81 would be unable
02:15:41 chance that he H81 would be unable meaningfully to engage with the inquiry. Alternatively, his condition is such that the giving of oral evidence would risk a sign significant impact upon his behavior and well-being. There were, in
02:15:57 behavior and well-being. There were, in her opinion, no arrangements which could be put in place which would make his appearance at a hearing safe. Again, I repeat, while Dr. clearly has expertise in trauma. On the face of it, we can find no evidence that supports the assertion that the opinion
02:16:11 supports the assertion that the opinion upon which you have relied on is within Dr. Trani's area of expertise. Of course, if we're wrong about that and if you and the inquiry and the designated lawyers provide us with material suggests uh something to the
02:16:24 material suggests uh something to the contrary, we'd welcome sight of it and we will then engage meaningfully with these arguments. But we don't have it. We rely on the material that we've been able to uncover. So those who practice in the criminal
02:16:36 So those who practice in the criminal courts are aware that much has changed over the years in the ability of witnesses. Some say it's gone too far uh
02:16:47 witnesses. Some say it's gone too far uh in certainly defense lawyers, especially regarding vulnerable witnesses to give oral evidence in court. And you'll be familiar with the advocates gateway toolkit, special measures, ground rules hearings, and the use of intermediaries. They're all designed to assist vulnerable witnesses in giving evidence in court. And if these measures were not
02:16:58 in court. And if these measures were not in place, there really would be, and I I I say this with all in all honesty, that there'd be no criminal trials and convictions. Uh colleagues and I have extensive
02:17:13 Uh colleagues and I have extensive experience of how the system works with highly traumatized individuals and children giving evidence about their undoubtedly horrific and painful experience. I spent many a day cross-examining those witness or
02:17:26 cross-examining those witness or questioning them. I I give one example. Um I was involved in the case of an autistic defendant who had brain damage which caused him difficulty in speaking
02:17:38 which caused him difficulty in speaking and understanding uh such that he had to use a whiteboard to express himself in giving evidence. He did so so for two days he had an intermediary. He had rest breaks which were ordered by the judge uh almost every 40 minutes. All
02:17:50 uh almost every 40 minutes. All questions were prepared in advance and checked by the intermediary. Despite these obvious difficulties, there was no question but that he would give oral evidence. The only question was what
02:18:05 evidence. The only question was what support was needed for him to do so. And so these adaptations are were required we say to be explored and should be explored in what happens in these cases with a ground rules hearing for HN81.
02:18:16 with a ground rules hearing for HN81. discussions then take place as to which of these measures all of these or more would be appropriate and it's only when
02:18:27 would be appropriate and it's only when HN81 actually gives evidence sir at that point we say with all the support that be can be given to him in terms of questioning in terms of uh breaks and the like you then sir having seen him
02:18:40 the like you then sir having seen him give evidence as happened in the case that I was involved in one can then decide whether he can meaningfully engage with the inquiry up until then. Um I I say this and it may be that the
02:18:51 Um I I say this and it may be that the word is not appropriate, but it's almost akin to speculation that we're anticipating what he's not able to do. We haven't yet explored what support can be given to him in order to give that that evidence.
02:19:08 It seems to us that in the absence of the underlying material that Dr. Tranni has no expertise in such matters. Um, on the face of the ruling, it appears that the issue of what possible steps might be taken to permit him to
02:19:22 steps might be taken to permit him to give oral evidence, for example, as it says in the ruling, by doing so privately
02:19:26 privately was explored only with H&81's lawyers and not Dr. Tranni herself. That's what it appears on the face of the ruling. We are we may be corrected. And despite all the various measures available to a
02:19:39 the various measures available to a vulnerable witness to give or evidence, the assertion by Dr. Trani as reported in the ruling is that there were in her opinion no arrangements which could be put in place which would make H81's
02:19:50 put in place which would make H81's appearance at a hearing safe and that's quite extraordinary we say given the nature of vulnerable witnesses in court on a daily basis given what he said in paragraph three it does not appear that Dr.
02:20:02 does not appear that Dr. specifically addressed the measures available. She could and should have reported on each of the measures that could assist and that is the sort of reports that we get in criminal cases
02:20:15 reports that we get in criminal cases when there is a vulnerable witness and indeed a vulnerable defendant. They address all of the matters that are available to a particular witness and explain how they can or cannot assist. It seems that the apparent rejection or
02:20:28 It seems that the apparent rejection or failure by Dr. to engage in considering any of them and then asking the lawyers who made the application those that are
02:20:41 who made the application those that are representing advancing HN81's interests asking them what might be suitable is quite extraordinary given the centrality of this witness inquiry
02:20:54 inquiry the importance of him as you accept her the need for a highly rigorous process was required before reaching any decision and we say with respect to that hasn't happened or certainly we're not aware that that has happened.
02:21:05 aware that that has happened. There is one more aspect to Dr. Ronnie which raises additional concerns and so I don't need to tell you but the overriding duty of an expert uh is to
02:21:17 overriding duty of an expert uh is to the tribunal to you and not to the party instructed them. So Dr. Tran's independence is seriously compromised by her entrenched ongoing professional relationships with UK
02:21:29 professional relationships with UK police forces which creates a clear risk,
02:21:30 risk, a perceived risk of in favor of protecting officers from scrutiny.
02:21:40 scrutiny. I won't go through all the list of uh the u the um the police forces that she's been involved in, but she served as force psychologist for multiple forces including Surrey Police has
02:21:54 forces including Surrey Police has already stated her practice. Norin Trani Associates. Part of the website appears to be still under construction routinely contracts with police and emergency services for trauma support and assessments, including psychological
02:22:05 assessments, including psychological screening for the home offices child abuse image database project, which is a contract valued at over 11,000.
02:22:16 contract valued at over 11,000. So, I've gone over my time and I I finish with this. We submit that the ruling A failed to have any regard or give weight to the importance and centrality of H&81's evidence.
02:22:28 H&81's evidence. B failed to scrutinize and consider HN81's engagement with the inquiry prior to the recusal application, including what his lawyer said in the opening
02:22:42 what his lawyer said in the opening statement about whether his evidence was to be believed or not. C relies solely on the report of Dr. Trani who we say lacks appropriate expertise and lacks independence such that it could not and should not have been relied upon.
02:22:55 have been relied upon. So we submit therefore that the ruling of the 24th September should be reconsidered by you and in doing so you will can come to the conclusion that H91 should be required to give oral evidence and if you come to that conclusion sir
02:23:06 and if you come to that conclusion sir we would invite you to uh set a ground rules hearing if needed to ascertain the actual support that HN81 needs to give oral evidence. It's only when he gives
02:23:20 oral evidence. It's only when he gives that evidence that you can then decide whether it's meaningful engagement or not. And so we finish with um what was said by Mr. Justice Jacobs and so you'll be aware of it. This was in relation to the Manchester Arena inquiry uh in
02:23:34 the Manchester Arena inquiry uh in relation to an application was made for judicial review by Mr. Tagdi. I'll give the citation EWHC2878 admin.
02:23:42 admin. He said this quote the chairman in deciding the nature of the measures to be put in place has to balance various factors. Mr. Tag's health and personal position are clearly relevant factors
02:23:55 position are clearly relevant factors but the public interest in the public inquiry being open to the public and the interests of core participants including Bereie families are also very relevant. Applying that in this instance, sir,
02:24:08 Applying that in this instance, sir, applying the above balancing exercise, whilst regard must of course be had to h1's health, we accept that there are some difficulties that he's experienced, the importance and centrality of him
02:24:21 the importance and centrality of him giving oral evidence is such that there had to be in this case and in you reaching the decision that you did, there has to be the evidence which must be cogent, reliable, and truly independent to
02:24:33 reliable, and truly independent to permit him not to that's a balancing exercise. We say that there was not and
02:24:46 exercise. We say that there was not and there is not and accordingly the balance here very much falls in favor of the interests of our clients who have a direct interest in him giving oral evidence and indeed the public in doing so. Sir, I've gone over my time. I apologize but thank you for your consideration.
02:25:02 So I think I have to move back. So would you excuse me? Of course.
02:25:15 I'm afraid I don't have I I don't have a batting order. So, um [clears throat] no doubt it's been agreed beforehand and I will uh listen to whoever is next.
02:25:25 So, I understand I'm next on behalf of uh Dr. Neville Lawrence. So, it's Mr. If a dogoo who's to join us by remotely. Remotely, right? Otherwise, people will be coming up um in turn to this
02:25:36 be coming up um in turn to this microphone at the front of the room. Yes.
02:25:47 Thank you. Now, I have no idea whether with the open uh room uh I need to look at the screen or elsewhere to um appear to be facing Mr. Adogu.
02:26:00 facing Mr. Adogu. My understanding, sir, is that it's still the camera that is up here in the center of the [clears throat]
02:26:14 Sir, can I confirm that you can hear and see me?
02:26:17 see me? I can hear you and I can now see you. And um if I look at the camera over there, it looks as though I'm looking at you, but my head is going to be turned while listening to you and I will appear to be looking away from you, but in fact, I'm looking at you.
02:26:31 fact, I'm looking at you. Yes, I am well familiar with those juggling mechanics. So, I appear for Dr. Lawrence uh with Adam Straw Casey instructed by Hod Jones and Alan Solisters.
02:26:42 and Alan Solisters. We handed up a short speaking note this morning which I'll take you through and I I do apologize that this only reached you this morning but hopefully
02:26:53 you this morning but hopefully not at all. I have it and I have read it.
02:26:58 it. Thank you. At the outset, Dr. Lawrence supports the written and oral submissions made on behalf of Baroness Lawrence and the submissions of Peter Francis which invite you to reconsider your decision not to call HN81.
02:27:12 your decision not to call HN81. Uh I will use the time in this hearing to supplement those submissions rather than repeat them. Dr. Lawrence invites you, sir, to firstly call HN81 to give oral evidence
02:27:32 firstly call HN81 to give oral evidence if necessary with proportionate special measures under the vulnerable witness policy.
02:27:38 policy. Second, if even with those measures it is decided that oral evidence would cause disproportionate harm, the chair
02:27:49 cause disproportionate harm, the chair user should permit core participants to put written questions and require answers from HN81. Third, in any event, we invite you to instruct a second independent expert now to advise on the
02:28:09 independent expert now to advise on the risks arising from each relevant measure in the special measures policy and require uh written questions.
02:28:17 Turning first to why HN81's evidence must be tested. I'm grateful sir to your confirmation in response to submissions just now on
02:28:30 response to submissions just now on behalf of Baroness Lawrence of your view of the centrality and significance of HN81's evidence that is uh we say uncontroversial in weighing any risk of calling against
02:28:47 in weighing any risk of calling against uh of calling him against the benefit of doing so that centrality should carry substantial Wait, the point is underscored by the conflicts
02:28:56 conflicts within his own account and with uh the accounts of the other witnesses. And for the purpose of this hearing, sir, we've set out just four examples in
02:29:17 sir, we've set out just four examples in uh paragraph five of our speaking notes. The first example is uh in relation to the targeting of the Lawrenes. HN81
02:29:23 HN81 says any family material on the Lawren's was incidental to his reporting uh and to the public order tasking against the MFJ.
02:29:40 order tasking against the MFJ. However, the documents include material of direct tasking in relation to the family at a high level which he of course denies. For example, documents suggest HN81 was directly tasked by the commissioner to infiltrate the Lawrence family.
02:29:51 infiltrate the Lawrence family. Documents suggest that the Lawrenes refused to have anything to do with the MFJ.
02:30:01 MFJ. HN81 himself recognized the MFJ and the Lawrenes were separate. And indeed, the main link between the MFJ and the Lawrenes was HN81 himself, i.e. there would not have been any
02:30:16 i.e. there would not have been any significant link absent H&81's involvement. Those matters cannot be resolved, we say, simply on the papers. It must be put to H81 and answered.
02:30:35 Two, why did he report on the intrusive personal material? H81 relies on an intrusion to uh report
02:30:46 H81 relies on an intrusion to uh report everything. That's his justification to explain why he has reported intrusive material on the lawances. However, his own account uh which uh you can see at paragraph 127 and 163 of his
02:31:02 can see at paragraph 127 and 163 of his witness statement shows that even on his own evidence, he shows selectivity in what he elevates for reporting and what he omits. This again requires answers.
02:31:15 Thirdly, in relation to his public order justification, uh it is suggested by HN81 that uh the
02:31:26 uh it is suggested by HN81 that uh the private family information was important and it mattered because MFJ might exploit it. So there is no evidence that anything HN81 did in respect of the Lawren's prevented public disorder. In fact, to the contrary, as you know, sir, in
02:31:41 the contrary, as you know, sir, in relation to his activities outside the McFersonson file.
02:31:55 McFersonson file. Fourth, in relation to uh the spy in the camp issue to quote the Ellison report, H81 denies being a spy in a Lawrence family camp during the lengthy statement serves to downplay his significance.
02:32:10 significance. However, internal materials record his product as of quote great value and being read at the highest levels, including the commissioner. And these were matters that we um set out in our opening uh statements. That is a direct tension on significance
02:32:26 That is a direct tension on significance and motive in relation to H&81's own evidence and it should be tested.
02:32:40 So moving on to the uh what we say is um the second issue that should be brought in consideration with this application and that's the vulnerable witness policy measures.
02:32:46 measures. The ruling uh records the June 2025 opinion that oral evidence would carry significant risk and that no arrangements would make it safe.
02:33:01 arrangements would make it safe. Others uh have addressed the medical evidence. Indeed, you've heard some submissions um before mine and I do not repeat them. The ruling however whether with respect does not address the
02:33:12 with respect does not address the vulnerable witness policy which was published I understand after Dr. Trani's report.
02:33:23 report. It does not appear therefore that Dr. Trani identified what, if any, harm
02:33:34 Trani identified what, if any, harm would be caused if HN81 gave evidence with each policy measure or if he responded to written questions. It is also difficult to reconcile disproportionate harm with the fact that HN81 has produced an exceptionally
02:33:49 HN81 has produced an exceptionally detailed written statement and has very recently considered and given instructions on a lengthy opening statement. The vulnerable witness policy avoids a
02:34:03 The vulnerable witness policy avoids a false choice between no evidence at all and unsafe evidence. It allows for the live link from a secure location, screening, voice management, a support person,
02:34:10 person, structured time limits, breaks, questions through counsel to the inquiry, all matters, sir, which you will be well familiar with. And if live
02:34:25 will be well familiar with. And if live attendance remains unsafe, the inquiry's own policy allows for a recorded format and written questions. And respectfully, sir, none of that has been addressed in the medical evidence or in the ruling.
02:34:54 the medical evidence or in the ruling. Finally, uh sir, um if uh HN81 is still not called despite these submissions and if after a focused independent assessment and a measure uh an an evaluation of evaluation of his evidence, you are not persuaded that HN81 cannot safely participate.
02:35:05 HN81 cannot safely participate. Then there must be clear consequences for the weight of his evidence. where his unt untested account conflicts with contemporaneous documents or with witnesses who have given oral
02:35:23 or with witnesses who have given oral evidence. We will invite you, sir, to uh place little weight, if any, on his statement. We will set out detailed conflicts and inconsistencies in our closing submissions, but we invite you to make that finding
02:35:37 but we invite you to make that finding unless I can assist you further. Those are my submissions. Thank you very much indeed. I would invite you not to um leave the hearing because there may be things said with which I would wish to ask you about
02:35:50 which I would wish to ask you about which I would wish to ask you uh in due course.
02:35:55 course. Of course, I'll remove. Thank you. [cough and clears throat] Yes.
02:36:05 Good morning, sir. I'm Joan Dyke and I represent Jane Brooks OBBE. Mr. Brooks asks firstly that the inquiry obtains an independent psychiatric report on HN81 and any measures that
02:36:18 report on HN81 and any measures that could be taken to enable him to give evidence.
02:36:20 evidence. Secondly, that the inquiry provides sufficient disclosure of material relied upon by the doctors who have reported on
02:36:33 upon by the doctors who have reported on HN81 to CPS with an interest in his oral evidence to enable further submissions to be made. This would of course be subject to appropriate confidentiality arrangements. Mr. Brooks does not want himself to see any personal or
02:36:45 himself to see any personal or confidential information, but considers that his lawyers should. We are only too aware that we make these submissions today on the basis of insufficient disclosure.
02:36:57 insufficient disclosure. Your ruling is dated 24th September 2025.
02:36:58 2025. It appears to Mr. Brooks that the decision was in fact made sometime earlier as at a meeting between the inquiry legal team and lawyers representing the non-state core
02:37:13 representing the non-state core participants on the 13th of August, it was noted that HN81 did not appear on the list of UCOs who are called to be give evidence. We raised this issue and
02:37:27 give evidence. We raised this issue and requested to make submissions on behalf of Mr. Brooks. The inquiry on the 16th September acknowledged that in recognition of the importance of HN81's oral evidence to Mr. Brooks, the excusal should have been communicated to him through us.
02:37:39 through us. In spite of the centrality of HN81's evidence to Mr. Brooks. No submissions were sought from him on the decision to excuse HN81 at any point prior to the
02:37:52 excuse HN81 at any point prior to the making of the decision at some stage, and we don't know when, before 13th August, nor sir, after the specific request to do so was made before your ruling on the 24th of September. This
02:38:04 ruling on the 24th of September. This ruling was ultimately published without any reference to Mr. Brooks. While Mr. Brooks is grateful to be heard today. He considers that as a matter of fairness, he had a right to be heard on
02:38:17 fairness, he had a right to be heard on such an important issue decision to him prior to it being made. Mr. Brooks has been left in the difficult position of having to try to reverse a decision which has already been made rather than being given the opportunity to
02:38:28 being given the opportunity to contribute to the decision-making process in the first place. In the circumstances, it is difficult for Mr.
02:38:42 circumstances, it is difficult for Mr. Brooks to accept the evidence upon which his decision is your decision is based without any opportunity to scrutinize it.
02:38:49 it. You said today that you consider HN 81's evidence central and we're grateful to hear that, sir. But it's important that we set out to you why it's particularly important to Mr. Brooks to hear from HN81.
02:39:04 Rajie Menon Casey in his opening for Mr. Brooks
02:39:05 Brooks told you that Mr. Brooks had been waiting for years to hear how Mr. Hagen seeks to justify what he did. Mr. Melon told you that Mr. Brooks was furious at the decision to excuse H81.
02:39:21 the decision to excuse H81. There is no other way to put it. Mr. Hagen will no longer be required to explain any of the following. Why did he spy and report on Mr. Brooks between 1998 and 2001 for three years? Was he
02:39:32 1998 and 2001 for three years? Was he ever tasked by a senior officer to spy and report on Mr. Brooks? And if so, why and by whom? Why did he report on personal matters concerning Mr. Brooks that had nothing to do with public order? Why did he report on Mr. Brook's
02:39:45 order? Why did he report on Mr. Brook's civil claim against the Met police? Why did he patronizingly and wrongly suggest in an intelligence report that Mr. Brooks was incapable of making his own decisions and was being manipulated by
02:39:59 decisions and was being manipulated by Alex Oardi of the Movement for Justice? To what extent was his reporting based on fabrication, exaggeration or gossip? Was the racist banter amongst SDS officers? Was there more overt racism by senior SDS managers? Did he ever witness
02:40:17 senior SDS managers? Did he ever witness HN86 do or say anything that was racist? Important issues pertaining to racism arise from HN81's written evidence, which Mr. Brex wishes to explore in oral evidence. So you will know that exploring racism is something that frequently and in this case
02:40:32 that frequently and in this case requires careful oral questioning. Nothing else would suffice. In particular, at paragraph 87 of HN81's rule 9 statement, he stated, "I was briefly and peripherilally involved in
02:40:43 briefly and peripherilally involved in the anti-Nazi league, but a slip of the tongue in referring to an individual as a slave driver made me realize that I
02:40:57 a slave driver made me realize that I had lost credibility in their eyes and would probably never sufficiently be trusted to obtain public order intelligence. Further, Mr. Brooks wishes to explore with HN81 why the term colored appears in reporting in relation to which he
02:41:10 in reporting in relation to which he admits that paragraph 92 would likely to have come from him but nevertheless states that as opposed to knowing he believes colored is not a term he would have used.
02:41:23 Mr. Brooks also wishes HN81 to be asked about a report dated the 17th of September about the movement for justice in which HN81 asserts among other things that Alex Oardi had been instrumental in persuading Mr. Brooks to bring a civil
02:41:35 persuading Mr. Brooks to bring a civil case against the Metropods and police. Mr. Brooks refutes the assumptions made
02:41:46 Mr. Brooks refutes the assumptions made by HN81 and seeks to understand why the report of 17th September refers to him in that way. Without HN81 giving all evidence, Mr. Brooks will never fully understand why HN81 wrote what he did in those documents,
02:41:57 documents, nor sir, of course, will the inquiry, which necessarily impacts adversely on meeting the terms of reference in this regard.
02:42:07 regard. So turning to the evidence before the inquiry leading up to this decision, at the time of your supplementary minded note on 23rd October 2017,
02:42:20 note on 23rd October 2017, there was no suggestion that HN81 might be unable to give all evidence due to ill health. At the procedural hearing on 21st November 2017 on restriction orders, there was again no suggestion
02:42:32 orders, there was again no suggestion that HN81 might be unable to give all evidence due to ill health. The restriction was placed on HN81's real name with the very purpose of protecting his mental health. And so I was pleased to note today that you mentioned that
02:42:45 to note today that you mentioned that you had hoped at the time of that ruling that HN81 would give evidence. May I make it clear I anticipated that he would. So I'm very grateful to hear that
02:42:59 that by 15th May 2023 HN81 was able to produce a 77 page rule 9 statement. There was still no indication of mental ill health to the extent that he it
02:43:10 ill health to the extent that he it might impact on his ability to give oral evidence.
02:43:12 evidence. It was not until the 14th of July 2025 this year that HN881 applied by letter
02:43:24 this year that HN881 applied by letter to you in reliance in reliance sorry or on the report of Dr. Terrani dated the 21st of June 2025 as stated at paragraph one of your ruling.
02:43:33 ruling. We were not told what our qualifications are but Mr. Khn's submissions must surely be of concern now to you. We do not know what documents or reports she or you had access to.
02:43:45 or you had access to. If not all the medical records, then surely this is something, sir, you will wish to put right. It is unclear what materially changed
02:43:59 It is unclear what materially changed between 15th February 2017 when Dr. Bus Busutil, a psychiatrist, prepared a report on 1881's mental health and Dr. Teani's report.
02:44:11 health and Dr. Teani's report. Save for that, the T3P1 hearings were by June 2025
02:44:14 June 2025 due to commence imminently. The timing of HN81's application ought to give rise to keen scrutiny of the report of Dr. Teani and in particular
02:44:27 report of Dr. Teani and in particular the statement that no arrangements could be put in place which make his appearance at a hearing safe as stated in paragraph two. So it is rare a rare witness who
02:44:42 So it is rare a rare witness who relishes the thought of giving evidence at a public inquiry and especially so when their conduct is likely to be criticized. Further and although Mr. Brooks can accept that a person's mental state may
02:44:57 accept that a person's mental state may fluctuate, it is less than clear that in it is Dr. Teani's opinion that HN81 has suffered such a serious deterioration since February 2017 when Dr. Vut reported which was itself over six years before HN81 was able to prepare detailed
02:45:10 before HN81 was able to prepare detailed written evidence for the purposes of the inquiry.
02:45:12 inquiry. At the very least given the question marks that exist over the current state of the evidence and Dr. Terrani's opinion and taking into account the
02:45:23 opinion and taking into account the importance of HN81's oral evidence to Mr. Brooks and others. The inquiry should commission its own evidence from an independent psychiatrist into HN81's mental health and ability to give
02:45:35 mental health and ability to give evidence including whether any measures can be taken to enable him to safely give evidence including and along the line set out to you in early submission.
02:45:50 line set out to you in early submission. Sir, we suggest that this is a practical suggestion. Dr. Tani prepared a medical report as recently as the 21st of June 2025. [laughter] There is a real possibility that a psychiatrist instructed by the inquiry would also be able to prepare a medical report. Such independent would be
02:46:08 report. Such independent would be informative and whether or not it agreed with de Dr. Tani would be reassuring to Mr. Brooks and perhaps also to others and to the public. In conclusion, overall, Mr. Brooks has been left with a sense of unfairness in relation to the decision-making in
02:46:20 relation to the decision-making in respect of HN81 giving oral evidence. It is unconscionable to Mr. Brooks that those who have suffered and been spied upon remain willing and able to assist
02:46:31 upon remain willing and able to assist the inquiry while only eight of the 25 undercover officers in trench 3 are giving oral evidence in open hearings. All Mr. books ask is that the inquiry appoints an independent psychiatrist and ensures that the evidence is properly
02:46:45 ensures that the evidence is properly scrutinized and allowed to be subjected to appropriate challenge by those directly affected by HN81's conduct before any final decision is taken in
02:46:57 before any final decision is taken in relation to him. That sir would be fair. Thank you very much indeed.
02:47:07 [clears throat]
02:47:24 So these submissions are made on behalf of Sukdev and Tish Reel, Karen Doyle and MWS.
02:47:27 MWS. All have been directly impacted by the deployment of HN81 known under the cover name David Hagen. Sir, I endorse but do not repeat the submissions that have been made already today on behalf of
02:47:40 been made already today on behalf of other core participants surveiled by HN81.
02:47:41 HN81. In particular, the application made by Mr. Khn of King's Council on behalf of
02:47:52 Mr. Khn of King's Council on behalf of Baroness Lawrence, Sesh Grover and the monitoring group. Instead, I wish to briefly emphasize the particular
02:48:02 briefly emphasize the particular importance of HN81's evidence, the core participants on behalf of whom I make these submissions, the important and disputed issues on which he must be challenged, and the need to take all possible steps to secure his attendance to give oral evidence.
02:48:14 to give oral evidence. I turn first to Karen Doyle's particular interest in his evidence. As the inquiry is aware, HN81 infiltrated Movement for Justice, an
02:48:25 infiltrated Movement for Justice, an anti-racist campaigning organization of which Karen Doy Doyle was a founding member for around four years. In that
02:48:36 member for around four years. In that time, he produced extensive and deeply intrusive reporting on the group's activities and its members. Karen Doyle has been provided with approximately 36 intelligence reports, naming her specifically, the vast
02:48:49 naming her specifically, the vast majority of which are based on the intelligence of HN81. Those reports include detailed
02:49:00 Those reports include detailed descriptions of her legitimate political activities with the group, as well as bizarre personal details such as her plans for the Christmas holidays. Karen Doyle challenges the accuracy of many of these reports, as well as claims made in HN81's witness evidence to this
02:49:11 made in HN81's witness evidence to this inquiry, including his characterization
02:49:23 inquiry, including his characterization of the group and MFJ's methods. She also provides important evidence of HN81's behavior whilst undercover with the group.
02:49:28 group. More generally, Karan Doyle strongly challenges the lack of a legitimate basis on which to target and infiltrate MFJ and seeks to understand the true reasons for his decision to target the group.
02:49:40 group. This includes the extent to which MFJ was used as a base from which the SDS could monitor anti police sentiment in
02:49:52 could monitor anti police sentiment in the years following the murder of Steven Lawrence and to provide the Met with a link to the numerous family justice campaigns that were building in response to highly publicized police failings in that time. These are all crucial issues, sir,
02:50:03 These are all crucial issues, sir, falling within the inquiry's terms of reference and issues list on which HN81 should be challenged in evidence. I turned then to the real family.
02:50:14 I turned then to the real family. Sukdev and Tish Real were subject to intrusive surveillance by HN81 at a time when they were grieving the death of their son and brother Luke Vinda known as Ricky Reel.
02:50:26 as Ricky Reel. In this time they were engaged in tireless efforts to secure an effective police investigation into his death. As you will have heard in the opening made on her behalf, Sir Sukde has
02:50:38 made on her behalf, Sir Sukde has particular concerns relating to the apparent interest that HM1 HN81 took in her and in the family and the specific revelation that he offered her a lift home following a meeting.
02:50:50 home following a meeting. She feels that HN81 poses as a supporter of her campaign and used the opportunity to be alone with her in the car to gain intelligence on her her family and their
02:51:02 intelligence on her her family and their campaign for justice. It was a gross and unjustifiable misuse of power. This incident does not feature in HN81's reporting and so it's not known how many other similar incidents of direct
02:51:13 other similar incidents of direct targeting of the real family took place given the porcity of remaining evidence and the tendency of SDS officers to
02:51:27 and the tendency of SDS officers to admit no more than they absolutely have to from those records that do remain. This is a crucial issue on which we submit HM1 should be questioned and his evidence tested.
02:51:38 evidence tested. More fundamentally, Sukdev and Tishreel wished to understand the reasons for HN81's interest in their campaign and the direction he was receiving from SCS and special branch managers to collect intelligence on the family.
02:51:52 intelligence on the family. An SCS briefing note produced in 1998 reads as follows, and I quote, "It's important to emphasize here the extent to which the Real's case has potential to cause police embarrassment on the same scale as the Lawrence case.
02:52:04 same scale as the Lawrence case. Certainly, so far as Mrs. Real and the activists are concerned, there are glaringly similar racist overtones between the police handling of both investigations.
02:52:15 investigations. Again, Wimble Tilta HN81 will be ideally positioned to monitor important developments in the months ahead. The use by the Mets of HN81's deployment to inappropriately monitor the real
02:52:29 to inappropriately monitor the real family campaign for reputational reasons is a crucial issue falling within the inquiry's terms of reference and issues list in relation to which HN81's evidence must be tested. Turning then to MWS, sir,
02:52:42 Turning then to MWS, sir, HN81's evidence is also of paramount concern to MWS who adds their name to and endorses the written submissions
02:52:56 and endorses the written submissions provided ahead of this hearing on behalf of Sukdev and Tishreel and Karen Doyle. MWS is a member of the family campaign for justice for Michael Taki Menson, who died in February 97 in horrific circumstances following a racist attack by a group of men who set him on fire.
02:53:12 by a group of men who set him on fire. In a typed record of an interview with HN81 in 2013, he confirmed his involvement with the campaign for justice for Michael Manson.
02:53:32 justice for Michael Manson. MWS has also been provided with a number of reports produced on the basis of HN1 HN81's intelligence which describe the activities of the campaign as well as references to individual members. However, they suspect that his involvement went beyond that which is documented in the disclosure received to date.
02:53:40 date. MWS also urges the inquiry to investigate the underlying political
02:53:52 investigate the underlying political motivations for HN81's interest in the campaign and strongly challenges any suggestion that such surveillance represented collateral intrusion rather than a cynical and targeted wish to obtain intelligence on another family campaign likely to cause embarrassment to the force.
02:54:05 to the force. These issues as well as the role of racism in his targeting decisions are all important areas on which HN81 should be questioned by the inquiry.
02:54:18 be questioned by the inquiry. I welcome sir comments you've already made today that such matters will be explored in the later evidence of T3 managers but would emphasize that HN81 is uniquely placed to address these issues and would submit that his
02:54:31 issues and would submit that his evidence is essential to the inquiry's determinations on those points. With all of that in mind, I then turned to HN81's participation in proceedings. Like many other core participants, those
02:54:43 Like many other core participants, those we represent were extremely disappointed by the news received not long before the commencement of trench 3 hearings that HN81 would not be called to give evidence.
02:54:54 evidence. We note sir that he was able to participate in other investigatory processes in which he addressed the events under consideration by this
02:55:05 events under consideration by this inquiry including being interviewed for the independent review of Mark Ellison of King's Council which was published in 2014
02:55:15 2014 many years after HN81 was said to have received his PTSD diagnosis. Others have already pointed out that HN81 also provided a lengthy and detailed witness statement to this inquiry in which he makes a number of
02:55:32 inquiry in which he makes a number of disputed claims about core participants and the campaigns of which they were a part.
02:55:37 part. In that context, the core participants on whom these submissions are made struggle to understand why HN81 cannot in any circumstances give evidence to this inquiry. They cannot help but wonder whether his
02:55:52 They cannot help but wonder whether his decision not to give evidence is in part self-serving and in keeping with a long history of secrecy and defensiveness on the part of the special demonstration
02:56:03 the part of the special demonstration squad given the likely challenges that he faces to his account of events in evidence.
02:56:05 evidence. [cough]
02:56:07 [cough] The submissions made on behalf of Baroness Lawrence and Sesh Grover as well as by other as well as on behalf of other core participants today which emphasize the need to carefully and
02:56:19 emphasize the need to carefully and closely scrutinize the medical evidence underpinning your ruling sir are endorsed and I do not repeat them. However, we do wish to stress the need for the inquiry to consider all
02:56:32 for the inquiry to consider all available steps which can be taken in order to enable HN81 to give crucial evidence on contested matters. Your ruling, sir, states at paragraph three that the inquiry explored with the designated lawyers possible steps which might be taken to permit HN81 to give
02:56:44 might be taken to permit HN81 to give oral evidence, for example, by doing so privately, but received the unequivocal response that no such step could safely be taken. We endorse the suggestion that's already been made by others that
02:57:00 that's already been made by others that the inquiry should take steps to verify this position for itself, including through the instruction of an independent expert.
02:57:07 Sir, in conclusion, the importance of HN81's evidence to the core participants that we represent and to this inquiry as a whole cannot be overstated. His evidence is of absolutely central importance to these core participants.
02:57:25 importance to these core participants. He's the undercover officer who carried out intrusive surveillance of their campaigning activities and their personal lives. Many experienced severe traumatization and retraumatization as a result. With that in mind, they call on the inquiry to take all possible steps to
02:57:39 inquiry to take all possible steps to secure his attendance, to give evidence, and to account for his actions. So, in light of the time that's been made available to me, I conclude my submissions there. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you.
02:57:50 Thank you. Now, who succeeds Mr. this please.
02:58:12 Thank you sir. Am I on? Yes. Um as you know sir I represent the cooperating group of non police state court participants. The group endorses the submissions that have already been made on behalf of various non-p police state participants and so we do not repeat
02:58:25 participants and so we do not repeat those submissions. Now it's clearly not in dispute that H81 is a critical witness for this inquiry and indeed for many other non police state core participants and not just those
02:58:39 participants and not just those represented today. So So can I just make two short points? The first relates to HN81's historic medical records and whether these have been obtained and considered by the inquiry and the assessing doctors and the second relates
02:58:50 assessing doctors and the second relates to intermediary assessments. So first in relation to historic medical records. So as you are aware the nonp police state
02:59:06 as you are aware the nonp police state core participants remain concerned about the credibility and reliability of the medical reports that you took into account from Dr. Basatil and in
02:59:17 account from Dr. Basatil and in particular Dr. Trani when you made your decision on the 24th of September 2025 and and as you're aware the nonpleas state participants are of the opinion that these medical reports are self-serving and that Dr. Trani in particular lacks the necessary independence and expertise.
02:59:38 independence and expertise. This is because we and sir you sir know that there is another and perhaps more significant reason why HN81 does not want to give evidence to this inquiry and this has nothing to do with mental ill health but rather because he feels
02:59:52 ill health but rather because he feels he will not get a fair hearing. In other words, HN81 does not want to be yet further criticized in public for matters
03:00:05 further criticized in public for matters of central significance in this inquiry. HN81 wants at all costs to evade scrutiny.
03:00:12 scrutiny. That this is the position is clear from a very careful reading of the tranch 3 opening statement submitted by the designated lawyers. It makes clear that one of the reasons why HN81 feels he
03:00:23 one of the reasons why HN81 feels he can't effectively participate in this inquiry is because of the quote systematic destruction of his trust and faith in such processes. Of note, sir, this reason for not participating by
03:00:42 this reason for not participating by H&81 is offered as an alternative basis for not giving evidence separate to the issue of mental ill health. So, the fact that there appears to be
03:00:53 So, the fact that there appears to be another motive for HN81 not wanting to give evidence to this inquiry should lead to the utmost scrutiny being applied to any medical evidence submitted on his behalf. It also means any decisions that are taken by you
03:01:04 any decisions that are taken by you should be taken by reference to robust independent medical evidence. Focusing briefly, if I may, on the scrutinizing of the medical evidence,
03:01:18 scrutinizing of the medical evidence, the group asks, "Can the inquiry clarify what steps were taken by the inquiry to ascertain whether Dr. Trani and Dr. Basatil based their medical opinions solely on the self-reporting of HN81 and how he presented during their assessments
03:01:33 assessments or whether these doctors obtained some or all of HN81's medical and other records including occupational health and human resources records held by the MPS before coming to their views.
03:01:47 MPS before coming to their views. In any medical assessment, this would be normal and indeed best practice and indeed the civil procedure rules require any expert to list the medical records and documents that they have considered as part of any assessment.
03:01:59 as part of any assessment. The group therefore asks whether this part of the medical reports uh prepared by Dr. and Dr. Buttercal can be
03:02:10 by Dr. and Dr. Buttercal can be disclosed even in gisted form. So there is at least clarity as to how these doctors have arrived at their medical opinions and what if any medical evidence they have actually considered in respect of HN81.
03:02:21 in respect of HN81. As you will know there is a precedent for this as gisted medical evidence for EN31
03:02:26 EN31 was disclosed to impacted CPS before submissions were made and his decision was taken on the making of a restriction order over his real name.
03:02:38 order over his real name. This is also important because you've heard Dr. Trani's report and her expertise is challenged, but also because HN81 says he was diagnosed with PTSD in 2003. But curiously, Dr. Trani
03:02:52 PTSD in 2003. But curiously, Dr. Trani appears to be under the impression that HN81 was diagnosed in 2001. And we can see that reference uh from Dr. Danni in 2001 in your ruling, sir. It's not currently clear where 2001 comes from,
03:03:04 currently clear where 2001 comes from, but again, it does raise questions about the scrutiny Dr. Trani has in fact given to HN81's medical records in coming to her view. It also raises concerns about
03:03:17 her view. It also raises concerns about what Dr. Trani has in fact been told by HN81.
03:03:19 HN81. Now, briefly on the issue of medical records, we just flagged the following documents by way of example. The first has been very recently disclosed. This is a witness statement from a
03:03:31 is a witness statement from a psychiatrist called Ian Palmer. Ian Palmer explains that they were a psychiatrist employed by the special branch to work in the SDS assessing undercover office and that they took over from Mary Piper in 2003.
03:03:44 over from Mary Piper in 2003. HN81 is critical of the support he received from the MPS in respect of his mental health. However, Ian Palmer explains that he was a specialist
03:03:59 explains that he was a specialist dealing in trauma and that between 2003 and 2008, he had bianual appointments with undercover officers lasting a minimum of 1 hour, possibly longer. He explains that if there was a need for sustained treatment, then he would refer to the GP with the undercover officer's
03:04:13 to the GP with the undercover officer's consent. He includes HN81 as someone who he saw. H&81 says in his witness statement that he was seen by both Mary Piper and Ian Palmer with Ian Palmer making clear that he was only making an assessment of HN81.
03:04:28 assessment of HN81. We already have some redacted disclosure showing that Mary Piper assessed HN81 probably on a number of occasions. The group therefore questioned whether when Ian Palmer and Mary Piper assessed HN81,
03:04:42 Ian Palmer and Mary Piper assessed HN81, they considered whether HN81 had PTSD or a related mental health condition and whether any referral or recommendation for sustained treatment was made in respect of HN81.
03:04:53 respect of HN81. If such a diagnosis or referral was not made, this begs the question as to why not given we understand that there was at this point according to H&81 a diagnosis of PTSD. This is also significant because PTSD is
03:05:10 This is also significant because PTSD is a treatable and manageable condition and H&81 has managed to produce a significantly detailed written statement. Surely Mary Piper and Ian Palmer's assessment of H&81's mental health over a number of sessions and spanning a number of years would be
03:05:24 spanning a number of years would be important for the inquiry to know about as well as any assessing doctor including Dr. Trani, Dr. Butteril. Ian Palmer says he's willing to disclose his notes and reports to the inquiry. Can the inquiry therefore confirm
03:05:38 Can the inquiry therefore confirm whether these records were obtained by the inquiry before the decision was taken on the 24th of September 2025 not to call HN81 and whether Dr. Buttersil
03:05:49 to call HN81 and whether Dr. Buttersil and Dr. Trani also considered Mary Piper and Ian Palmer's medical records in respect of H&81 before they gave their medical opinions. If they did not, then
03:06:00 medical opinions. If they did not, then this must raise real concerns about the robustness and credibility of their medical opinions. The group finally note another document. This is MPS0723120.
03:06:12 These are notes from 2009 and relate to a meeting between HN81 and DS HN367 and redacted DS which provides some detail on H&81's medical condition at that time. We know that HN81 disputes
03:06:27 that time. We know that HN81 disputes some of these notes, but this document references the involvement of human resources and occupational health with HN81 and notes HN367 saying that HN81 was offered help from psychologists who
03:06:39 was offered help from psychologists who deal with undercover officers, but HN81 was quote very much non plus about this, stated he'd seen someone before, but felt they couldn't do much for him.
03:06:51 felt they couldn't do much for him. Again, the group query whether any of this underlining underlying material about H&81's medical condition as it was understood at the time, including any refusal of medical treatment by HN81,
03:07:03 refusal of medical treatment by HN81, has been obtained from the Metropolitan Police Service and then considered by Dr. Tranni and Dr. Busatil before they gave their medical opinions. So finally I'm moving on now to a
03:07:19 So finally I'm moving on now to a separate point and this relates to the steps taken by the inquiry to explore other ways for HN81 to give his evidence.
03:07:26 evidence. As has been said many times today uh you have indicated in your ruling that you explored possible steps with the DL lawyers um and received the unequivocal response that no steps could be taken. Mr. The Khan King's council has already raised the obvious concern here, which
03:07:42 raised the obvious concern here, which is that it it appears to have been left to the DL lawyers to explore with HN81 whether he can give evidence as a vulnerable witness. The group therefore question whether rather than relying on the DL lawyers whether the inquiry has considered obtaining an intermediary
03:07:56 considered obtaining an intermediary assessment to consider whether H81 would be able to engage with giving oral evidence if assisted by an intermediary. And again, you've heard Mr. Kings Council making submissions about how this works and has worked in his practice in his extensive experience.
03:08:10 practice in his extensive experience. Obtaining an intermediary assessment is
03:08:19 Obtaining an intermediary assessment is a measure that is included within within the inquiry's vulnerable witness policy at paragraph 9A. I'm not going to read it out, but it is somebody who is appointed independently by the inquiry. As the inquiry knows, an intermediary will assess needs and put forward
03:08:30 will assess needs and put forward bespoke tailored uh support mechanisms to ensure that a witness remains within what they call the window of tolerance so that they can provide their best evidence.
03:08:42 evidence. An intermediary instructed by the inquiry clearly um could and would probably have expertise going well beyond that of Dr. Tranni.
03:08:54 beyond that of Dr. Tranni. We also just note as an aside that the application that was made by the DL lawyers regarding HN81's uh not giving evidence was made on the 14th of July 2025. And of course this was before the
03:09:06 2025. And of course this was before the vulnerable witness policy was published on the 24th of July 2025. So it would seem that certainly when the DL lawyers made their application they would not have had in mind um your uh policy on vulnerable witnesses.
03:09:21 vulnerable witnesses. Clearly, it's not a matter for the DL lawyers as to whether or not um an independent intermediary could and should be appointed by the inquiry. And
03:09:33 should be appointed by the inquiry. And just by way of example, sir, registered intermediaries have recently been used in the Northern Irish Muckmore Abbey Hospital inquiry. Um, and there's lots of evidence available as to how that worked very successfully and and it did include providing support to a
03:09:45 include providing support to a vulnerable witness giving oral evidence and it is self-evident um but perhaps needs to be stated that clearly intermediaries are used for witnesses who are vulnerable by reason of their mental ill health.
03:09:57 of their mental ill health. Finally, just to state then the benefit of an intermediary assessment we suggest is that it would provide an independent assessment by an expert trained in
03:10:09 assessment by an expert trained in facilitating the giving of evidence by HN81 and indeed all vulnerable witnesses. Um and so this is not a submission that's made um it's simply to support the submissions that have already been made and
03:10:22 that have already been made and obviously the primary submission is that you obtain your own independent psychiatric expert evidence. The intermediary assessment is in addition
03:10:33 intermediary assessment is in addition to that in relation to the actual giving of evidence. So, and so those are my submissions unless I can assist you further. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed.
03:10:59 Chair, as you'll know, I appear on behalf of HN43, Peter Francis, led by Miss Sikan KC. It will be clear already, chair, from our written and oral
03:11:10 chair, from our written and oral openings to this phase of the inquiry that our client has very significant concerns about the decision to recuse HN81 from giving oral evidence. Mr. Francis has a specific and direct interest in HN81's evidence, albeit for
03:11:23 interest in HN81's evidence, albeit for reasons different to those of the other core participants from whom you've heard today, to list share but a few examples of that. HN81 has repeatedly contested
03:11:36 of that. HN81 has repeatedly contested Mr. Francis's account of his tasking in relation to the Lawrence family campaign. HN81 once more calling Mr. Francis a liar in his inquiry statement. And indeed, what H&81 also says in
03:11:50 And indeed, what H&81 also says in response to the allegations against him concerning his direct surveillance of the Lawrence family and other family campaigns has obvious and intersecting significance for our client and his evidence on those matters. HN81 also
03:12:04 evidence on those matters. HN81 also casts various dispersions on Mr. Francis in his statement in respect of his conduct and his activities undercover, all of which Mr. Francis refuts. H81 also fails to reference in his
03:12:17 H81 also fails to reference in his statement a key meeting that Mr. Francis says took place in January 1998 at the
03:12:29 says took place in January 1998 at the beginning of HN81's deployment into the MFJ to brief him on his former targets and their relationship to the Steven Lawrence campaign that Mr. Francis will not as matters stand be afforded an opportunity to challenge such evidence either by way of council to the inquiry or his own
03:12:43 council to the inquiry or his own council is a matter understandably chair of profound concern to him and as chair has already been recognized today. H81's evidence is also of critical and underpinning significance to the
03:12:54 underpinning significance to the discharge of this inquiry's terms of reference and the issues before you, chair, that you will be required to determine. Chair, we endorse all of the proceeding submissions that have already been made
03:13:08 submissions that have already been made on behalf of the other core participants here today as to the need to reconsider the decision to recuse HN81 from giving oral evidence and to scrutinize carefully the underlying medical
03:13:22 carefully the underlying medical evidence provided, including by way of an avenue of obtaining independent expert evidence. We don't seek to repeat chair what's already been said save to highlight two discreet and headline
03:13:33 highlight two discreet and headline points of particular concern to our client.
03:13:38 client. First chair, we reinforce the invitation for you to scrutinize the particular question of how it was that HN81 was able to engage in various earlier evidential processes addressing the same
03:13:49 evidential processes addressing the same issue now before this inquiry in view of Dr. Trani's position that he's presently unable to provide oral evidence before this inquiry in any form. Of particular
03:14:03 this inquiry in any form. Of particular concern, which we seek to reiterate, is how it is that HN81 was able to engage with the witness statement process back in 2023 to the extent of providing a very detailed statement which contains
03:14:18 very detailed statement which contains numerous allegations against our client and indeed others that are contested which would have involved a close revisiting of those events. in view of the indication he had a PTSD diagnosis since 2001 confirmed in a 2017 psychiatric report indeed well before
03:14:31 psychiatric report indeed well before that witness statement process in this context chair it's difficult for us to understand how and on what basis Dr. Trani concluded in June of this year
03:14:45 Trani concluded in June of this year that there was an 80 to 90% chance that HN81 would be unable to meaningfully engage with this inquiry. And this all provokes a fundamental and unanswered
03:14:56 provokes a fundamental and unanswered question for our client which is what if anything has changed between the provision of HN81's detailed statement in 2023 and now to the extent as to preclude him from providing oral
03:15:07 preclude him from providing oral evidence to this inquiry under any circumstances in any form. If there has chair been a material change and or deterioration in 1881's condition
03:15:19 deterioration in 1881's condition between then and now, has this we ask been squarely addressed by Dr. Trani in her report? And what does she say is the difference if any in the adverse
03:15:35 difference if any in the adverse clinical impact between providing such a detailed rule statement and giving oral evidence to this inquiry with the appropriate safeguards and adjustments. The recusal ruling chair is silent on this issue and in the absence of
03:15:49 this issue and in the absence of disclosure of Dr. Trani's report even in gisted or redacted form we and our client most importantly have no way of knowing if this important consideration was addressed which bears of course
03:16:00 was addressed which bears of course directly on the question as to whether H81
03:16:01 H81 really is unable to provide oral evidence before this inquiry on the grounds of ill health. Second chair and
03:16:13 grounds of ill health. Second chair and relatedly we note the indication in your ruling and indeed it's been turned to several times already today that the inquiry did explore with the DL possible steps that may be taken to permit HN81 to give oral evidence but received the
03:16:24 to give oral evidence but received the unequivocal response that no such step could safely be taken. That chair further to receiving the report of Dr. Trani. The inquiry sought to explore that issue directly with HN81's legal representatives would tend to suggest on
03:16:41 representatives would tend to suggest on the face of the ruling that the issue of whether and to what extent specific measures could facilitate H81's attendance was not addressed at all or sufficiently in Dr. Trani's original report. It would also appear chair on
03:16:52 report. It would also appear chair on the face of the recusal decision that the inquiry only sought to clarify and canvas this issue with HN81's legal representatives as opposed to seeking a further opinion from Dr. Trani or indeed
03:17:11 further opinion from Dr. Trani or indeed to instruct his own expert to provide an informed medical view as to whether any specific adjustments or measures could increase that percentage chance of effective participation and mitigate the attendant risk of adverse impact to an extent reasonably safe to facilitate
03:17:24 extent reasonably safe to facilitate H&81 giving oral evidence. The inquiry, we say, cannot rely on the asurances from HN81's legal representatives alone as to the insufficiency of all
03:17:35 as to the insufficiency of all alternative measures to facilitate HN81 giving evidence. And we support the contention chair already advanced by other core participants. You've heard from that it does not appear the inquiry has taken the necessary steps to verify
03:17:49 has taken the necessary steps to verify that position for themselves. It's a key issue which we say must be robustly and closely explored by the inquiry before a decision is taken to excuse a witness from participating in the evidence
03:18:02 from participating in the evidence hearings in any form. The question chair as to whether there are alternative or special measures that could assist H&81 in giving evidence should be a primary consideration in any expert medical
03:18:15 consideration in any expert medical report placed before yourself in this inquiry supporting a witness's nonattendance and indeed without which the inquiry is unable to make an informed and a balanced decision on the evidence as for whether or not said
03:18:26 evidence as for whether or not said witness is able to give evidence. It's entirely and properly open to you chair to request an opinion from an independent expert psychiatrist to
03:18:37 independent expert psychiatrist to address the issue of special measures along with the various other matters that have already been raised today. But we say chair that the first step in that chain doesn't yet appear to have been taken seeking clarification from the
03:18:52 taken seeking clarification from the source itself Dr. Trani on whether she considers specifically alternative possible measures including but not limited to those set out in the inquiry's own vulnerable witness policy may facilitate a HN81 giving oral
03:19:08 may facilitate a HN81 giving oral evidence and if not indeed why not chair you will appreciate that our hands are somewhat tied behind our back today in so far as we haven't seen the underlying material supporting the application for HN81 to be excused from giving evidence or indeed a gist thereof. of it does
03:19:20 or indeed a gist thereof. of it does remain unclear to us though on the face of the ruling whether and the extent to which Dr. Trani's report expressly addresses the key issues on which I've touched and others have too and how
03:19:36 touched and others have too and how these have been waited for and accounted for in the allimportant decision to recuse HN81. If these issues have been addressed, sir, we are simply to be told as such in plain terms in an expanded ruling so as to ensure transparency and that our
03:19:54 to ensure transparency and that our client and indeed other affected CPS can better understand the decision-m informing the recusal of HN81. If however it's the case as it appears to us chair that these key issues have not been expressly and adequately considered by Dr. Trani. We say it's
03:20:09 considered by Dr. Trani. We say it's incumbent on the inquiry to now take the necessary steps to obtain additional medical evidence addressing these issues and to reconsider the decision not to call HN81 on the basis of an updated
03:20:22 call HN81 on the basis of an updated more informed evidential picture. Chair, unless I can assist you any further, I believe that addresses the position on behalf of HN43. Thank you very much. I think that concludes the submissions
03:20:33 I think that concludes the submissions that are being made today, does it not? So the it does unless the uh DL want to say anything through uh Mr.
03:20:52 say anything through uh Mr. Um I have a question two questions for Mr. Sanders. Um Mr. Sanders um or rather three. I if there is anything you want to say you're entitled to do so and I would invite you to do so but I have two specific questions for you. Yes. Yes, go ahead.
03:21:07 Yes. Yes, go ahead. Um, first, as you know, there is a closed addition to the open ruling which I take it that you've read. Um I intend in uh the observations that I am going to make today uh to refer to
03:21:23 I am going to make today uh to refer to the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights uh under which I have taken into consideration. Is there any objection to that? No sir. No.
03:21:36 No sir. No. Thank you. Second is this uh an issue has been raised um
03:21:47 today uh by Mr. Odogu foreshadowed by uh his written submissions that um the inquiry if it doesn't require
03:22:01 if it doesn't require uh either further medical evidence or uh the uh
03:22:04 the uh need for uh HN16 sorry HN81 to give oral evidence. uh should um
03:22:17 uh should um ask written questions based upon those no doubt submitted by uh core participants. That is not an issue that I have addressed up to now and it's not one I've invited you to
03:22:33 and it's not one I've invited you to address. Uh I don't at the moment uh see anything in the medical evidence that I have read which would prohibit that. If there's anything you want to say about that, please do so now. Well, sir, I can only give a provisional answer. Of
03:22:48 only give a provisional answer. Of course, it may or may not be possible. I know that there's a strong interest in H&81 for his own welfare and well-being
03:22:59 well-being having certainty and finality about his excusal from the inquiry process. And what I can't say is the extent to
03:23:16 And what I can't say is the extent to which a further um round of involvement or addressing written questions may or may impact on that. Um but I mean I I understand that that's a slightly different question from the one that Dr. Trani was addressing. It is but I can't I mean it may or may not be uh a possible or appropriate um
03:23:31 uh a possible or appropriate um just just in answer to what Miss Heaven was raising then we did go back to Dr. Trani with the inquiry's questions about yes
03:23:39 yes and then reported back her her her answer that that I understood to be the position it [clears throat] isn't just his legal representatives expressing an opinion but an opinion expressed by Dr.
03:23:55 opinion but an opinion expressed by Dr. Absolutely, sir. Um, and I don't know if I if I may just very briefly make some submissions. Um, of course, but I'm happy to do it after lunch. I just we're past 1:00, so
03:24:09 just we're past 1:00, so Well, I think everybody rather than delay everybody, I would prefer to deal with the matter now. Absolutely.
03:24:19 Sorry. So, I'm being asked to speak up and I'm just recovering from a from a cold.
03:24:23 cold. Um, we obviously went over a lot of this ground u back in 2017 2018 with submissions being made as to whether or
03:24:34 submissions being made as to whether or not you have power to compel individuals to undergo medical examinations to get your own independent expert evidence and so on. And all of those questions were dealt with at that point. Um, in my
03:24:46 dealt with at that point. Um, in my submission, you've made your decision on the basis of the evidence we've submitted. Um and there are no grounds
03:24:59 submitted. Um and there are no grounds for um reversing that or reconsidering that. Um everything that's been said today about the view of other core participants um regarding the importance of HN81's evidence. I know you've already taken into account and you've already said yourself that you consider him uh an
03:25:10 yourself that you consider him uh an important witness and if he were well enough to give evidence and if it was safe for him to do so um then that's what would be happening. Um but you've also seen the evidence um private
03:25:25 also seen the evidence um private evidence to to demonstrate that he's not well enough and it's not safe for him to to do that. um some points to be made about what might happen in criminal or or civil proceedings. These aren't of
03:25:40 or civil proceedings. These aren't of course criminal or civil proceedings. Um and there's no basis for the inquiry requiring H&81 to attend a different expert. Um you've obviously had the
03:25:51 expert. Um you've obviously had the opportunity to put questions back to Dr. ani and so on and also submit that there's no basis for disclosing or sharing his private um medical mental health information with other core
03:26:02 health information with other core participants and and witnesses. Um it there's no basis for saying that this is part of a pattern of individuals seeking to be excused on the basis of
03:26:13 seeking to be excused on the basis of mental health grounds. Um the concerns about 1881 have been present since the
03:26:24 about 1881 have been present since the start of this inquiry and they're very real and very serious concerns. Um I understand that obviously everyone addressing you today doesn't know the the underlying position. Um but I would submit sir that it's it's important for
03:26:39 submit sir that it's it's important for you in giving your ruling to address and respond to some of the rhetoric that there has been. Uh there's headlines in a national newspaper today saying um [cough]
03:26:49 [cough] excuse me, Agent 81 should be facing the uh full glare of public scrutiny. Um and that he needs to be confronted uh use of
03:27:07 that he needs to be confronted uh use of cowardly, shameful, disgraceful. Um this is a a human being who is very very unwell. Uh these are inquisitorial proceedings. Uh, and in my submission, it's important that your ruling addresses that and makes clear that he is not a coward or a disgrace or has
03:27:25 is not a coward or a disgrace or has anything to be ashamed of. Um, just very unfortunately, he is not well. Thank you, sir.
03:27:26 you, sir. Thank you.
03:27:37 I am invited by a number of core participants uh led by uh Mr. Khan Kings Council for uh Baroness Lawrence [snorts]
03:27:50 uh Baroness Lawrence [snorts] to revisit a ruling that I made on the 24th of September 2025
03:28:02 to the effect that HN81 will not be required uh to give oral evidence to the inquiry.
03:28:12 That ruling was not challenged within the normal statutory time limit of two weeks.
03:28:17 weeks. What I am being invited to do is to revisit it.
03:28:32 The first point raised is that
03:28:34 is that the uh medical evidence upon which the ruling was based. That's to say the report of Dr. Rani
03:29:06 may not be uh sufficient to support it and should be supplemented by further medical evidence. Mr. Khan uh
03:29:18 with appropriate uh reservation uh submitted that Dr. Dani might not be adequately qualified to express the opinion that she has
03:29:34 opinion that she has and might by reason of the fact that she has
03:29:36 has advised
03:29:42 advised and provided uh psychiatric services for police forces. not be uh
03:29:48 not be uh a truly independent expert
03:29:56 able to uh express an opinion upon which I as chairman of an inquiry can properly rely.
03:30:04 rely. There is no doubt about the law which applies to reliance on expert medical
03:30:24 applies to reliance on expert medical evidence. Uh it was set out uh with um complete clarity in uh the general medical council and Hyatt 2018 EWCA civ 2796 at paragraph 38. It is true that the subject of that appeal was
03:30:42 a decision that an individual had not demonstrated that he was unable to participate in proceedings rather than to give evidence in them. But the principle is identical.
03:30:57 principle is identical. It is identified in paragraph 38 of the ruling
03:30:58 ruling uh which cites the judgment of Mr. Justice Norris in Levy and K Ellis. I quote from the relevant part.
03:31:15 Having said that, the evidence required was far short of that needed to demonstrate that a party was unable to attend a hearing and participate in a trial.
03:31:28 The ruling goes on to state, quote, "Such evidence should identify the medical attendant and give details of his familiarity with the party's medical condition detailing all recent consultations.
03:31:41 consultations. should identify with particularity what the patient's medical condition is and features of that condition which in the medical attendance opinion prevent participation in the trial process
03:31:56 participation in the trial process should provide a reasoned prognosis and should give the court some confidence that what is being expressed is an independent opinion after a proper examination. It is being tendered as expert evidence. The court can then consider what weight to attach to the
03:32:10 consider what weight to attach to the opinion and what arrangements might be made short from an adjournment to accommodate a party's difficulties. No judge is bound to accept expert evidence. Even a proper medical report
03:32:21 evidence. Even a proper medical report forced to be considered simply as part of the material as a whole, including the previous conduct of the case. The letter on which the appellent relies is wholly inadequate. Close quote.
03:32:37 This is not of course a court case. It is an inquiry. But similar reasoning applies here. The first and very important question is whether or not I have satisfied myself
03:33:00 whether or not I have satisfied myself that the opinion of Dr. Trani is that of someone who is expert in the field and uh is her own independent opinion. Uh her report details her experience, expertise and practice over many years and contains uh a
03:33:18 over many years and contains uh a conventional statement of truth uh which I unhesitatingly accept. Dr. Trani was
03:33:30 Dr. Trani was competent to express the opinions that she did and they are her own opinions expressed in the knowledge that they will be relied upon by an independent chairman of a of a public inquiry.
03:33:53 Mr. Khan King's Council supported by uh all other submissions
03:34:03 suggests that uh I should direct that a further medical opinion is obtained
03:34:16 by a different expert instructed by the inquiry.
03:34:24 I assume for the purpose of dealing with this submission that I have the power to do that.
03:34:39 Were this uh anything other than a mental health problem, uh I would uh consider carefully whether or not to exercise that power.
03:34:58 I do however have in mind that Dr. Tani has expressed her opinion about
03:35:06 HN81's mental health and functioning
03:35:13 in making a decision about whether or not to
03:35:21 not to take further steps to obtain medical evidence just as whether or not to compel him to give oral evidence.
03:35:33 compel him to give oral evidence. Uh, I must have regard to articles 8 and two of the European Convention of Human Rights.
03:35:39 This is not a case in which as in
03:35:45 the particular case of uh Dr.
03:35:57 I am concerned with uh a physical condition where the obtaining of uh medical evidence uh about it would not put
03:36:15 uh about it would not put the individual concerned at risk of any let alone any serious deter deterioration in the condition. I am faced here uh with the possibility
03:36:28 possibility that were I to order
03:36:44 HN81 to submit to a further medical examination. The purpose of which would be to ascertain whether or not he was able to give oral evidence to the inquiry. I would be putting uh at risk the very things that have been identified
03:36:59 identified which uh in my judgment then and now prevent him from doing so
03:37:11 given the nature of the risks to his
03:37:14 mental health
03:37:18 and well-being
03:37:27 and the articles of the convention to which I have referred. That is not a risk which I am prepared to take.
03:37:41 I make those decisions
03:37:56 in the knowledge that I have said and continue to believe that the evidence of HN81 is of vital importance to the inquiry.
03:38:06 until uh I received the application on 14th July 2025. I had anticipated
03:38:22 that HN81 would give oral evidence to permit those aspects of his evidence which disagrees with that of other witnesses
03:38:24 witnesses and uh which um
03:38:37 makes unfavorable com observation about
03:38:42 about some of the core participants upon whom he was reporting
03:38:53 to permit me to assess its truth and reliability.
03:39:04 Hence the avenues that I explored through
03:39:09 through his legal representatives which were unequivocally rebutted by Dr. Tani.
03:39:26 I can take no further step which will put
03:39:38 HN81's mental health and well-being at risk
03:39:48 by reopening the possibility that he may be required to give oral evidence.
03:40:01 A suggestion was made [clears throat] [snorts]
03:40:02 [snorts] by Mr. Agu and uh supported by others
03:40:15 and uh supported by others that the inquiry should investigate the possibility of putting questions, written questions to HN81 and inviting his response, his written response.
03:40:26 response. This is not something upon which I have ruled hither to. It is [clears throat] an open question given that he has provided
03:40:39 given that he has provided a detailed written witness statement albeit two years ago.
03:40:55 And given that I have no medical evidence which would uh indicate that it is unsafe to adopt that course, I invite
03:40:58 I invite uh
03:41:00 uh those who represent him uh to consider and to respond within 14 days to the suggestion made that written
03:41:19 to the suggestion made that written questions be divided. ized and put to him through them for him to provide written answers.
03:41:36 14 days should provide sufficient time in which to obtain his instructions and if it be the case uh any medical evidence relevant to the issue.
03:41:46 That concludes this ruling
03:41:53 and today's hearing with apologies for delaying everybody's lunch.