Mark Jenner (HN15) is questioned about the conspicuous absence of Alison from all his intelligence reports despite living with her for nearly 5 years. He discusses management knowledge of the relationship, the 2011 risk assessment where he lied to protect himself from misconduct charges, and colleagues who knew about the relationship. Jenner admits to multiple lies to risk assessors and the 2013 disciplinary charge. He explains why he never informed future UCO Carlos Saraki about sexual relationships despite his own experience.
00:25:01 May these proceedings these in the next minute or two not be livereamed? Can it be removed from the live stream?
00:25:14 These what what is about to occur must not be livereamed.
00:29:44 Yes. Right. We're ready, I think. I Yes.
00:29:49 Yes. No, I I better wait to make sure. Yes, we are. We are ready. Good. Sorry. We are ready now. We're We're going to resume, Mr. Bar.
00:29:59 Bar. Thank you, sir. Can we have tab C243? It's an MPS number 301219.
00:30:14 This is the 28th of July 1998. Uh a an intelligence report. It's about
00:30:25 Uh a an intelligence report. It's about preparations for the Blair Peach 20th anniversary March. If we could have the text expanded, please.
00:30:47 Okay. Um, in your experience, were local trades unions associated with disorder?
00:30:58 No, I didn't have any experience of that. No.
00:31:01 that. No. Were Blair Peach marchers associated with disorder? No,
00:31:11 the end of the first paragraph uh states that the rally and demonstration will be presented with a strong anti-racist
00:31:22 presented with a strong anti-racist uh anti- police flavor. Uh anti- police flavor because this campaign arises from the death of Blair Peach at the hands of police.
00:31:35 Blair Peach at the hands of police. Correct.
00:31:37 Correct. Was there any disorder at this event? I don't know. I don't know that. I didn't attend myself. This is information I picked up via the center.
00:31:46 The source comment, "The event will inevitably attract a large left-wing presence with particular accent and anti- police type groups, and the potential for disorder will be
00:31:59 potential for disorder will be significant. Given that local trade unions were organizing the rally, and given that it was an event to
00:32:11 was an event to remember Mr. Peach wasn't the position that it was always likely to be a dignified and orderly
00:32:23 likely to be a dignified and orderly event.
00:32:24 event. That was the hope. Certainly, as I alluded to in that comment there, you know, the anti anti- police type, obviously, we discussed that yesterday,
00:32:35 obviously, we discussed that yesterday, but because of the circumstances of this particular event, were there to be a large police presence, that may be construed as being provocative.
00:32:47 The words that you used don't qualif aren't qualified by anything to do with the police reaction. They go on they say the potential for disorder will be
00:32:59 potential for disorder will be significant. What I would like to explore with you is on what basis could you report that the potential for disorder would be significant?
00:33:10 disorder would be significant? On the basis I've just said in my opinion at that time. So I I I never went to this particular event, but given the the feelings around this and any
00:33:21 the the feelings around this and any other issues regarding um the deaths in police custody or deaths caused by police, this is probably one of the the most famous um for the reasons that I've
00:33:33 most famous um for the reasons that I've said there. There's potential for disorder if they're seen to confront the police. So yes, the inference being of the bit softly softly by the police or if the police were seen to be
00:33:44 if the police were seen to be heavy-handed, then yes, the potential would be significant in my opinion. Were you perhaps being unduly pessimistic about the risk of public disorder?
00:33:55 disorder? Uh well, you could Yes, I I wouldn't dispute that. Yes, I was, but with good reason. I don't want my police colleagues getting injured. Could we take that down now, please? And
00:34:06 Could we take that down now, please? And could we have up from tab B 45 749473
00:34:13 749473 please.
00:34:19 Page 19
00:34:25 if we could have that expanded. Uh it's a strategy meeting with you uh dated July
00:34:35 July 1998
00:34:37 1998 uh bearing the initials of Bob Lambert, null war and Bernard Greeny. At the bottom it says at the start in July 1998
00:34:48 bottom it says at the start in July 1998 touchy subject was invited by Harold the leader of Red Action to join the actual organization as opposed to being active through AFA. This invitation to join RA
00:35:02 through AFA. This invitation to join RA has farreaching implications as far as his current targeting strategy is concerned. Firstly, the variety of Irish support groups that TS has involved himself
00:35:14 groups that TS has involved himself with, such as IRSP, RF and RSF, will for the time being have to wither on the vine. Bearing in mind the current turmoil that these groups are in, it is
00:35:26 turmoil that these groups are in, it is perhaps no bad thing that other more important factors are beginning to play a part.
00:35:35 This reads as if it was a big deal. Is that right? It reading it. Yes. I didn't have any input into this, but yes, reading it, it does look it. Yeah.
00:35:46 look it. Yeah. And was it a big deal? Uh I think on paper it would have been I mean to be I'd been around Red Action for you know a couple of years then but then to be
00:35:57 a couple of years then but then to be asked to actually join the organization was it was seen as a step up and I suppose it it would give me greater access but yeah that that's all it was really.
00:36:08 really. How easy was it to secure an invitation to join Red Action? And you didn't. You were just asked.
00:36:20 And how easy was it to get to that stage where you were asked? Well, I think you have to obviously you have to be a trusted contact. Um, you have to measure up to the stereotypical
00:36:32 have to measure up to the stereotypical type of person that they were looking at. Um, I've been active in in AFA and um I was considered trustworthy. I think that was be fair to say. So it was it
00:36:45 that was be fair to say. So it was it was quite flattering. I wasn't expecting this and it it it didn't really affect my strategy as such, but yes, it put me onto a slightly more intimate level with the the leadership of the organization.
00:36:57 the the leadership of the organization. Could you have got into red action more quickly if you had wanted to? No.
00:37:03 No. Could you have got into red action through different routes?
00:37:09 No. No. Not the roots that were available to me. No. No. Allison's evidence uh was that when you told her that you had joined Red Action,
00:37:20 told her that you had joined Red Action, you told her that it was because you want to see the whole picture. Did you say that to her? I might have done. And why did you accept the invitation to
00:37:31 And why did you accept the invitation to join Red Action? Well, it was like I said, it was a step up into the the sort of inner circle as it were of the organization, whereas I was sort of outside of that up to that point. And
00:37:44 outside of that up to that point. And also, it was a measure of their their trust in me as well. And what was you you made clear you weren't involved in the generation of this document, but what was the reaction of your managers to the invitation when
00:37:57 of your managers to the invitation when you told them about it? Well, I think you can see by the language used here, they thought it was it was, you know, really good news. I don't think anyone previously had got to that level uh in
00:38:09 previously had got to that level uh in that particular organization. So, yes, they were obviously quite pleased with that.
00:38:14 that. It goes on to say, "Certainly, Red Action will continue to play an active part in their support of Pyra Inla, although to what extent the current crop of members will involve themselves is
00:38:27 of members will involve themselves is unclear.
00:38:29 unclear. It is interesting to note that TS is now occupying the mantle of office once worn by Pat Hayes who is currently serving life imprisonment for causing explosions on the mainland, possession of seexs,
00:38:41 on the mainland, possession of seexs, possession of firearms. Can I take it in the light of your example, your evidence yesterday that to suggest that Red Action was in July 1998
00:38:55 playing an active part in their support of Pyra and Inler was overstating the matter.
00:39:03 matter. I think in that case, yes, it was overstating the matter. Yeah, definitely. and Pyra and INL share the fact that they're both
00:39:15 share the fact that they're both prescribed organizations, but they are different organizations, aren't they? The Irish Republicans, yes, but different separate organizations. Significantly different.
00:39:28 Significantly different. Yes, politically they were, but they are after the same aim. And obviously Red Action had members in both of those camps.
00:39:38 Thank you. Then if we uh go down to the next paragraph, with the current position regarding the ceasefire unclear, TS
00:39:49 regarding the ceasefire unclear, TS through sheer hard work and professional endeavor has neatly positioned himself with an organization that can best be described as a terrorist support group. Although contenders to offer themselves
00:40:00 Although contenders to offer themselves as active service people may be few, as a group they have any number of people who can offer and supply terrific logistical support for any ASU.
00:40:14 logistical support for any ASU. Again, with reference to your evidence yesterday, uh would it be fair to say that this is overstating the position as of July 1998?
00:40:24 1998? I think so. Yes, I think it was overstating it. But obviously the the whole issue around the terrorist support group would obviously refer to their the members having been arrested previously. That was where that would emanate from,
00:40:35 That was where that would emanate from, I would imagine. In your experience, was Mr. Lambert given to exaggerating the significance of SDS intelligence? Not specifically. This hasn't got I
00:40:47 Not specifically. This hasn't got I don't know. I I couldn't tell you who wrote this, but I think the managers, it was all in in all of their interests when they're doing uh roundup reports like this is to make them sound as
00:40:59 like this is to make them sound as significantly important as they could because obviously they had their own chain of command to uh impress. Could we take that document down now please? And can we have up from tab B51247717
00:41:13 please?
00:41:19 This is a another visit to the unit by Assistant Commissioner Special Operations
00:41:31 Operations David Vanesse. This time a visit on the 7th of July 1998.
00:41:41 Uh that page uh talks about some of the timings says that uh the meeting was envisaged to last about one and a half
00:41:52 envisaged to last about one and a half hours with the ACSO having a chat with groups of three field officers at a time and then he would have the opportunity to address them all and hopefully present a UCO who we are not going to
00:42:05 present a UCO who we are not going to identify with an award. Uh,
00:42:13 you were at this event. Uh, yes. Yes. Can you help us with what you said to the ACSO
00:42:23 the ACSO about your deployment? It was we were instructed really just to give him an oversight into the access we had, the groups that we were involved
00:42:34 had, the groups that we were involved in. Um, it was just all very general stuff because it was it was all stage managed. He just wanted to know where we were and I think the there was probably though I don't know a premeating with
00:42:45 though I don't know a premeating with management saying that this person's doing this, this person's doing that. Um, we were just asked to sort of fill in the gaps there any answer any questions he had regarding our particular deployment.
00:42:58 particular deployment. Can I take it from that answer that you would have made clear that you were infiltrating community-based groups? Yes, probably. Yes. That's fair. I can't remember it, but yeah, likely I would
00:43:09 remember it, but yeah, likely I would have done. Yes. AA?
00:43:10 AA? Yes.
00:43:11 Yes. Red Action? Yes.
00:43:13 Yes. Uh, would you have told him you'd been arrested in the course of your duty? Not and not specifically. No. Uh, did you say anything to him about your accommodation? No.
00:43:24 No. About your relationship with Allison? No. Why didn't you tell him about your relationship with Allison? It wasn't relevant. He was looking at specifically the fields that individual officers were covering.
00:43:35 officers were covering. Is it something that you felt would amount to a disclosure of wrongdoing? Not at all. No, it wasn't relevant to he was there purely to see what areas we were covering. Can I take it from that answer that you
00:43:46 Can I take it from that answer that you think there is no reason whatsoever why he should not have known about your relationship with Allison? If I'd have told him, no, at all. Of course not. He didn't ask me about that.
00:43:57 course not. He didn't ask me about that. And did you say anything um about the lifestyle that you were living undercover? No.
00:44:05 No. What did he ask you? I can't remember. It would have been in relation to the group's general sort of matters around, you know, how long I've been there, etc. Was nothing in detail,
00:44:17 been there, etc. Was nothing in detail, was very peripheral really. He was there just to meet and greet and it was a bit of a morale boost in visit as I understood it but it's all very general terms in terms of our individual deployment.
00:44:28 deployment. Did you ask you did he ask you anything about how you were conducting yourself undercover? No.
00:44:35 No. Can we take that document down now please? Can we have up uh C248 MPS uh 301391?
00:44:50 This is a report dated the 12th of October 1998. If we could have the text enlarge, please. And I'll let you take a moment to absorb the content.
00:45:25 Okay. Yeah. Uh,
00:45:29 Uh, is this an accurate summary of your intelligence? Yes, I think it' be fair to say yes. Does it reflect your view of the matters?
00:45:37 matters? Uh, yes it does in general terms. Yeah. This appears to be portraying the Newm Monitoring Project as seeking to draw fascists onto the
00:45:48 seeking to draw fascists onto the street.
00:45:50 street. Would that be the wrong impression to create? Not at all. I think they the new and monitoring projects um were very well
00:46:02 monitoring projects um were very well tied into their local community and they would have been aware of the the cost of an uh refugee issue and the potential
00:46:13 an uh refugee issue and the potential there for and there must have been publicity around it for potential right-wing involvement. And so they needed to get in there and offer to protect the immigrants in whatever way
00:46:24 protect the immigrants in whatever way they needed to. What I'm driving at is it's one thing for the NMP to be concerned about fascist intimidation of refugees
00:46:39 and to be seeking to support those refugees. It's quite another for them to be trying to draw the fascists out onto the street. No. No. That's that's I wouldn't that's not a that's certainly not within the
00:46:51 not a that's certainly not within the remit of uh the new monitoring project red action certainly. And and weren't the left genuine generally pleased that the far right
00:47:03 generally pleased that the far right were not currently active? I think well yes definitely the general left of course they were. Yeah. And so why would they be looking for opportunities to draw them back out onto
00:47:15 opportunities to draw them back out onto the street? war from a a red action point of view. I think that they felt that this because of the the spin that was put on this uh we said here the
00:47:27 was put on this uh we said here the influx of various refugees that's an issue that the right wing would immediately pick up on um and potentially bring them out to uh
00:47:39 potentially bring them out to uh confront them. That was the fear. Are you effectively saying that this report instead of saying various left-wing and anti-fascist groups
00:47:51 left-wing and anti-fascist groups in the first two lines and then referring to NMP later on really ought to have said red action. We're looking for opportunities to draw
00:48:03 We're looking for opportunities to draw fascists onto the street. Uh, I think the various left-wing groups which um I wouldn't call the NMP that, but you're looking at other there were other anti-fascist groups outside of Red
00:48:15 anti-fascist groups outside of Red Action. Um, so that was in my estimation, yes, that would be entirely consistent with what they'd want to do. And what did you which groups did you have actual intelligence
00:48:27 have actual intelligence to the effect that they wanted to provoke the fascists onto the streets?
00:48:33 streets? From well from Red Action's point of view clearly any information about the new monitoring project would have come directly from Mark Meov who was connected with him. I had no direct
00:48:44 connected with him. I had no direct contact with them. But you're aware of what sort of group the NMP is? Yes. Yeah. Because isn't the difficulty with this report is you appear to be inflating
00:48:56 inflating perhaps the aspirations or objectives of particular people within Red Action and attributing them to a much wider
00:49:09 group of left-wing uh bodies and anti-fascist groups. No, I don't think that is the case. No, I mean by by definition that it's an opportunity that obviously AFA would
00:49:20 opportunity that obviously AFA would would would use, but also you've got other other groups, militant labor, the anti-Nazi league, etc. All likeminded individuals. Can we take that down now, please? Can
00:49:31 Can we take that down now, please? Can we have tab C250 MPS 301422?
00:49:42 Uh this is an intelligence report based on information uh dated at the 19th of October 1998. The title is self-explanatory.
00:49:53 The title is self-explanatory. Final meeting of the CRC. If you could expand the text please.
00:50:10 Okay. Yeah. Uh, is it accurate that the CRC was wound up at this time? Yes. I mean, I recognize that report. And it was no more after that
00:50:22 And it was no more after that effectively. Yes. And does it follow that you uh follow logically that you didn't report on the CRC after this? Um, not as a group. I don't think I
00:50:33 Um, not as a group. I don't think I would have done. Obviously, I think it stayed later there that there were sort of people there still involved in various issues. Anything out beyond that would have come from Netco, but I don't think I had any direct involvement with
00:50:45 think I had any direct involvement with the organization itself. No. So any previous statements you've made to the effect that you continued to report on the CRC throughout your deployment would be an inaccurate.
00:50:57 deployment would be an inaccurate. As an organization, yes, it would. Yeah. How would you describe your targeting for the remaining 18 months of your deployment? I think I moved away from Mark Metaf as
00:51:11 I think I moved away from Mark Metaf as a specific um target. I would obviously move towards the the AFA red action um part of things, but I was still part of
00:51:23 part of things, but I was still part of that
00:51:24 that community in Hackne and I I still had good relations with Mark Meov. So if anything was going on in that particular we'd, you know, meet up in a I'd see the
00:51:36 we'd, you know, meet up in a I'd see the bloke every week. So um yeah, I'd get filled in with that. So my contact with them was really through whatever he was feeding me.
00:51:48 Can I now um ask you to direct your attention to the last sentence of the first paragraph? Any profit from this book will be donated to a suitably worthy cause as such as the Steven
00:52:00 worthy cause as such as the Steven Lawrence campaign or some other anti- police anti-racist initiative. Now, we uh heard from you yesterday
00:52:12 Now, we uh heard from you yesterday about anti- police uh campaigns and you said that the Steven Lawrence campaign fell within that definition in in general terms. Yeah.
00:52:24 in in general terms. Yeah. What has changed between the matters I was asking you about yesterday and the 15th of October 1998 is that on the 1st of October 1998, Lord Condon had
00:52:37 of October 1998, Lord Condon had expressed deep regret and apologized to the Lawrenes for failing to bring Steven's racist murderers to justice. Okay.
00:52:48 Okay. Were you aware of that? I can't
00:52:52 I can't I can't remember being made aware of it through the SDS whether it was mentioned here or not. I I I honestly can't remember. I would have picked it up myself probably on the news or whatever because it was a newsworthy story but uh
00:53:05 because it was a newsworthy story but uh no it wasn't discussed as I remember. No,
00:53:10 as you say it was a newsworthy story. Why is it that even after the commissioner has personally apologized
00:53:22 apologized to the Lawrenes for police failings? Are you still describing the Steven Lawrence campaign as anti- police?
00:53:36 Lawrence campaign as anti- police? It's just a generic expression that's all. There is no uh particular reason for that.
00:53:41 for that. The mindset what my mind said. No, I I wouldn't even have given it that depth of thought in relation to that. It was just a way of
00:53:52 relation to that. It was just a way of grouping it together in a report. That is I think the point I'm putting to you. Your mindset that these were anti- police campaigns and you didn't think any further about it.
00:54:03 any further about it. No, I didn't wouldn't have given it a second thought quite honestly. No. Can we take that down now, please? AFA opportunist hits tab C251 MPS 301506
00:54:24 5th of November 1998 a report about uh AFA based on your intelligence. If we could uh have the first two paragraphs,
00:54:35 could uh have the first two paragraphs, please
00:54:40 for following AFA's successful location of the BMP redirection point in Waltham Stow two weeks ago, Clive and the AFA leadership are concerned about the growing divisions within South London
00:54:51 growing divisions within South London which could jeopardize future actions. And then if we look at the second paragraph, AFA's intelligence network is working well and the information about the right-wing is accurate and generally good. The problem in is in using this
00:55:04 good. The problem in is in using this information by way of direct action. At present, intelligence and opportunist hits are carried out by stewards from north and east London together with
00:55:16 north and east London together with privacy from South London who handles the photographic side. to step this activity up into direct action such as would have been the case in Walthamto South London would have to be more
00:55:28 South London would have to be more deeply involved but with a disaection of curtain privacy. The only people in South London AFA now trusted by the leadership are privacy privacy and privacy
00:55:40 privacy in relation to the participation of stewards from north and east London in hits. Were you personally involved in any of those hits?
00:55:51 any of those hits? No. And I think again this is another again it's only intelligence the report has been written by somebody else. I think that is inaccurate. Um the R it it would be carried out not are but had
00:56:04 would be carried out not are but had there been any I would have known that because I was I was one of the stewards group. So and that didn't happen. No. So no hits. No no not at all. Can we take that down now please? C255
00:56:17 Can we take that down now please? C255 MPS301575.
00:56:22 We started 1998 in Dover and we're going to end 1998 in Dover. This is a 30th of November 1998 uh report about um a planned National
00:56:36 uh report about um a planned National Front March on the 5th of December 1998.
00:56:43 Can we have the first two paragraphs up please?
00:56:51 London AFER as previously reported will not be attending the NF march on the 5th of December 1998. However, a dissident strand of AFE led by Kurt will almost certainly attend Saturday's march. The
00:57:04 certainly attend Saturday's march. The group of stragglers he is likely to travel with will include elements from the socialist party away team and some hunt sabs. Did you go to do as one of the group of
00:57:19 Did you go to do as one of the group of stragglers? No.
00:57:22 No. If we look at the source comment, uh I'll give you a moment to uh read that.
00:57:39 Okay. Yeah. Uh there are some quite specific details there, aren't there? Yes.
00:57:44 Yes. Where did you get those from? I would have got them from Kurt. And uh the intelligence that the tactic would be to pick off right-wing
00:57:55 would be to pick off right-wing stragglers. Was that something that was expressly stated to you? Yeah. Well, I can't say it was expressly stated, but that's what the obvious tactics were. They always were.
00:58:08 tactics were. They always were. Can you help us um more generally with the away team? And we can take that document uh down now. What experience did you have of the away
00:58:23 What experience did you have of the away team?
00:58:25 team? You were talking about the militant labor. Um, obviously I knew they existed. I also knew that Peter Francis uh was reporting
00:58:37 knew that Peter Francis uh was reporting on some of this uh stuff as well. But from an AFA point of view, they tend to recruit mostly people directly into AFA. But when there were as a necessity to
00:58:48 But when there were as a necessity to get a call out of trusted members, there would be people from the likes of the say even the anti-Nazi league or certainly the awaited team, the direct
00:58:59 certainly the awaited team, the direct action movement, but all these different but they would be people who were specifically trusted and were able to handle themselves in in a in a fight and they were the ones that were called on. So
00:59:11 were the ones that were called on. So I'd be familiar with certain names from different groups. Well, let's have a look first of all at Frank Smith. Could we look at C267 MPS 301983?
00:59:29 This is a report based on your intelligence about Mr. Frank Smith dated the 14th of April 1999. And if we could have the uh first four in fact in fact
00:59:43 have the uh first four in fact in fact if we could have all the text ex uh expanded. Thank you. I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory.
01:00:13 Okay. Yeah. Did you get to know Mr. Smith through his away team activities? No.
01:00:23 No. Did you get to uh know him through your cover as a builder and your involvement in the activism of builders? I wouldn't say I got to know him. I'm
01:00:34 I wouldn't say I got to know him. I'm sure I've met him uh in relation to building work um things and that was obviously through Brian as well. So, how well did you know him? Not I wouldn't say I knew him well. Um I
01:00:46 Not I wouldn't say I knew him well. Um I knew of his reputation certainly. Um but I didn't know him that that well. I wouldn't say I wouldn't say he was a he was a regular contact by any means. Were you knowingly on the same
01:00:58 Were you knowingly on the same demonstrations as he was? I don't know. I never saw him on a demonstration, but as I said earlier, he would have been one of those trusted uh people that AF would like to co-op to,
01:01:09 people that AF would like to co-op to, but I don't remember ever seeing him on one.
01:01:11 one. Ever in a fight with him? Not that I recall. No. Do you ever witness him um involved in physical violence? No, not personally. In the penultimate paragraph, you say, "Although short in stature, Smith is
01:01:24 "Although short in stature, Smith is extremely violent and shorttempered." On what basis, given the answers that you have just given me, did you report
01:01:36 you have just given me, did you report that Smith was extremely violent? It would have been from other AFA members who knew him better than I did. Um
01:01:46 Um that that was the only basis it was and and obviously that particular trait would have been something that Red Action Alpha would have been particularly interested in. Uh, what had
01:01:58 particularly interested in. Uh, what had your Red Action and AFA associates told you about
01:02:05 you about Mr. Frank Smith and violence? Uh, that he wasn't he he wasn't the sort of bloke to back down. He'd been involved in uh anti-fascist activities for a number of years and he was
01:02:18 for a number of years and he was regarded as a as a solid, dependable uh street fighter. Had they given any specific examples of Mr. Smith being violational?
01:02:32 Why doesn't this report say that Mr. Smith had a reputation for violence rather than asserting as fact that he is
01:02:43 rather than asserting as fact that he is extremely violent? I don't know. I didn't write the report. It's based on your intelligence, isn't it?
01:02:50 it? It is. It is. Yes. And it is not the job of those writing up the report to embellish the facts, is it?
01:02:59 it? You wouldn't have thought so, but in this case, no. I mean, or with hindsight, perhaps I should have made it crystal clear, but uh that was it was my impression based on my experience with
01:03:10 impression based on my experience with the people who did know him. That that was all.
01:03:15 was all. We can take that down now. Are you able to help us at all with Mr. Dave Smith? Did you ever meet him in the course of your undercover uh operation?
01:03:29 your undercover uh operation? Who was he involved with? Which group was he? I don't the name I might may have heard it may have heard it laterally through through this inquiry, but I I can't think at the moment unless I know what he was involved in, what
01:03:41 I know what he was involved in, what groups we may have crossed in. I don't know.
01:03:43 know. No recollection now. No, I don't know. Mr. Dan Gilman. No.
01:03:50 No. Could we have up please from C6264 MPS301900
01:03:57 MPS301900 0.
01:04:02 I'll give you uh a moment if we can have the text expanded to absorb the content of this report dated the 17th of March 1999.
01:04:41 Okay. The second paragraph talks uh about the away team being believed to be responsible for attacks on members of the extreme right-wing groups in Waltham Stow, London Bridge and in Brmley. Do
01:04:55 Stow, London Bridge and in Brmley. Do you have any knowledge of those attacks? No, but I think looking at that they they would appear to be fairly historical. Um, as far as I I can make
01:05:08 historical. Um, as far as I I can make out of the London Bridge that would have been the early '9s. I might be wrong, but yeah, it was a historical sort of list of activities that they've been involved in. Can we take that down now, please? Could
01:05:20 Can we take that down now, please? Could we have from tab B55 MPS301680?
01:05:29 Uh this is uh a strategy meeting record from Thursday the 14th of January 1999.
01:05:40 from Thursday the 14th of January 1999. And if we could have the text expanded please.
01:05:49 Give you a moment to uh absorb first of all uh the target groups paragraph.
01:06:24 Okay. The impression being given is so far as AFER is concerned uh it's relative things are relatively quiet in terms of
01:06:36 things are relatively quiet in terms of public disorder because the extreme rightwing uh aren't very active. How quiet were things on the public order front
01:06:48 public order front from an AFA point of view where you expected to directly confront fascism. Obviously if there were no fascist presence around it's going to be quiet but because you know as we said there's
01:07:01 but because you know as we said there's a crossover between Afa and Red Action anyway but there were there were certain events but when you're looking bloody Sunday in particular was a focal point but you're looking at across that period
01:07:13 but you're looking at across that period of 12 months relative to to other years yes there hadn't been a lot of public activity I don't think as maybe in previous years red action are said because of the peace
01:07:25 red action are said because of the peace process to have concentrated their efforts on local politics via the IW I think it should say CA shouldn't it? Yeah.
01:07:35 Yeah. Uh to what extent were Red Action concentrating on politics as opposed to violence?
01:07:45 violence? Well, as I I mentioned yesterday, the IWCA, it mirrored the uh the whole scene that was happening in in Northern Ireland with Shinfane and and the
01:07:56 Ireland with Shinfane and and the relationship with Pyra, albeit on a smaller scale, but they were still they were still a violent Republican anti-fascist organization. But they had
01:08:07 anti-fascist organization. But they had a very clever um and wellthoughtout political strategy which involved obviously building a grassroots movement you know in in local communities.
01:08:18 you know in in local communities. What I'm driving at, I mean, you you've made clear your views about Red Action as a as an organization, but what I'm driving at now is how much violence was actually occurring
01:08:31 how much violence was actually occurring by this stage,
01:08:35 public violence? I can't I can't remember any. No, because it appears that by this stage in your deployment, Colin Roach Center is defunct.
01:08:47 defunct. Afer and Red Action aren't out on the street uh attacking fascists because there's not very much street violence going on
01:08:57 going on and uh Red Action are instead in the light of the ongoing peace process concentrating on their political activities via the IWCA.
01:09:08 activities via the IWCA. Was any thought given to reviewing whether or not your ongoing deployment was still justified? Not at all. No.
01:09:20 Not at all. No. And does that answer apply to both you and your managers? Yes. Yeah. Completely. There was still a Republican threat, remember?
01:09:33 And by that, am I right to understand that you are essentially communicating to me that the possibility that you might come across
01:09:45 possibility that you might come across some useful intelligence was enough to justify your ongoing deployment? Well, say in solely justify it. But at that time, as I was mentioned here with
01:09:56 that time, as I was mentioned here with the connection with Republican forum, I had both aspects of Republicanism covered. Now, I'm not expected to go and
01:10:07 covered. Now, I'm not expected to go and find, you know, a Republican plot or a terrorist plot, but I'd be in a position to either look at in any other intelligence from different agencies and and react. I'd be in a position on the
01:10:18 and react. I'd be in a position on the ground to respond to that. So that was considered important and I thought it was important as well. Was there any other justification for your ongoing deployment by this stage?
01:10:29 your ongoing deployment by this stage? Uh you asking me personally or as the organization first of all your own view I no I think that was the primary view at this particular stage. Yes. But I still had a public there was still
01:10:40 still had a public there was still because there were no fascists there. There were still public order issues I could still cover. Yeah. Did uh your managers share your view or did they have a different view?
01:10:51 did they have a different view? Well, as far as I know, they shared my view. They they if they didn't, they certainly didn't mention it to me. Can we look uh at the withdrawal section now?
01:11:06 Thank you. We agreed that February March 2000 will be the date to work towards withdrawal and that's effectively in line with the document we looked at a little while ago when your deployment
01:11:18 little while ago when your deployment was extended by a year. Is that correct? Yeah. Uh touchy subject had no specific plans at this stage but general ideas followed the theme and that has been uh the
01:11:29 the theme and that has been uh the details are redacted out. Uh when did you start specific planning?
01:11:41 you start specific planning? Um probably some it was sometime during obviously during 1999. I don't know specifically when but it's something that I always had to have in mind and
01:11:53 that I always had to have in mind and devise some sort of a strategy to extricate myself. It would take a long time to do given the number of contacts and the various groups that I had access to in order to
01:12:05 groups that I had access to in order to affect that. Says under the summary at the bottom of the page uh that you were to start planning for withdrawal with a more specific outline in June July. I don't
01:12:17 specific outline in June July. I don't want details but did you produce a more specific outline or work with your managers to that end uh for the summer? I don't I I don't know. I've not seen
01:12:28 I don't I I don't know. I've not seen that before. No, I don't remember the summer being a particularly significant uh date.
01:12:34 uh date. So again, without giving any details, what were you thinking uh when deciding how you would withdraw?
01:12:47 deciding how you would withdraw? I think at this stage um the world had changed. I mean the in real terms in in the time that I'd been out
01:12:57 out previous uh deployment officers had had various uh withdrawal strategies. The majority involved moving abroad
01:13:08 majority involved moving abroad um and then sending postcards back and basically fading out into the thing. But of course by this time you got you got the advent of the internet. Suddenly the world is a lot smaller place now. mobile
01:13:19 world is a lot smaller place now. mobile phones. There were very few places I think that you could go. So I had to be a little bit more careful about how I was going to affect this. But I think there was a part of me certainly that as
01:13:33 there was a part of me certainly that as we rolled into 1999, I thought there's no way that people are going to be disappearing uh you know to work in wherever, you
01:13:45 uh you know to work in wherever, you know, on some I don't know elf farm in Timbuktu or whatever ridiculous thing that was. It's it's it's just not viable. Um, and if a person disappears by this time, you either you're dead or
01:13:58 by this time, you either you're dead or you're not who you purport to be. And that was my concern at that stage. Can we take that document down now, please?
01:14:09 please? The Steven Lawrence inquiries part one report was published on the 24th of February, 1999. When did you get to hear about it?
01:14:21 When did you get to hear about it? I don't know what that is. What is that? The Steven Lawrence inquiries report. Oh,
01:14:26 Oh, I don't know. I didn't take any particular interest in that. I would have picked up probably on the news media, but no, it was it wasn't a matter that concerned me. So, the finding of institutional racism
01:14:38 the finding of institutional racism within the Metropolitan Police, not interested. Was that not a talking point within the office? I think yeah I mean it was more I think the Paul
01:14:51 yeah I mean it was more I think the Paul Condon's uh comments people weren't happy with that being but you know that was I don't know when that was in relation to this but which of the commissioner's comments it was the one about institutional
01:15:03 it was the one about institutional racism that was the one that I do remember people being unhappy about but and what uh who was unhappy I think we all were. And why were you unhappy? Because the inference being that everybody was a
01:15:15 inference being that everybody was a racist in the Met police. That's what we and here which is absolutely ludicrous. Certainly in the I didn't know anybody who was in that. I mean B would literally given blood in some cases
01:15:27 literally given blood in some cases fighting racism in that organization and it was a real insult. Did anyone take any steps to explain to you the sense in which the phrase institutional racism had been used by
01:15:41 institutional racism had been used by Sir William McFersonen and his panel? No.
01:15:46 No. Did anyone address you as to the
01:15:54 findings that have been made uh and any change that was required within the Metropolitan Police Service? Not at that stage. Not in the SDS circles. No.
01:16:05 stage. Not in the SDS circles. No. Did you take any steps to inform yourself as to what institutional racism meant?
01:16:11 meant? No, not at all. I was just I was very offended by it actually as as were a lot of people. So that was my view on it. I wasn't going to explore it. The commissioner thinks that then that's
01:16:22 commissioner thinks that then that's down to him. That doesn't mean include me.
01:16:25 me. Did any of your colleagues to your knowledge dig any deeper? No, it wasn't within our remit within the SDS. This was happening in the in the wider police force. Obviously, it would affected us as police officers, but no, we weren't
01:16:37 as police officers, but no, we weren't in a position to moan and groan about all of that. We were too wrapped up in our own world. Did anyone ask any questions as to how it had come to pass that these findings had been made in the context of the
01:16:49 had been made in the context of the investigation of Steven's murder? No, they didn't.
01:16:55 Can we have up now at tab C261 MPS301843?
01:17:09 Uh this is a report attributed to you 1st of March 1999. If we could uh have the text expanded please.
01:17:23 give you a moment to read it. Uh, but it's a third paragraph that I'm most interested in.
01:17:39 Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Metaf keen to promote his own expertise in policing issues in the wake of the
01:17:50 in policing issues in the wake of the Lawrence case. How did you get that intelligence from Mark Meov? And uh what did you mean by in the wake
01:18:02 And uh what did you mean by in the wake of the Lawrence case? Well, all the issues that have been uh in the media and the obviously I think this is after the inquiry and and and all the other
01:18:14 the inquiry and and and all the other other aspects to it. Yes, it was a high-profile case and that's what he wanted to sort of emphasize that with this the Menson case which I don't I don't know what that is. Is that a a
01:18:27 don't know what that is. Is that a a reference and the wake of the Lawrence case a reference to the finding of institutional racism? I don't think that not specifically that wasn't my impression. It was the whole
01:18:38 wasn't my impression. It was the whole issue from start to finish the investigation of or the lack of a proper investigation by the Met Police. The full paniply of police failings. I think that's fair to say. Yeah. Yeah.
01:18:51 I think that's fair to say. Yeah. Yeah. goes on. He was involved in the Mensson case at its outset and wants to capitalize on this with the hope of causing further embarrassment to the Metropolitan Police.
01:19:04 Metropolitan Police. What was your understanding of Mr. Metaf's involvement in the Menson case? I don't actually remember what the Menson case is. I'll refer to it here. I I I don't remember what that is.
01:19:18 I I don't remember what that is. Uh, what did you mean by wants to capitalize on it? Well, if this was a a case where I don't know if it's a death in custody or whatever it is, I'm not sure. Um,
01:19:30 whatever it is, I'm not sure. Um, obviously there's an opportunity there for him to be the standard bearer and really give the Met Police a kick in on the back of what they'd already experienced with the Steven Lawrence inquiry. It was open season. I think
01:19:42 inquiry. It was open season. I think that was my impression from what he was saying on attacking the the reputation of the Met Police. So in your mind just another anti-
01:19:53 So in your mind just another anti- police campaign pretty much. Yeah. Being exploited for political ends. That was my impression of it. Yes.
01:20:03 Can I see if I can jog your memory? Mr. Menson was found on the street with very severe burns caused by an accelerant.
01:20:14 severe burns caused by an accelerant. Um it turned out after a failed uh investigation influenced by racism uh and a second investigation that he
01:20:26 uh and a second investigation that he had in fact been murdered and ultimately the murderers were convicted one in this country and the other in a groundbreaking trial in northern Cyprus.
01:20:37 groundbreaking trial in northern Cyprus. Does that ring any bells in general terms? Was do you know if this was took place in Hanky? It was in North London. Okay. Um Yes. Well, that's entirely
01:20:48 Okay. Um Yes. Well, that's entirely consistent with what I've said, but not really the way you were viewing it. You were viewing it simply as an anti police campaign. Well, in ter Yes, because I imagine that the inference was that the investigation
01:21:00 the inference was that the investigation into the Menson uh death was negligence on behalf of the police. At least that was the spin that was put on it by him to me
01:21:10 to me and subsequently found to be the case. Okay.
01:21:15 Okay. Steven murdered by racists investigation had many very serious failings and was tainted by institutional racism.
01:21:29 tainted by institutional racism. In a sense, these are embarrassments to the Metropolitan Police. But aren't they really better characterized as a woeful policing service that needed
01:21:41 a woeful policing service that needed improving? Well, I would contest that there certainly were improvements because the there were issues that were went wrong there, but to completely label the entire Metropolitan Police staff by its
01:21:54 entire Metropolitan Police staff by its own commissioner as being institutionally uh racist is an outrageous slur on the vast majority of police officers, hardworking, conscientious, and certainly weren't racist.
01:22:09 Can we see the last paragraph? Whilst there is no question of the Colin Roach Center being reopened, Met Metaf wants to involve himself with issues that in interest him and he's calling on XCRC
01:22:20 interest him and he's calling on XCRC members for support. So you are signaling that he may be uh getting a group together to uh support uh the
01:22:31 group together to uh support uh the Mensons and others who wish to seek police accountability. I think so. I think getting a group together is probably not it would be certain individuals um who would had previous experience at
01:22:43 um who would had previous experience at the Colin Roach Center in dealing with the the police complaints etc. That that's what I took from that to mean sorry no if no no that's it that's what I was going
01:22:54 no no that's it that's what I was going to say
01:22:55 to say and you were going to continue reporting on all of that to the best of your ability
01:22:59 ability if as long as Mark Metaf was talking to me about what he was doing. Yes, I was going to report on that. and no acceptance that police accountability campaigns
01:23:10 campaigns uh were entirely legitimate and there were indeed very serious police failings.
01:23:15 failings. I don't doubt that, but it wasn't my job to filter what was and wasn't relevant. Can we take that down now, please? Can we have from tab C262 MPS301844?
01:23:32 Uh this is a report dated the 1st of March 99. If we could have the text expanded.
01:23:41 expanded. Give you a moment to refresh your memory.
01:24:04 Okay. Yeah. So, this is a report on an elected politician from the Labour Party. Yes, it appears. Uh, and uh, it says, amongst other
01:24:16 Uh, and uh, it says, amongst other things, it was Fran who kept her then boyfriend informed on the movements of the BNP at the town hall and was instrumental in setting up an unsuccessful ambush on election night.
01:24:30 unsuccessful ambush on election night. What do you know about the unsuccessful ambush on election night? I don't know. I I don't even know um what election night that refers to. Again, this was I I can't remember where
01:24:43 Again, this was I I can't remember where I picked this. Obviously, with a connection to Metaf, it probably would have come from from Metaf in that uh respect, but you know, I don't know. Obviously, it would be significant if it was uh an ambush on the election night
01:24:55 was uh an ambush on the election night that she was elected to uh uh well elected uh parliamentary not parliamentary candidate for the council but or no she wasn't she a labor party
01:25:07 but or no she wasn't she a labor party member I don't know I don't know what that was but you see met was often prone to exaggeration and he had obviously I'm not doubting he knew this person but he did have a tendency to embellish their
01:25:19 did have a tendency to embellish their credentials at times but I I wasn't in a position to sort of dispute that or or argue it. I just wrote it as I was told. And so can I take it from that? You have no sense of what sort of ambush we are
01:25:33 no sense of what sort of ambush we are talking about? No. No, I don't know. No, I don't know. So it might have been an entirely lawful one.
01:25:39 one. It might have been entirely lawful. It might have been complete rubbish. Who knows? It came from the mouth of Mark Meov. And from your point of view, no uh restriction whatsoever about reporting
01:25:51 restriction whatsoever about reporting on an elected counselor from the Labour party.
01:25:53 party. No. Hoover it up and uh put it into the office.
01:25:57 office. Fran is still trying to pass on any information Ray. BNP activity, sponsors, etc. in her post in Hackne Deervoir being a favorite target seat in the past
01:26:08 being a favorite target seat in the past for the BNP and Vic Douly. Any assistance you can give us on what sort of information was being passed on? I don't know. No, I have no idea.
01:26:19 I don't know. No, I have no idea. To whom?
01:26:22 To whom? Again, no idea. For what purpose? I could speculate, but I have no idea. Uh, any feedback from managers about this report?
01:26:33 this report? No.
01:26:34 No. Could we take it down, please? From uh tab C266, MPS30's 1935.
01:26:45 Uh this is a report dated the 31st of March 1999. It's about the national civil rights movement. If we could have uh the first three paragraphs, please
01:26:58 uh the first three paragraphs, please give you a moment to absorb those.
01:27:36 Okay. Yeah. The second paragraph, first of all, Michael Mansfield, um, Kings Council's anti- police rhetoric.
01:27:47 anti- police rhetoric. Mhm.
01:27:48 Mhm. Uh, you were there, were you? Uh, I think I was, and looking at this, yes, I I must have been there. And what did Mr. Mansfield say uh that fell into your definition of anti-
01:27:59 fell into your definition of anti- police rhetoric? I can't remember his exact words, but he was a well-known character and you know particularly amongst police officers for being uh not particularly uh pro police
01:28:11 being uh not particularly uh pro police officers that was the general uh consensus on on him. I can't give specifics about what he said. to barrista who tended to act on the other
01:28:23 barrista who tended to act on the other side of litigation involving the police. Yes, pretty much so. Yeah. Uh would it be a fair characterization
01:28:34 Uh would it be a fair characterization of what Mr. Mansfield was saying to say it was focused criticism of police misconduct? Well, that may have been. I don't know. I can't recall what he said, but obviously that was that was my general
01:28:47 obviously that was that was my general impression of what he was saying. There was nothing new there. That was he said what I'd have expected him to say. Turning to the third paragraph. The
01:28:58 Turning to the third paragraph. The steer and the steering committee is expected ultimately to decide the direction of the movement. The look of despair on chief organizer Suresh Grover said it all. The hope of steering
01:29:09 said it all. The hope of steering anything smoothly looks remote. Can you help us with um the events which caused you to describe Mr. Grover in those terms.
01:29:21 terms. I I I can't remember the specifics of of this thing, but I think looking at this report,
01:29:26 report, um
01:29:28 um the National Civil Rights Movement, obviously Sesh Grover was at the head of that. But looking at what I've written here would be that,
01:29:40 here would be that, you know, again, you're getting a situation where a perfectly legitimate organization was potentially going to be um infiltrated, for one of a better
01:29:53 um infiltrated, for one of a better word, by extreme left-wing groups. And I think looking at that, it was my my perception that he looked quite um upset about that.
01:30:05 about that. That's all it was. Just my perception of him at that time. Fair to say this was an extremely well attended event, wasn't it? Yes. I mean, there's a lot of people there. It was an interesting thing.
01:30:17 there. It was an interesting thing. A limited number of volunteers there. I can't remember. Can't remember. Uh is what happened a fair summary of what happened that from the hundreds of
01:30:28 what happened that from the hundreds of people who ar who arrived a steering committee large steering committee of 60 uh was formed so that they could have a separate meeting to continue the debate
01:30:39 separate meeting to continue the debate in a smaller number. I think if if I've written that then yes that's that's what have happened. Yeah.
01:30:48 Can we have the last paragraph of this uh page, please?
01:30:56 In the long term, this group has a potential to publicly embarrass uh the police with its media friendly aura. Although keen to distance itself from violence and public disorder, it has and
01:31:09 violence and public disorder, it has and will continue to attract violent elements willing to use a publicity and media window to incite violence, particularly against the police. Can I be clear, please? The National
01:31:21 Can I be clear, please? The National Civil Rights Movement was an organization that was expressly nonviolent and against public disorder. Correct. Right. Yes. Correct. And its potential to publicly embarrass
01:31:34 And its potential to publicly embarrass the police? Uh, did that arise from its potential
01:31:39 potential accurately to identify police misconduct? Yes, I think so.
01:31:47 uh and that uh the violent uh elements uh were people that this organization would disown. Yes, I think so. Again, we're looking at
01:31:58 Yes, I think so. Again, we're looking at leftwing extreme leftwing influence.
01:44:39 recall uh what it was that caused you to describe Suresh Grover as running uh the movement in dictatorial fashion? I don't recognize that uh expression at
01:44:52 I don't recognize that uh expression at all. Well, again, this is a I haven't written this, but that's certainly I mean, I didn't know Sesh Grover. I'd met him, not met him, but I'd seen him in action in meetings, and I was certainly not describing as a dictatorial type of
01:45:04 not describing as a dictatorial type of person. He struck me as being quite a mildmannered person. So, I I don't know where that's come from. Can you help us with what you meant by
01:45:15 Can you help us with what you meant by white left-wing groups who are only too happy to be seen being politically correct?
01:45:26 It's in the second paragraph.
01:45:34 I'm thinking that that's just a whether the white groups or the leftwing general groups there. Um happy to be seen politically correct. Again, I don't
01:45:45 politically correct. Again, I don't recognize that. I don't recognize that phrase actually. I don't it's something I would have used, but I think there's been more the inference there being that they'd be uh I'm just happy to go along with that
01:45:57 I'm just happy to go along with that whatever line that it it was dictated by the their position on the NCRM, but I I wouldn't that's not a I wouldn't have used that politically correct. That's
01:46:08 used that politically correct. That's meaningless. Again, this would have been written up from
01:46:12 from written up from hand the handwritten notes from from me. Yes. and only too happy to be seen being politically correct is very cynical,
01:46:23 politically correct is very cynical, isn't it?
01:46:24 isn't it? It is. Yeah. I mean, I don't recognize that at all. Was in fact the position that these activists were appalled by the racist attacks and murders that there had been
01:46:36 attacks and murders that there had been and the failure to bring the perpetrators to justice. of course and a Paul that one of the reasons for the failure uh of to bring Steven
01:46:48 the failure uh of to bring Steven Lawrence's murderers to justice was because of institutional racism. That was the allegation. Yes. Well, it wasn't an allegation by this stage, was it? It was a finding of a public
01:46:58 public That was the finding. Yes. Yeah.
01:47:04 Is there a suggestion in this report that the far-left were being performative in their support? In what respect? Performative. Towing the line just to be politically
01:47:16 Towing the line just to be politically correct.
01:47:19 correct. What? Putting on a um a face that an acceptable face. Do you mean
01:47:25 mean being cynical? There's a cynical twist to this report, isn't there? Yeah. I think when you're when you talk about um left-wing uh groups going into
01:47:36 about um left-wing uh groups going into a movement like this, they're always vying for supremacy and looking to take it or influence it. So, they will go along with they'll see which way the the winds blowing and try and affect it that
01:47:48 winds blowing and try and affect it that way. So, yes, that's that's what is meant by that. Can you help us near the end of the report? While sounding laudable, there is little doubt that the hidden agenda is to further weaken black Asian
01:48:00 is to further weaken black Asian community trust in the police and to highlight their perceived weakness in dealing with uh racial crime. What was the basis for that?
01:48:11 crime. What was the basis for that? Again, this is this is not language I would use, but the sentiment essentially is that you know I agree with the sentiment there. Um yeah, the the aims of the organization is that these
01:48:25 of the organization is that these smaller groups that were being under being attacked or certainly under pressure from you know racial crime and that they weren't capable of
01:48:36 crime and that they weren't capable of um trusting the police in terms of I think the police were trying to go out of their way to say you know we we are changing you can come and speak to us and that was not to be accepted at all
01:48:47 and that was not to be accepted at all and I think the NCRM were going to fill that space effectively, thereby cutting out the police. Perceived weakness in dealing with
01:48:58 Perceived weakness in dealing with racial crime. As I mentioned a moment ago, this postdates the findings of the Steven Lawrence inquiry about the very serious failings in the investigation of
01:49:11 serious failings in the investigation of Steven's murder. What acceptance by this stage had there been that Steven's family, to put it mildly, had a point?
01:49:22 family, to put it mildly, had a point? I think they well they certainly did have a point that was accepted. I there's any question of that uh as as such. You know, their son had been murdered and he hadn't recently hadn't
01:49:33 murdered and he hadn't recently hadn't received the proper attention of the police and investigating. I don't think that was in dispute at all. Why is the word perceived weakness used then? I
01:49:45 word perceived weakness used then? I think in that well because you're looking at a general not not looking at the uh
01:49:50 the uh Steven Lawrence campaign specifically in that but I can look back to the time that I was in the Colin Roach Center where there was a lots of allegations about uh police misconduct that people
01:50:01 about uh police misconduct that people would me would tell me that people were coming in complaining of all that but of course there was no there weren't there was no trust in the police to deal with any of these issues.
01:50:13 any of these issues. Sir, would now be a convenient moment to take the afternoon break? Certainly. Um, how are we doing to finish this part of the evidence? Uh, we'll certainly finish this part of the evidence uh this afternoon, sir.
01:50:27 the evidence uh this afternoon, sir. Very well. 10 minutes. 10-minute break.
02:03:50 Yes. Thank you, sir. Could we have backup MPS301935,
02:03:56 please?
02:04:10 Uh we looked at this earlier. This is the uh report on the national civil rights movements uh meeting on Sunday the 28th of March 1999. Could we just go
02:04:22 the 28th of March 1999. Could we just go to the second paragraph of that uh please?
02:04:27 It's reported there that Stafford Scott's address consisted of a thinly veiled threat of civil unrest and public disorder in respect of race attacks and
02:04:38 disorder in respect of race attacks and the role played by him in the Broadwater Farm riots of 1985. His oratory was greeted with enthusiasm. Can you help us with what Mr. Scott
02:04:50 Can you help us with what Mr. Scott said?
02:04:51 said? I can't remember exactly what he said, but obviously he was a known figure and looking at that he was obviously referring to um his experience during the border water farm riots, but I don't
02:05:05 the border water farm riots, but I don't know what the specifics of what he said. Um
02:05:11 Um Mr. Scott's written evidence to this inquiry is strongly to deny uh that he threatened civil unrest or public
02:05:22 threatened civil unrest or public disorder
02:05:23 disorder and to to the effect that he has always gone out of his way not to do so. Uh uh might there have been a
02:05:35 Uh uh might there have been a sensitivity uh in your listening to him speak on this subject? A sensitivity based on uh a prejudiced approach to uh
02:05:48 uh a prejudiced approach to uh your concern that it was an attack on the police? No, I don't think that's the case. And if if he he says it's different, then that that's fine. I'm not disputing what he says. But that looking at that now
02:06:00 he says. But that looking at that now that was the my perception of it at the time.
02:06:05 Uh can we take that uh document down now please? And can we have up uh from B64526897?
02:06:23 Can we go to page two? Uh this uh is an authorization for deployment of undercover officers in the
02:06:34 deployment of undercover officers in the special duty section and the paragraph 1.1
02:06:40 1.1 refers to your deployment. Could we have paragraph 1.1 expanded? Give you a moment to absorb that.
02:07:06 Okay. Were you aware that um a system had been put in place to authorize SDS deployments? No.
02:07:18 No. Did you play any part whatsoever in the authorization of your deployment? No.
02:07:28 No. It says that the justifications are that from the inception, RA and AFA have been at the forefront of
02:07:39 RA and AFA have been at the forefront of public order situations primarily as a means of disrupting right-wing activity. public order. By this stage, was it still the case uh
02:07:50 By this stage, was it still the case uh that the streets were essentially quiet because the far right had been driven off them
02:07:57 off them in the sense that it comes across there? Yes. But say I I've never seen this report before
02:08:05 and we've had your evidence about the support of uh terrorist organizations. Did your managers consult you at all as to whether there had been any change in the position uh leading uh up to this
02:08:18 the position uh leading uh up to this assessment? No, they didn't. Thank you. Could we uh take that uh down, please? Could we uh have up from tab B45749473,
02:08:36 please?
02:08:42 page 14.
02:08:48 And if we could have that thing, it's a file note dated the 21st of March 2000. The bottom it bears um HN58, HN53,
02:09:01 The bottom it bears um HN58, HN53, null war, and Bernard Greeny's uh initials.
02:09:05 initials. And if we uh look at the first four paragraphs please.
02:09:17 This is said to be uh arising from a meeting between you, Sergeant Titty, Sergeant Beals and another uh which was
02:09:29 Sergeant Beals and another uh which was convened to discuss red action and the IWCA the leading personalities within the groups and current and future strategy.
02:09:43 groups and current and future strategy. Can we have a look at the second and third paragraphs uh in particular?
02:09:59 Yeah. Okay. uh and we get um the sense of what you've been telling us, namely that the right were off the streets and the battle lines
02:10:11 off the streets and the battle lines were becoming more about political campaigning. Yes.
02:10:19 Yes. And the third uh uh paragraph again uh paints a picture that the public order threat was much diminished. That's right. Yes.
02:10:31 That's right. Yes. Uh it then goes on uh to deal in paragraph four with a number of personalities and it identifies three people, two of whom we've ciphered and one of whom we're not naming at all as
02:10:44 one of whom we're not naming at all as worth uh further work. Can we say first of all
02:10:52 would this this dates from March the authorization we've just looked at dates from January. If you'd been asked in January about your deployment, would
02:11:03 January about your deployment, would your answers have been substantially different? I don't think they would have been. No. No.
02:11:09 No. And then at the bottom of the page, in relation to the uh individuals, could you help us as to why you thought that those two or three persons uh would be
02:11:23 those two or three persons uh would be worth further work? Let's
02:11:30 just
02:11:40 um well in both of those cases as I said before they are significant uh personnel in Red Action and similarly particularly in the case of Jamie who had uh very
02:11:53 in the case of Jamie who had uh very good contacts in Northern Ireland. land and again I'm coming back to it. This was a stage where there was no real idea of what dissident action on the mainland
02:12:05 of what dissident action on the mainland would be. So I thought these two people in particular were worth looking at. The bottom of the page, the last paragraph says, "The meeting was also very a very useful tool in bringing TS
02:12:18 very a very useful tool in bringing TS up to date on general matters and gossip relating to other squads. 20 hours a month of overtime caused a slight flutter. Could you explain
02:12:30 flutter. Could you explain what that was a reference to? No idea. And I mean the I I can imagine who's written this report because it's a similar tone in other um reports around
02:12:42 similar tone in other um reports around this time from the same person. So I don't know. It's it's very sort of frivolous in it the language and I don't know what that means in relation to the general matters and gossip relating to
02:12:54 general matters and gossip relating to other squads. I can only imagine it was something to do because I was going to be finishing in a year's time to give me an opportunity to decide where I was going to go. But I'm I'm speculating
02:13:05 going to go. But I'm I'm speculating there. And again, this is a question really for the author of this report. I suggest
02:13:10 suggest just to remind you of the date 21st of March 2000. This is very shortly before the end of your deployment. Oh, I see. Right. Okay. And that Well, that's I stand by that then. That's
02:13:22 that's I stand by that then. That's still a relevant sort of uh Well,
02:13:26 Well, the overtime is this a reference to the fact that the amount of overtime you were likely to um get post SDS was going to be a lot less.
02:13:38 to be a lot less. I think that's what it looks like. Yeah. But of course that the author of that is obviously obsessed with finance. certainly wasn't an issue with me. It would have no no option. Could we take that down now, please? Can we have up from tab B68526894,
02:13:52 please?
02:13:59 And to have page three, please.
02:14:06 And then if we could have that expanded. This is a branch note dated the 11th of April 2000
02:14:17 April 2000 uh to uh address the subject of the termination of uh your operation. I'll give you as long as you need to orientate yourself
02:14:28 long as you need to orientate yourself to the document, but uh I'm interested in paragraph three and four.
02:15:01 Okay. First of all, the assertion that it was after 18 months in AFA that you were invited to join Red Action, that's factually incorrect, isn't it? because
02:15:13 factually incorrect, isn't it? because we've seen the report that it was not until 1998 and the assertion that red action slavishly followed the stance of Shin Fain
02:15:25 Fain is that accurate? No, I mean is I have said previously uh yesterday and today that the red action follow the model by Shinfame but slavishly I mean again this is a whole
02:15:37 slavishly I mean again this is a whole language. I've not seen this be before. This says more about the the author of it rather than the subject matter, I would suggest. And so far as Pat Hayes is concerned, he
02:15:49 And so far as Pat Hayes is concerned, he was released as a result of the Good Friday Agreement, wasn't he? Correct. Yes. Um
02:15:58 in terms of the fourth paragraph which addresses uh public order it says during the past year Afro street activity has been low again. How accurate is that? Um
02:16:12 been low again. How accurate is that? Um I've been getting the impression it was for longer than that. Uh well certainly yes it probably was. it dwindled down but see it was low for that year but uh yes it was dwindling prior to that certainly
02:16:27 thank you I am uh going to move now if we take that down having been through chronologically uh your deployment ends in April 2000 I'm going
02:16:39 deployment ends in April 2000 I'm going to look at some specific uh topics the first thing I'd like to um explore with you is
02:16:49 you is your involvement with Brian Higgins. Yeah.
02:16:53 Yeah. Can you explain how you first met Mr. Higgins and what you were first interested in about him? I was introduced to uh Brian by Mark
02:17:07 I was introduced to uh Brian by Mark Metaf. I think he'd come along to the Colin Roach Center because he'd had a grievance, a long-standing grievance with UKAT, obviously the building
02:17:19 with UKAT, obviously the building workers union because at the time when I met him, I was a poor porting to be a building worker, albeit not unionized at all. Mark Meov introduced me to Brian
02:17:32 all. Mark Meov introduced me to Brian because obviously we had a similar in his opinion background. So that's when it happened. Well, that would have been 1995 sometimes. Quite early on. Yeah. So, you meet him quite early on.
02:17:44 Yeah. So, you meet him quite early on. And what interest are you taking in Mr. Higgins
02:17:48 Higgins at that stage? you know, I was expected to go to uh I was a building worker essentially and Mark Metco thought it was a good idea to go there because we
02:17:59 was a good idea to go there because we he wanted to show that the Colin Road senses supported uh this sort of trade union dispute u that he was having. So yeah, I was it was a difficult one to get out of being
02:18:11 was a difficult one to get out of being a building worker myself. But prior to that, the uh the Colrote Center had they'd often talk about union uh various people were involved in union matters
02:18:23 people were involved in union matters and I was constantly being asked I should join a union. I wasn't in a union obviously because it wasn't necessary and this was a constant sort of uh request which I wasn't keen on. There was no intelligence requirement for
02:18:35 was no intelligence requirement for that. I didn't want to do it. I didn't want to be involved in something else. It was a waste of time frankly. But it was only when I met Brian and uh went to a couple of his meetings um that he
02:18:47 a couple of his meetings um that he agreed yeah she should be involved really and then when he then I can't remember what the time frame is he became involved in the Republican forum that's when my radar went up and he was
02:19:00 that's when my radar went up and he was a person worth knowing and on the back of that of course the whole building I I did join the union really because it Brian suggested it was a good idea here. So, I had no compunctions about that.
02:19:13 So, I had no compunctions about that. Um, and I kept on side really with with the building work stuff really to keep on side with Brian because of the Republican forum. So, I'd just like to we we've been over
02:19:25 So, I'd just like to we we've been over the Republican forum stuff. So, I'd like to concentrate on the other things that you got involved with in association with Mr. Higgins. Uh, you became
02:19:37 with Mr. Higgins. Uh, you became involved in the building workers group. That's right. Yeah. Can you help us uh with what you did in relation to the building workers group?
02:19:48 relation to the building workers group? The the building workers group were very small. Um, it was obviously Brian ran it. He had um he had a long-standing issue with the union and and if I'm
02:20:00 issue with the union and and if I'm honest, I don't really understand the the origins of all, but the long and the short of it, as far as I understood, it was about lack of union, democracy, transparency,
02:20:11 transparency, etc., and a blacklisting type of thing. So, that was my involvement was just to go along with him. There was a couple of other uh building workers that he knew
02:20:22 other uh building workers that he knew which I think were involved in so um in the area of such working for the council there um and that was it. We had a meeting uh was it might have been once
02:20:34 a meeting uh was it might have been once a month or something like that in King's Cross which I attended. Anything discussed there that was relevant uh as far as the Colin Roach Center was concerned I reported back to to Metcar
02:20:45 concerned I reported back to to Metcar for the meeting on the back of that. Did you report to the SDS uh the blacklisting uh campaigning being conducted by the building workers group? I think again there was I was
02:20:58 I think again there was I was specifically told that there was no interest in in the uh trade union reporting. Um if I've referred to it in a uh in a report about uh the building workers
02:21:09 report about uh the building workers group then yes but there was no I knew there was no interest in it but I had to put something like in for context. If I didn't uh report it then I would have mentioned it in the meeting.
02:21:20 mentioned it in the meeting. When you say meeting you mean the SDS meeting SDS safe house meeting. Uh, if we could have up the UCPI PDF, please. And once we've got it, page three.
02:21:37 Uh, this is a letter dated the 20th of April, 1997. Uh,
02:21:46 Uh, sorry. In fact, I want page page three, I think, should be a letter headed building worker group. That's the one. Thank you. So, this is a letter
02:21:57 one. Thank you. So, this is a letter 21st of March 1997. It's signed by you in your cover identity on behalf of the BWG. It's to Helen Shaw and Deborah Coohl's
02:22:09 It's to Helen Shaw and Deborah Coohl's and it says in manuscript inquest about the building workers safety campaign. I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory of the content.
02:22:27 Okay. Yeah. This is campaigning on the subject of um deaths at work, isn't it? Yes, it is. Uh you said yesterday that you couldn't
02:22:38 Uh you said yesterday that you couldn't remember inquest. Uh does writing to Deborah Coohl's of Inquest jog your memory? Now, I didn't write that letter. Why does it bear your signature? Because
02:22:49 Why does it bear your signature? Because I mean that that's the letter itself was written by Metaf and obviously I just signed it. It was it was an issue I was again I was I had no real understanding or insight of um and I knew that in this
02:23:02 or insight of um and I knew that in this case Deborah Kohl's was a contact or an associate whatever you want to say um of the Colin Roach Center. Uh and if we uh go over the uh page
02:23:19 Uh and if we uh go over the uh page uh we have a letter which is from the London Hazard Center dated the 2nd of April 1997 to you uh as uh a representative of the
02:23:31 to you uh as uh a representative of the building worker group care care of the Colin Roach Center. uh you can scan the content but essentially again it's on the subject of deaths at work isn't it?
02:23:43 the subject of deaths at work isn't it? Yes it is. Yeah. So was this the sort of thing that you were doing on behalf of the BWG? I mean the the BWG and I think I had a I
02:23:54 I mean the the BWG and I think I had a I was given a position was I was was either chairman of it or something whatever there was essentially it was myself and Brian Higgins that was it. all of the information and all the writing to these various groups would
02:24:05 writing to these various groups would have been done with Brian but he didn't want to put his name to any of these sort of things. So me as the uh the hapless uh the chair of this committee uh it was I was getting this but these
02:24:17 uh it was I was getting this but these reports would have gone through the Colin Mo Center and and of course Mark Meov was on to this as well but it was that sort of tactic to spread out the responsibility for this thing but if I'm honest you know I was keeping on side
02:24:29 honest you know I was keeping on side with Brian I didn't really understand the ins and outs of all of this. Can you recall whether you were reporting this activity back to your managers? I don't think I would have done. I I may
02:24:41 I don't think I would have done. I I may have verbally mentioned that I've involved in in it in general terms, but again, this was just detailed information which I didn't really have much time for. Uh can you help us uh about the
02:24:53 Uh can you help us uh about the distinction between the builders building workers group and the building workers safety campaign in particular? Was the campaign a strand of the group's
02:25:05 Was the campaign a strand of the group's work or was it a separate endeavor? Again, you know, I I think it was a separate endeavor, a separate thing alto together, mainly because I think that
02:25:16 together, mainly because I think that Brian's involvement with all of this goes back to the 1970s. Um, and so was it was you way before I was involved, but my impression was they were separate things.
02:25:30 Can we move now to the Brian Higgins defense campaign and uh can you help us with how you became involved in that?
02:25:42 became involved in that? Again, I was myself and Brian Higgins and I was the you know the the chair of the building workers group and that's what I was seen
02:25:53 workers group and that's what I was seen as. Um, yeah, that's the Brian Higgins defense campaign as I remember it refers to his longunning dispute with I think certain individuals in in UKAT and the
02:26:06 certain individuals in in UKAT and the fact that he felt he'd been blacklisted. Could we take or stay within the PDF? Can we have what I think should be pages one and two which is a letter the letter of the 20th of April that we saw before.
02:26:18 of the 20th of April that we saw before. Thank you. This is um a letter from Mr. Higgins to you in your cover identity. And if we go to the very top of the page,
02:26:30 page, he's writing to you in the capac your the capacity of your being. It is stated there. Yeah. Secretary to the Brian Higgins defense
02:26:41 Secretary to the Brian Higgins defense and it says C. Does that mean committee or campaign? I would imagine it's campaign. So, were you the secretary of the Brian Higgins Defense Campaign?
02:26:53 Higgins Defense Campaign? Yes, nominally. Was there a difference between the Brian Higgins Defense Campaign and the Brian Higgins Defense Committee? No, not that I'm aware of. No.
02:27:05 No, not that I'm aware of. No. And what did you do for the BHDC? Basic. We can see these obviously Brian lived some way out of London. So he would contact me and give me these big
02:27:17 would contact me and give me these big long
02:27:19 long letters about the progress and all what was going on. I generally would have passed it on to Mark Meoff in that because I mean you can see how detailed and involve it is. I didn't even I
02:27:30 and involve it is. I didn't even I didn't begin to understand it and why did I I didn't need to report on it. So what was the point? It was as I saying I was staying on side with Brian not through the building work. I couldn't pick and choose not to be involved with
02:27:42 pick and choose not to be involved with this and expect to be involved in the Republican forum. Did you travel to Sheffield in connection with the BHDC? Yes, I did. I drove a van up there.
02:27:53 Yes, I did. I drove a van up there. And who went with you? Uh picked up Brian and I think Just be careful about privacy. Yes. Yes. And I'm I can't remember the names, but there were two other building workers.
02:28:04 workers. Uh you've described Mr. Higgins's longunning campaign with UKAT. Was there um a complaint made by Mr.
02:28:16 Was there um a complaint made by Mr. O'Brien to the London region of UKAT which name which result in in you being named as a witness in defense of Mr. Higgins?
02:28:27 Higgins? I don't know was I honestly I don't know.
02:28:29 know. Did you um have to give evidence either in writing or orally on behalf of Mr. Higgins? You know anything about that at all? No.
02:28:41 Was there any civil litigation in which Mr. Higgins was involved that you were aware of?
02:28:47 aware of? Not that I was aware of. No. Did you distribute flyers at Suk and at other union events in support of the defense campaign? Yes.
02:28:59 Yes. And uh
02:29:01 And uh I think I may have got your evidence already, but just to give you a a final opportunity if there's anything else you want to add. Your purpose
02:29:12 Your purpose in becoming involved in the BHDC was
02:29:17 was to get close to to Brian and then access obviously to the Republican forum. Can we take that down now, please?
02:29:30 Can you help us with um the industrial desk? Do you recall there being an industrial desk on C squad?
02:29:41 being an industrial desk on C squad? No, I don't. I know there had been, but I don't recall it when I was there. No. By the time you were there, uh who was dealing with industrial matters? I don't know. I don't know. I certainly
02:29:52 I don't know. I don't know. I certainly had no involvement if there was there. I had no involvement with Were you aware that there were people who were?
02:29:57 who were? No, I can honestly say I wasn't. No.
02:30:02 Are you able to help us with any in with whether information was being passed from special branch to industry
02:30:13 to industry about people in the building industry? No, I have absolutely no knowledge of that whatsoever.
02:30:22 Did you ever meet with any contact from industry to speak about intelligence that had been gathered by special branch?
02:30:32 branch? No, I did not. Do you know if anybody else was doing that?
02:30:36 that? No.
02:30:39 No. Do you know whether uh there were relationships between special branch and industry in relation to industrial
02:30:50 industry in relation to industrial militancy? At the time of my um no none none at all. I mean when I heard of this and obviously I I know that Francis has alluded to this but it just that stuff
02:31:03 alluded to this but it just that stuff sounded like the stuff from the 1970s. It certainly I I had no knowledge of that. I was completely unsighted if it was there at my time my time in special
02:31:14 was there at my time my time in special branch.
02:31:16 branch. Can can we move now to a separate topic? Uh we've seen lots of documents which refer to violence. Now I want to take you to some specific evidence
02:31:28 you to some specific evidence uh that we've we've had. First of all, can you recall a circumstance in which there was an an attack on a pub in
02:31:41 there was an an attack on a pub in Hoburn
02:31:42 Hoburn by AFA?
02:31:44 by AFA? Yes.
02:31:48 Can you help with your role in that? This was um I think this is one of my
02:31:59 This was um I think this is one of my first main deployments with AFA. Um and I was basically one of the foot soldiers were going down to it was regarding the um the flute band the that was being
02:32:12 um the flute band the that was being protected by combat 18. Um, we were going down to try and attack the the the bandsmen, but Combat 18 had
02:32:24 the the bandsmen, but Combat 18 had apparently gone into a pub just near on Hobburn somewhere. Um, and they were coralled in there and the pub itself was attacked. I saw that, but I wasn't directly involved in that specific
02:32:36 directly involved in that specific attack.
02:32:37 attack. Mr. Metav's evidence is that you instigated and led that attack. Is that true? That's total rubbish that you threw bricks despite being asked not to.
02:32:49 asked not to. Complete fabrication though. And that led to police corraling the people you were with? There was certainly we were coralled. Yeah. I mean once the the pub had
02:33:01 Yeah. I mean once the the pub had cleared or been cleared by police, we were held um I think held in the strand or something for quite a long time. Yeah.
02:33:11 Yeah. Can you recall another incident uh in which you were at an Irish social event and there was a drunken abusive man
02:33:22 and there was a drunken abusive man looking for a fight? No.
02:33:28 No. Mr. Metaf has given evidence that you assaulted a drunken abusive man who was looking for a fight at an Irish uh social uh such that he and others had to
02:33:40 social uh such that he and others had to intervene. No.
02:33:42 No. Is that true? No, it's not true. No. Was there an instance at a picket when a man sought to cross the picket line wielding a bicycle chain such that you
02:33:55 wielding a bicycle chain such that you interveneed to protect those that this man were threatening? No, I don't recall that at all. Mr. Metaf said gave evidence to the effect that you saved him and others
02:34:08 effect that you saved him and others from injury by this man and he is grateful to you for doing that. no recollection. Obviously, if that was an incident, then of course I'd remember it, but that's absolutely that's
02:34:19 it, but that's absolutely that's nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
02:34:23 Essa's evidence is that um you told her that you'd been involved in fights and came home with cuts and bruises. Is that
02:34:35 came home with cuts and bruises. Is that true?
02:34:36 true? On one occasion, yes. Going back to uh the incident with the drunken abusive man. This is a man who was standing on a table saying or
02:34:49 was standing on a table saying or singing the praises of the continuity IRA. Does that jog your memory? No.
02:34:55 No. Does he say where that happened? The Tutenshive is
02:35:01 No. No. No. I don't remember that at all. I know the Tutenhive pub because it was a pub that the Red Action met in, but no. And that evidence comes not just from Mr. Metaf, but also from Allison.
02:35:12 from Mr. Metaf, but also from Allison. No, I've got no knowledge of that at all. I've not Why would I want to deny that anyway? Not not true. Did you participate in gluing the locks of premises associated with the far
02:35:24 of premises associated with the far right?
02:35:25 right? That was a Colin Roach initiative and and yes, I I do I do remember that particular incident in company with others with one other. Was that Mr. Metaf? No, it wasn't. There was He wasn't
02:35:37 No, it wasn't. There was He wasn't there.
02:35:37 there. Was it with somebody we're able to name or
02:35:40 or uh No, I don't I have seen on reporting, but I'll write down. If you could write the name down, please.
02:36:12 Okay.
02:36:37 Thank you. I don't think I've got any further questions arising from that. We have one more thing I want to ask you arising from the evidence so far today, but it will require you seeing a
02:36:48 but it will require you seeing a photograph that's been produced during the course of the day. So, that will be shown to you and then I will ask you about it tomorrow. Okay. Uh, I'm now, so if if you're content for me to do so, going to move
02:36:59 content for me to do so, going to move on to a completely different topic. Yes.
02:37:04 Yes. This is the topic of your sexual deception of Allison. Okay.
02:37:10 Okay. You got to know Allison through CRC meetings and social events at the pub.
02:37:18 pub. Correct.
02:37:21 Correct. Uh you told uh people that you didn't drink drive. That's right. And that was because you said your father had been killed by a drunk driver.
02:37:32 driver. Possibly. But I I didn't drink drive anyway. Yeah. Uh and so you would be able to give lifts to people? Yes. Essentially. Yeah. In the late spring or early summer of
02:37:44 In the late spring or early summer of 1995, there came an occasion when you were dropping people off and uh you dropped her off last uh at her premises
02:37:55 dropped her off last uh at her premises in Hackne. Did I? I don't know.
02:38:01 I'm going to ask you some more questions about that occasion to see whether you recall
02:38:08 her evidence that on that occasion she asked you if you would uh if you smoked cannabis and wanted some. No, I don't remember that. We certainly
02:38:19 No, I don't remember that. We certainly did, but not on that occasion. No. uh and uh you uh went in to her flat
02:38:30 uh and uh you uh went in to her flat uh where you did smoke cannabis? I don't recall that. No, not at that stage.
02:38:38 Was there an occasion where you dropped her off last and were invited into her flat?
02:38:43 flat? I can't remember. I mean, I I'm not saying it never happened, but I dropped a lot of people off. Uh but I when it was I don't know. Well, I don't think I'd ever been into her flight until the
02:38:54 I'd ever been into her flight until the night of that particular party, whenever that was. I don't recall ever being in there prior to that. Her account, and I think you've watched her evidence, haven't you?
02:39:06 her evidence, haven't you? I have seen some of it. Yes. uh was that your sexual relationship began when she invited you into her flat. You talked, you smoked cannabis,
02:39:20 flat. You talked, you smoked cannabis, you drank uh whiskey, and had sex. That's not my recollection, though. What is your recollection of the circumstances leading up to your first
02:39:32 circumstances leading up to your first having sex? It was um again I'm not sure on the dates but I was invited to a party that that she'd organized at her house along with other people from the
02:39:43 house along with other people from the college mo center and it transpired later that I was I was sort of uh her friends knew that she wanted to uh sleep
02:39:55 friends knew that she wanted to uh sleep with me. So there was a party. It was contrived to get me there and meet her. And then once everyone had gone, we had sex.
02:40:06 we had sex. So it was I was, you know, it was it was a genuine surprise. It was a party I wasn't expecting. Uh first of all, you said her house, she
02:40:18 Uh first of all, you said her house, she owned a flat. Yeah, a house. Flat. Yeah, it's a flat. Secondly,
02:40:27 Secondly, what is your evidence as to precisely how you came to have sex? I think we're at this party. Um I say a
02:40:39 I think we're at this party. Um I say a lot of people there drinking, smoking and at the end I mean I was lived within walking distance of those premises and I
02:40:52 walking distance of those premises and I was the last person there and I think my what I found out later that her the other people had made a a tactical withdrawal leaving me with her and she
02:41:04 withdrawal leaving me with her and she made a move. wanted to stay the night.
02:41:09 Putting aside for the moment your differences of recollection about how you first came to have sex, she went on to give evidence uh that she asked if you'd like to do it again. Did she?
02:41:23 you'd like to do it again. Did she? Yes, she did. Yeah.
02:41:29 when she first made it plain to you that she was interested in you sexually.
02:41:41 that she was interested in you sexually. Why didn't you decline her advance? I was in the role of um a single man new to the area, new to this
02:41:52 man new to the area, new to this organization and of course you know you're invailing yourself of the uh making friends with people and under those circumstances yeah of course I was offered sex and I took it. I was a
02:42:05 offered sex and I took it. I was a single single fellow um and and I took that opportunity. Yeah. uh you were not following the SDS
02:42:16 uh you were not following the SDS guidance to avoid sexual activity if you could and only to have it as a last resort.
02:42:23 resort. I think if you Yeah, I think there's a slight difference here is that I was it was a surprise encounter on in that I didn't seek her out for that purpose. It was the other way around. Uh and so I had to make a decision. Do I sort of go
02:42:36 had to make a decision. Do I sort of go for it as a single boat or or not? and it was easier for me to say, "Yeah, okay." And I was happy to go along with that.
02:42:43 that. Did the fact that you were a serving police officer in the course of an undercover operation uh influence your thinking at all? No, not at all.
02:42:55 No, not at all. Did you give any consideration to whether Allison would have consented to sex if she'd known who you really were? No, I didn't. If you'd given that question some
02:43:06 If you'd given that question some consideration, is it right that she is likely not to have made the advance or not to have had sex with you?
02:43:14 you? Well, I think I think I've said in my statement originally that you probably not, but it just wasn't a consideration that I was given. As far as I was concerned, I was Mark Cassidy, a single bloke uh living in Hacknne. I believe
02:43:28 bloke uh living in Hacknne. I believe that.
02:43:28 that. Were you sexually attracted to her? I think on that that first occasion when Vinnie offered it. Yes, she was an attractive woman. Yeah, I wouldn't I wouldn't say that she
02:43:39 Yeah, I wouldn't I wouldn't say that she wasn't at all. No. And pause a moment, please. It is very important that this evidence is given clearly and without interruption and
02:43:52 clearly and without interruption and noises from the back prevent that from happening. So, please keep quiet. Sorry,
02:44:01 Sorry, Allison's evidence is that after the first occasion on which you had sex, at the next weekend that came up, you went for dinner together at an Indian
02:44:14 for dinner together at an Indian restaurant. Is that right? We may well have done. I don't remember. I certainly saw her again the following weekend. Yes. And uh she uh asked you about the subject of monogamy.
02:44:26 subject of monogamy. Well, I don't recall that. I know. Can you recall a conversation about monogamy?
02:44:31 monogamy? No.
02:44:32 No. Her evidence is that she made clear to you that that was what she wanted, a monogous relationship. That's not I don't recall that at all, but I do remember her saying that she
02:44:44 but I do remember her saying that she was actually seeing somebody else at the time that she was seeing me. So, that sort of contradicts my recollection of that. Now, I don't recall her mentioning monogamy at all.
02:44:57 recall her mentioning monogamy at all. You go on to have a sexual relationship with Allison until 2000. Correct.
02:45:04 Correct. Did you understand her to believe that that was a monogous relationship
02:45:12 with me? Yes.
02:45:14 Yes. Yes, I think so. Yeah. Uh what is your recollection of the boyfriend that she said she had at the time she first met you?
02:45:25 time she first met you? But who he was? I mean, I not I'm not too interested in who he was. What I'm interested in is uh whether your understanding is that uh that relationship came to an end.
02:45:36 that relationship came to an end. Yes, it was coming to an end and she was going to finish it.
02:45:43 So, you're understanding at some point in time,
02:45:47 in time, fairly early in the relationship, is that Allison is a woman who wanted a monogous relationship? I didn't really consider that. No, I I had no idea how how long this was going to go on for. But no, I have no recollection of her
02:45:59 But no, I have no recollection of her using that that particular uh phrase monogamous, but no, I don't. Again, it was a these were sort of early days and I had no expectation of going
02:46:10 days and I had no expectation of going anywhere.
02:46:11 anywhere. Let's not constrain this question to time then. Okay.
02:46:14 Okay. Was it your understanding that you were in an open relationship with her or was it your understanding that she thought she was in a monogous relationship? Yeah, I think I probably felt the same as well. Yeah.
02:46:25 as well. Yeah. Can we start with how she felt? Yes. Yes. If we're not taking time to Yes, of course. Yeah. And everything she said and did
02:46:38 And everything she said and did suggested that what she wanted was a loving, monogous relationship. Eventually. Yes. What do you mean by eventually? Well, okay, we're not talking about time and these are sort of the early days. It
02:46:50 and these are sort of the early days. It it wasn't. It was just a pure sexual relationship that that developed over time and then it became apparent that yes that was what what she wanted. By approximately when did you did it
02:47:02 By approximately when did you did it become apparent to you that that was what she wanted? Probably within the first year.
02:47:14 Unbin you said that you regarded as monogous as well. Can you help us with that?
02:47:20 that? Yeah, I mean my for my position obviously I had the whole issue about sex had sort of come quite early on in my deployment and
02:47:31 come quite early on in my deployment and you know I wasn't prepared for it in that sense but I did feel that if I was having a relationship with somebody then it would mean I'm not having to worry
02:47:43 it would mean I'm not having to worry about anybody else. So monogamy suited me because there would be no other approaches or anything like that at all. I was in a stable relationship with certainly suited me from my position as
02:47:55 certainly suited me from my position as a as a undercover officer suited your deployment. Yes. Yeah. Because of course the truth was it wasn't a monogous relationship was it?
02:48:06 wasn't a monogous relationship was it? You were married. Yes. But uh Mark Cassidy wasn't. And you were a married man with a family.
02:48:16 family. Yes. Mark Cassidy wasn't.
02:48:21 And so you were deceiving her not only about who you were, but also about your
02:48:32 about who you were, but also about your marital status. Of course, I'm in the business of deception.
02:48:40 uh you continued the sexual relationship. Why didn't you stop after that first sexual encounter?
02:48:53 sexual encounter? As I said in my statement at that time, it sort of uh looking around the flat. The place I had was was a bit of a tip
02:49:04 The place I had was was a bit of a tip and I was having problems with contacting uh contacts. I had no phone, etc., etc. Suddenly, there's a flat and an ideally located part of the area that
02:49:17 an ideally located part of the area that I was deployed in had a landline and it was a legitimate address. It was absolutely perfect. It was so yes, there was an attraction as far as I was concerned to the property and the
02:49:29 concerned to the property and the opportunities that involved and it was an opportunity that I took. We'll come to your move into Allison's home in due course.
02:49:45 move into Allison's home in due course. Before we get there, you've made the decision to keep on having sex with Allison, haven't you? Yes, I have. Yeah. And you were having regular sex with
02:49:56 And you were having regular sex with Allison and quite often staying over at her flat, weren't you? Yeah, about once a week, I suppose. Weekends, I think. Was it more than that?
02:50:08 Was it more than that? I I'm not disputing. She said it's more I my impression was because of the the nature of her employment, weekends were generally the the better time.
02:50:19 generally the the better time. So my question to you is after that first sexual encounter, why didn't you stop?
02:50:25 stop? Um I didn't want to. I didn't need to and I was quite happy to keep keep it going. I also noticed that I know it was said yesterday that my demeanor when I
02:50:38 said yesterday that my demeanor when I was at the Colin Roach Center came across as quite sirly and you know I don't know not aggressive but a bit unfriendly. I did notice that subsequent meetings
02:50:51 I did notice that subsequent meetings because the whole membership knew about this that I was received a lot more warmly because of it. So I think yeah it was I was trusted I think.
02:51:03 was I was trusted I think. Why do you say that you didn't need to? I didn't didn't you said you didn't you said you didn't want to stop and you didn't need to stop. Why why didn't you need to stop?
02:51:15 stop. Why why didn't you need to stop? Because again there was a lot of benefits there. I was obviously access to her. It was being in a relationship for me at that particular point in time was a good cover. It was very good
02:51:27 was a good cover. It was very good cover. Um, and that's why, you know, I I spotted an opportunity in those early encounters and exploited it.
02:51:39 and exploited it. So, there was no question of you following the guidance to make any relationship fleeting and disastrous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. No.
02:51:52 Allison's evidence is that the relationship developed to the point that within weeks you were staying there most nights sharing her bed.
02:52:04 nights sharing her bed. Do you dispute that? Well, I don't recall that. No, because as I say, until I actually moved in whenever that was, that was when I was staying longer than that. It would only have been weekends. That's my
02:52:16 have been weekends. That's my recollection. So if she's saying it's earlier then then yes I would dispute that
02:52:23 she was on the contraceptive pill and you use condoms initially
02:52:28 initially as I recall it. Yes. And then you stopped using condoms having told her that you had been tested for HIV.
02:52:39 for HIV. Did I I don't know. I don't recall saying that. No. I haven't been tested for HIV.
02:52:47 Did she inquire about your HIV status? No, not in my recollection. No, it was a time when it was a much more threatening life-threatening condition
02:52:59 threatening life-threatening condition than it is now, wasn't it? Absolutely. Yeah. Are you sure that she didn't want to ensure uh sexual health before abandoning the use of condoms? No, I don't recall that at all.
02:53:12 No, I don't recall that at all. If she'd asked you, would you have said you had been tested? No. Why would I do that? I think you've given evidence earlier to the effect there were very few barriers in what you should do to advance your
02:53:23 in what you should do to advance your employment. I mean, it's not just her sexual health. It's my own as well. I certainly wouldn't why would I lie over that? That's why I don't recall this conversation at all.
02:53:34 conversation at all. Did you raise the question of HIV with her?
02:53:37 her? No. So why why raise the question of your sexual health now? Because you've mentioned it in relation to hers, but I was always looking after myself, you know, I was I was very aware
02:53:52 myself, you know, I was I was very aware of my um my own health. I mean before I was deployed the SDS had given me um I had a course of injections for nothing
02:54:04 I had a course of injections for nothing to do with HIV but it was um hepatitis B that paid for by by the office and that was again I think that was in case I
02:54:15 was again I think that was in case I came into contact with anything nasty. So yeah, I was completely aware of that u in that perspective, but I was equally completely aware that I didn't have any
02:54:28 completely aware that I didn't have any diseases of that nature because I've been completely faithful to my wife for years.
02:54:35 What consideration did you give to the risk of fathering a child with uh Allison, including by accident? Well, it was always a concern.
02:54:47 Well, it was always a concern. Obviously, I certainly didn't want that. But I think I when she said that she was on the pill, Yeah. I trusted her. Um, and yeah, that was fine. You're a police officer.
02:54:59 You're a police officer. Uh-huh.
02:55:00 Uh-huh. Deceiving Allison as to who you are. Yes.
02:55:04 Yes. Even with contraception, it's not guaranteed that there won't be a pregnancy, is it?
02:55:13 is it? Okay. Yeah. Did you give any consideration to the possibility that you might find yourself in the situation of fathering a child in
02:55:25 in the situation of fathering a child in your undercover identity? No, I didn't. Did you give any thought uh to um what the consequences
02:55:37 what the consequences of getting your life entangled uh with Allison's might lead to
02:55:47 when it was I made it before I actually moved in with her. I'd spoken to some other SDS
02:55:59 with her. I'd spoken to some other SDS officers about moving in with with somebody u in in my particular field. um that went via securitous route to to
02:56:13 um that went via securitous route to to Bob Lambert. And the advice that came back to me was to just to be very careful and aware of the amount of time that it will take living with one of the
02:56:24 that it will take living with one of the activists. I'd
02:56:26 I'd like to locate that conversation in time, please. It was before I moved in with her which
02:56:38 It was before I moved in with her which I think we went to uh the Colin Road Center went to the Glastenbury Festival which I think is at the end of end of June
02:56:50 June uh because I was driving people up there who were working there um and I remember all the activists who I was taking up that were met at my house including or my flat um and It would have been after
02:57:03 my flat um and It would have been after that because my belongings and etc were still in that flat. Are we talking June 1995? Yes. So it would be and I think that that festival is usually the end of
02:57:14 that festival is usually the end of June. So it would have been possibly early July. If we have up B45749473
02:57:25 please.
02:57:33 And if we could uh just look at it's really the top half of the page. This is a summary about you. And under
02:57:46 This is a summary about you. And under the question address, it says Allison's address ground floor rear from the 25th of February 1996.
02:57:58 of February 1996. and then gives financial details. Rent deposit £126. Rent £3,300 peranom pole tax nil.
02:58:11 peranom pole tax nil. Was the 25th of February 1996 or a very a date very close to that the date that you actually fully moved in to
02:58:24 you actually fully moved in to Allison's? No, I I I'm pretty sure it was 95.
02:58:30 was 95. Allison's evidence is that it was within 2 days of this date, the 23rd of February, 1996.
02:58:41 I I thought it was earlier than that. And I should say this is there's a the reason I can remember that was because of that uh trip down to um uh
02:58:55 of that uh trip down to um uh Glastonbury. Was there in fact a a formal moment in which you moved into her flat or was it a case of your
02:59:07 a case of your staying with her so frequently that you were effectively all but living with her before then? No, I think the one of the issues with this which sort of brought it into focus was the fact that I was
02:59:19 it into focus was the fact that I was paying rent onto that flat in Osbor road and it was suggested because of you know the lack of communications etc to that
02:59:30 the lack of communications etc to that address. I'd spoken to Metaf um about it and he said well you know why are you paying rent there's people there and Allison being one of them who might you
02:59:41 Allison being one of them who might you know you're able to get an address somewhere else and pay far less rent so it seemed to be you know that was the sort of indication for it so there's no reason for me to move in with her and
02:59:52 reason for me to move in with her and keep paying rent on a on an address in Osbor road your original bedsit
03:00:00 bedsit was that on a 12 month teny. No, it wasn't even that. I think it was um they were monthly as I recall it. It was a it it was a very sort of um well
03:00:12 was a it it was a very sort of um well described fairly dodgy sort of arrangement uh with a landlord and a landlord's agent was living in a in a flat nearby. So I would might pay my rent weekly but
03:00:23 So I would might pay my rent weekly but I think with a month's um deposit and I needed to give a month or two's notice to move.
03:00:30 to move. So having seen these documents, coming back to the the trying to locate in time the conversation with your two colleagues about the wisdom of moving
03:00:44 about the wisdom of moving in Yeah.
03:00:45 in Yeah. with somebody in your undercover identity.
03:00:49 identity. Yeah.
03:00:50 Yeah. What's your best recollection of when that was?
03:00:53 that was? Well, it would have been before um in my recollection before July 1995.
03:01:01 I don't want you to identify the people you spoke to. Uh but I just want to be clear first of all whether you approached them or they
03:01:14 all whether you approached them or they were sent to speak to you. Initially I sounded out one of the individuals there
03:01:24 that I knew just for advice.
03:01:33 Did you say that you were contemplating moving into a flat with Allison?
03:01:45 with Allison? Not specifically Allison. I didn't mention that. I was activists was the way I described it. Did you communicate that you were
03:01:56 that you were intending to move into a property of someone with whom you were having a sexual relationship?
03:02:08 sexual relationship? Not specifically, no. But I think uh again by inference that's I think that reading between the lines that was what was understood if you're moving in with activists.
03:02:19 activists. Um yeah, it was a euphemism for that and I think that's how it was taken. Can you help us with um what made you
03:02:30 Can you help us with um what made you what makes you say it was understood to be a euphemism? Uh because again I mean sexual contacts uh were never spoken about openly within the SDS. Um but I think in this
03:02:45 the SDS. Um but I think in this particular instance um the inference was given the the you know the history and and other people as it's transpired uh have been in this
03:02:56 it's transpired uh have been in this position uh were aware that if you're living with activists as I had described it then the chances are yeah there will be a sexual element to that. Um but at
03:03:08 be a sexual element to that. Um but at the time at that time I just left it really as being activists. So I was in a 24hour 7 day a week type of arrangement.
03:03:21 Did you speak to DI Lambert? Not directly about this. No, but the people that I'd spoken to had spoken to him
03:03:36 in the initial time that you were in a relationship with Allison up to the end of the summer of 1995. Is it right that
03:03:50 of the summer of 1995. Is it right that uh she had a lodger? Uh yes, it was. Yeah. A friend of hers. Yeah. a colleague. Yes. But then that colleague left.
03:04:02 But then that colleague left. Yes.
03:04:04 Yes. And a very brief period of time in which that colleague's boyfriend uh stayed as well.
03:04:12 well. That's correct. Yeah.
03:04:16 But after she had gone in the at the end of the summer of 1995, uh it was only you and her using the
03:04:27 uh it was only you and her using the flat.
03:04:28 flat. Correct.
03:04:29 Correct. And that position didn't change for the rest of your deployment. Yes.
03:04:39 management run checks on UCO's accommodation, don't they? Um, well, I don't know, but you you certainly have to declare where they are. I don't know what checks they would
03:04:51 are. I don't know what checks they would do. No. And so when did you declare to your managers that you had moved in with Allison? When I moved in, actually moved in. So that would have been the summer of 95.
03:05:03 that would have been the summer of 95. So why does the document we've got up on the screen say the 25th of February 96? Absolutely no idea. I can't explain that.
03:05:11 that. Could we take that document down now please?
03:05:16 So when you declare
03:05:20 declare the change of address who you did you declare it to? I don't know who it was but I think it it would have been either the one of the DIs or one of the the DS's.
03:05:32 DIs or one of the the DS's. I can't remember who it was specifically, but obviously they'd have to update the my contact details.
03:05:40 So, can we assume that you having told at least one of them that they would have told others and your managers within the SDS would all have known that you were moving? Yes. Yeah, that's a fair assumption.
03:05:53 Yes. Yeah, that's a fair assumption. And from your experience of being in the back office and from going through the process of preparing for a deployment yourself and speaking to others, is it your evidence you have no idea whether
03:06:05 your evidence you have no idea whether or not managers ran any checks at all on your accommodation? I didn't know. No, I think possibly the initial ones they to make sure it was suitable, you know,
03:06:16 to make sure it was suitable, you know, when you first went out, but thereafter no, I wasn't aware that checks were done.
03:06:22 done. Did your managers make any checks on Allison's flat? I don't know.
03:06:33 You said that you want you didn't want to stop uh the relationship. Uh was that because from your point of
03:06:44 Uh was that because from your point of view it offered a a number of both personal and professional advantages? I'm not sure what the personal advantages were. Certainly professional
03:06:56 advantages were. Certainly professional advantages. Most definitely. Yeah.
03:07:03 Allison's flat, it is right to say, did have a landline telephone. It certainly did. Yeah. Your Duff address, your original Duff address had a phone in the premises, didn't it?
03:07:15 had a phone in the premises, didn't it? Uh, it had a a pay phone in the lobby of Bedsit. That pay phone was only taking you could make calls out, but it wouldn't receive calls.
03:07:27 wouldn't receive calls. So, you were able to call the CRC if you wanted to. Yes. But they couldn't find me back. And there was an activist uh Mr. Metaf has said who lived very close to that
03:07:38 has said who lived very close to that address.
03:07:42 Sorry, Mr. Metaf said that somebody there was an activist who lived just across the road from you. Oh, did he? Okay. I I didn't know that. And that and on occasion he got that person to to contact you.
03:07:53 person to to contact you. He may well have done. So there were means of contacting you at at your original Betsy. Yes. I mean, but when I first went or
03:08:04 Yes. I mean, but when I first went or first deployed, I got involved with a couple of groups, anarchist type groups initially, and they had tried to contact me. They knew what my address was
03:08:15 me. They knew what my address was basically to see that I was a real person. And one of the the BS would he said, "Oh, there's no phone number here. Can I come and see you?" And of course, I can't say to him, "Well, you know, I'll come around at such and such a time
03:08:27 I'll come around at such and such a time when I'm in from work. You've got to be available." or it was sometime in the evening or whatever and he'd come round a number of times, knocked on this on the main door uh and apparently pushed a
03:08:40 the main door uh and apparently pushed a note twice by certainly on the second occasion I got a note shoved under my door by one of the residents to say that he'd called um and could I contact him again. So yes, there were issues with
03:08:52 again. So yes, there were issues with that and I think Metaf had similar sort of issues. He wasn't he couldn't be sure that I was actually living there. Whereas the fact of it was yes, you could put a note through there into the
03:09:03 could put a note through there into the main lobby. Whether I'd actually see it or get it was, you know, it wasn't uh guaranteed. How much of an issue was communications to you at the time?
03:09:14 to you at the time? It was a it was a big issue. Yeah. Uh is it right that Mr. Metaf suggested that you move in with uh a male activist
03:09:25 that you move in with uh a male activist to save rent and to be more contactable. No, I don't recall him saying that. He did say to me though he he did offer, you know, if I was stuck to come around
03:09:36 you know, if I was stuck to come around to his place, but that was the last thing I wanted. I don't remember him suggesting another male activist. No. In any circumstances whatsoever. Not that I can recall. that
03:09:50 Not that I can recall. that if you had needed better communications in 1995
03:09:57 in 1995 to further your operation, there were a number of steps that you could have taken to do that. Aren't there a number of alternative solutions to that?
03:10:08 of alternative solutions to that? Rent a very expensive flat potentially with a landline. uh it just wasn't credible of the type of person that I was purporting to be. Um so no, it
03:10:20 was purporting to be. Um so no, it wasn't practicable at the time and as I say when I met Allison, here was something completely readymade and it was an opportunity that I wasn't going to squander. You could simply say to
03:10:31 to squander. You could simply say to people, you are out at work a lot, leave me a note or if you want to come and see me, I'll be around at such and such a time or I'll be popping into um the CRC
03:10:42 time or I'll be popping into um the CRC on such and such. I could do, but it's not credible. Remember, this is not um the I was targeted against an individual in in a community. It wasn't a big organization.
03:10:54 community. It wasn't a big organization. So, I was actually living amongst these people. We're talking a few hundred yards from individuals who I hadn't met at that stage. Uh so yeah, it wasn't I couldn't just rent a flat miles away and or or say to
03:11:07 rent a flat miles away and or or say to them, could you pop around when I'm home from work? Didn't work like that. Well, you were a builder in the 1990s. You couldn't afford your own landline. People would expect a builder in the
03:11:18 People would expect a builder in the 1990s to be living in a bed suit, wouldn't they? They would expect that. Yes, of course. But also some of the builders in the early 1990s had great big mobile phones.
03:11:30 early 1990s had great big mobile phones. I certainly wasn't didn't have the means in my legend to have that sort of contactability. And it was important to be to remain credible. You had to be accessible. Uh if you weren't able to think up any
03:11:44 Uh if you weren't able to think up any other way of doing it, you could simply have spent a lot of time in your duff address, couldn't you? It's still inaccessible.
03:11:55 on my own. It just it just wasn't feasible to stay at that duff address. Why not?
03:11:59 Why not? Because, you know, you can't again you need to be accessible with people. If I'm in and out, you know, going to work or whatever, people need to get to me. Metaf, you didn't really have a proper
03:12:10 Metaf, you didn't really have a proper job. Shoving a note through the door at that stage just wasn't an option. You spent a great deal of time with Allison, didn't you? I did.
03:12:19 I did. You could have done you could have spent a great deal of time in your bedsit instead, couldn't you? Well, why would I do that? Because Allison and the setup she had had everything I wanted, as far as I could
03:12:30 everything I wanted, as far as I could see, for a longer term use to avoid a deceitful sexual relationship. I wasn't interested in avoiding a deceitful sexual relationship.
03:12:46 Could we now look at B45 749
03:12:53 749 473
03:13:10 page 12 Please.
03:13:16 This uh page has a diagram top left with underneath it Allison's address. Then we've redacted a map of the area of
03:13:27 we've redacted a map of the area of Allison's address. Says it's a ground floor rear flat and it has an emergency contact for Mark Cassidy.
03:13:39 contact for Mark Cassidy. mobile and numerical. Can we start first of all with the mobile?
03:13:49 mobile? Can we take it from that that you had a mobile phone by the time this document was created? What? What? I don't know when this document was created. When was it? That is going to be my question of you.
03:14:02 That is going to be my question of you. When was this? That wouldn't have been document created. I would say 96. See that? That's roughly the time when I have got hold of a mobile phone. 96,
03:14:12 96, I think. So, 1996. Yeah. Numerical pager. When did you have a pager?
03:14:17 pager? Why did I have one? When did you have a pager? I bought that one when I was at um uh I was still in Oswald Destin. That would have been sort of early 95. The reason
03:14:29 have been sort of early 95. The reason for that being that obviously I couldn't afford a mobile phone. Met was moaning that he he can't get hold of you when he needs to. Um, and so I bought this thing and it was essentially just like the
03:14:41 and it was essentially just like the thing that doctors have. You you cost about a pound or whatever it was to make this a bleeping noise. Uh, and that was it. I think I think it gave did it give a contact number or something. He
03:14:52 a contact number or something. He couldn't and he moaned the fact I can't leave a message. I can't remember how it how the thing worked, but that was a way of
03:14:59 of So you did in fact have a means of him at the time, but he complained that it's this is no good. if I want to leave you a message, blah blah blah. So, yeah, it was I was trying it because it was the
03:15:11 was I was trying it because it was the next thing, the best thing up from nothing.
03:15:14 nothing. Who drew the diagram of Allison's address?
03:15:17 address? I I don't know, but I mean, from the detail, it must have I must have done it. Um, but I I don't remember doing that, but certainly from that the detail given there, it must have been myself.
03:15:31 given there, it must have been myself. The electronic file in which this was found is dated the 5th of August 1997. Doesn't necessarily mean this particular document was generated then. But can you
03:15:44 document was generated then. But can you help us? Is it likely to have been generated
03:15:47 generated in August 97 or at some earlier time? I would say at some earlier time because again that numerical pager I had that for a couple of months I think that was always 95.
03:16:00 always 95. Could we expand the uh diagram please?
03:16:10 There was a front door, an internal door to the flat as marked, wasn't there? Uh, let me just orientate myself.
03:16:25 Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Uh if this is uh produced after you've got a mobile phone and therefore 96 onwards by this stage it is just you and
03:16:39 onwards by this stage it is just you and Allison sharing the flat isn't it? It would have been. Yes. Uh room one. That was the living room, wasn't it? Correct.
03:16:50 Correct. Could we have up 37912, please?
03:17:02 Is that the living room? That is the living room. Could we take that down now, please?
03:17:12 Sorry. Could we have now back up the plan 749473 page 12?
03:17:49 If we could have the diagram expanded again.
03:17:54 Room two, that was the bedroom you shared with Allison. That's correct. Yes. Bathroom self-explanatory. Room three, was that a small store room on study?
03:18:06 on study? Yes. That's where the previous uh tenant had been staying. Yes. But not by the time you drew this. Uh, no.
03:18:17 no. Communal kitchen. That was where the kitchen was, wasn't it? Uh, yes, it was. Wasn't a communal kitchen, though, was it?
03:18:23 it? No. I I don't remember writing this. Uh, that's not my writing, but it certainly wasn't a communal kitchen. Why doesn't it say living room instead
03:18:34 Why doesn't it say living room instead of and say room one instead? I can't explain that. I don't know. Whose writing is it? I don't know.
03:18:42 Uh this uh diagram does not represent the actuality, does it? I don't know what you mean.
03:18:53 I don't know what you mean. It is not a true and honest um depiction of the property. If it was, it wouldn't say communal kitchen and it would say living room instead of room one and study store room instead of room three.
03:19:06 study store room instead of room three. Well, very possibly, but the the layout is um accurate, but no, I mean the the language used there. No, that's
03:19:17 language used there. No, that's semantics, isn't it? Well, it's not semantics, is it? Somebody is trying to present this diagram as a depiction of um a collection of bedsits when in fact it
03:19:28 collection of bedsits when in fact it was a two-bedroom flat that you shared exclusively with Allison. Absolutely right. I would not dispute that at all. Ah, so in drawing this diagram in this way,
03:19:40 so in drawing this diagram in this way, somebody is trying to deceive somebody else, aren't they? In in that respect, yes. But why? There's no secret I was staying there with her. It wasn't a bed sit at all.
03:19:51 with her. It wasn't a bed sit at all. Well, what I would like to know is who is deceiving who? I have no idea. I don't know. Are you deceiving your managers as to the nature of the premises that you are
03:20:03 the nature of the premises that you are staying in? I wouldn't say that. No, I was obviously they didn't know of my sexual relationship, but they knew the place that I was staying in. Yes. With Allison.
03:20:14 With Allison. With Allison. Are your managers trying to ensure there is no paper trail which would show that they knew that you were living in a flat
03:20:26 they knew that you were living in a flat with Allison? I don't know.
03:20:31 So would that be an appropriate moment to adjourn? Certainly. Um my understanding is that um we are making sufficient progress to be reasonably confident of finishing
03:20:42 be reasonably confident of finishing tomorrow.
03:20:43 tomorrow. We are sir. Yes. Good.
03:20:48 Until 10:30 tomorrow. I'm sorry. Until 10:00 tomorrow. Wrong time.