Mark Jenner (HN15) begins giving evidence about his deployment as an undercover officer. He describes his recruitment to the SDS, initial deployment into the Colin Roach Center, and the development of his relationship with Alison. Jenner admits he was told sexual relationships were 'inevitable' before deployment but didn't believe it would happen to him. He discusses DI Bob Lambert's knowledge of his cohabitation, the creation of a floor plan diagram that deliberately misrepresented his living arrangements, and how he concealed the relationship from some managers while others knew through inference.
00:36:46 Good morning everybody. Today's proceedings will be u broadcast on the live link but only after 10 minutes have elapsed. Uh
00:36:57 only after 10 minutes have elapsed. Uh those with mobile devices may use them but only to report what they hear in the hearing room after 10 minutes have elapsed. Uh they may not be used for recording or photography. Now I say one
00:37:09 recording or photography. Now I say one thing about this week's uh hearings. Uh we will hear one witness only. Uh we will hear him uh tomorrow and Wednesday. If it goes into a fourth day, Thursday,
00:37:21 If it goes into a fourth day, Thursday, for reasons that I will explain briefly in a moment, we will sit on Thursday afternoon rather than Thursday morning. The reason is simply that I have to attend with my wife a consultation with
00:37:32 attend with my wife a consultation with her neurosurgeon which is of great importance to her and I must be with her then. My apologies to all for inconvenience that that may cause you. Yes.
00:37:48 I do so sincerely and truly I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give
00:37:59 that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth shall be the truth the whole truth the whole truth and nothing and nothing but the truth
00:38:08 thank you sir could you give us your full name please uh Mark Steven Jenner uh you have provided a witness witness statement to the inquiry dated the 13th of October 2022.
00:38:21 of October 2022. Are the contents of that witness statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? Yes, they are. Uh can I start with your recruitment to the SDS?
00:38:32 the SDS? Why did you initially reject the chance to join the SDS? I was enjoying the job that I was doing and I didn't want to leave it.
00:38:43 and I didn't want to leave it. uh when you were uh being uh selected for the SDS, did any part of the selection process involve questions being put to you about how you would
00:38:54 being put to you about how you would deal with hypothetical scenarios? I don't recall that. No. Uh,
00:39:02 Uh, you have told us in your witness statement about DCI Edmonson and DI Lambert's visit to your and your then
00:39:13 Lambert's visit to your and your then wife's home. and you wrote, "I do not think I or s realized just how great the period of extraction
00:39:25 extraction from our normal lives would be or the impact this would have on us. It's is it right that one of the reasons that in your case the periods of extraction from
00:39:38 your case the periods of extraction from your normal life were so great was the fact that you had formed an intimate relationship with Allison and lived with her.
00:39:48 her. No, it is not. Why not?
00:39:51 Why not? The period of extraction at that that time was because I was involved in a lot of groups. So I had to make a a decent backstory stick in the early days.
00:40:04 backstory stick in the early days. Although I was with Allison laterally, there was a lot of meetings, a lot of people that I met uh which took an awful lot of time. You can't just dip into these scenarios without having a
00:40:17 these scenarios without having a background and living in that community, which is what I did. I hadn't appreciated that at the time. We'll come back in due course then to the detail of
00:40:28 back in due course then to the detail of your relationship with Allison and the impact that had on your your life. But for present purposes, can I move now to your time in the back office?
00:40:39 your time in the back office? Uh you tell us that you met John Dyn in a pub whilst in the back office. Uh can I ask you to help us with whether or not
00:40:50 I ask you to help us with whether or not there was any mention of sexual relationships? uh during that conversation? No, there was not. Did he speak at all about the
00:41:03 Did he speak at all about the possibility that you might get involved in sexual activity undercover? No, he did not. Did he speak to you at all about Helen Steel?
00:41:12 Steel? No, he did not. Did he speak to you at all about himself having got involved in a sexual relationship? No, he did not. Did he speak to you at all about having a second cover
00:41:25 all about having a second cover identity?
00:41:26 identity? No, he did not. Was it suggested to you by him or anybody else that it might be a good idea to have a second cover identity? No.
00:41:35 No. Did he speak to you about sharing accommodation with activists? No, he didn't do that either. What did he speak about? I'd never met the man before. It was uh
00:41:46 I'd never met the man before. It was uh DI Lambert who suggested that I go and speak to him uh as a he was a respected uh ex SDS officer. Um and I at the time
00:41:58 uh ex SDS officer. Um and I at the time I can't recall exactly what date it was but I wasn't sure exactly which group I was going to. So, it was just really to get it from the horse's mouth that wasn't Di Lambeath Lambert to see what
00:42:11 wasn't Di Lambeath Lambert to see what life in the SDS would be like and how I might fit into it in very general terms, but as I say, I'd never met the man before.
00:42:21 before. We understand that you also spoke to Mr. Kohl's,
00:42:26 Kohl's, Andrew [clears throat] Kohl's. Yes.
00:42:28 Yes. Uh, and that according to your witness statement, that conversation did uh cover uh sexual activity undercover. Yes, as I recall it. Yeah. Can you tell us what you recall him
00:42:40 Can you tell us what you recall him saying on that subject? I I I can't remember the details of it, but it it was in a general I'd known him before SDS. Um and he at that time I think it was before my actual deployment
00:42:53 think it was before my actual deployment when I was in the back office he was a senior SDS in terms of longevity. He was warning about the drugs,
00:43:04 warning about the drugs, sex and all of these sorts of things which of course in my position in the back office then yeah okay not really appreciating that that was
00:43:16 not really appreciating that that was the reality and and and and really until I got involved fully as an undercover officer I I didn't appreciate it. What did he say about drugs?
00:43:27 What did he say about drugs? He said that drugs were inevitable. This is I'm paraphrasing here. Uh we're were in inevitability and you had to be very careful because you could potentially be
00:43:39 careful because you could potentially be not in control of your faculties. Um that was it. It was a warning really. At that stage, had you ever taken cannabis?
00:43:47 cannabis? No.
00:43:48 No. Did you do anything to prepare yourself for the inevitability of taking drugs? No, I didn't. How how would you do that? I didn't know. Uh what did he say on the
00:43:59 I didn't know. Uh what did he say on the topic of sexual activity? Obviously you're a single person and you'd come into contact with, you know, there' be female advances and you had to
00:44:10 there' be female advances and you had to deal with them. Um he didn't specify how you would deal with them, but it was an inevitability that you would find yourself in a situation like that. Again, I didn't really appreciate the
00:44:22 Again, I didn't really appreciate the the full implications of that at the time. Are you sure he talked about female advances?
00:44:30 No, I I can't I can't say for sure, but it was obviously you're in a situation with a female. It was no in my recollection, there was no
00:44:41 recollection, there was no mention of making advances to females in order to facilitate, you know, a sexual liaison. Um, but that's how I remembered it to be.
00:44:53 it to be. You use the verb warning um when you first answered my question about sexual activity. Was it phrased as something bad? No, I don't think it was. I say warning,
00:45:05 No, I don't think it was. I say warning, you know, be be very aware of it. It wasn't that at all. It was this is something you need to be aware of. Was it preparing you for an expectation
00:45:18 Was it preparing you for an expectation that you would um be involved in sex and drugs whilst undercover? I don't
00:45:25 I don't preparation. Yes, probably. But in the sort of very lightest sense, not that it is absolutely inevitable, but there's a high likelihood that you will come into contact with both of those things.
00:45:36 contact with both of those things. Was anything said about whether you should or shouldn't do it? No.
00:45:43 So I'm getting the impression um part and it would be part and parcel of your deployment. That's as I understood it. Yeah.
00:45:54 Did he say anything about his own sexual activity whilst deployed? No.
00:46:03 Why didn't you think you were going to be affected at that time? because I wasn't a fully immersed SDS officer. Uh what were your reflections when you were
00:46:16 what were your reflections when you were effectively being told that your deployment might involve your taking uh control substances? Well, I mean I think cannabis is is it's
00:46:27 Well, I mean I think cannabis is is it's inevitability in moving in those circles. I thought that's you know that's not not a problem. Anything more than that would be easy to resist. I wasn't interested in that because I
00:46:38 wasn't interested in that because I didn't know having had no experience of that other drugs previously. Um I think I didn't know how I'd react and I was always beware of that. So that that was useful advice. Yeah.
00:46:49 that was useful advice. Yeah. And sex
00:46:51 And sex to be
00:46:53 to be what was the question again what your what were your reflections in the light of the conversation you'd had with
00:47:03 had with Yeah. at that time as say because I wasn't actually deployed as as a fullyfledged offers. I thought, well, okay, well, it's that's surely I'm not
00:47:14 okay, well, it's that's surely I'm not going to that's not going to affect me. I won't be get involved in that. It just didn't seem how I would imagine it to pan out.
00:47:22 pan out. And why did you think that? Because it I thought it was it was just something that just nobody was talking about and I thought, well, surely you'd be able to avoid it. But that was it.
00:47:33 be able to avoid it. But that was it. That was all in my naivity. That's what I thought at the time.
00:47:39 Did you think if it happened it would be a good thing or a bad thing? I didn't think either of those things. If it happened, it happened. Uh, and obviously tried to avoid it. That's what
00:47:50 obviously tried to avoid it. That's what I thought at that particular time. Yes. I'm going to ask for a paragraph of your witness statement to be brought up. It's document number 35283
00:48:01 document number 35283 at page 12. Paragraph 28, please.
00:48:11 [snorts] [clears throat]
00:48:27 [clears throat]
00:48:35 Uh in this paragraph of your witness statement, you deal with the document that is known as a tradecraftraft manual and in particular the guidance within
00:48:46 and in particular the guidance within that about sexual relationships. Uh you will see that it sets out at the top of the paragraph uh the key passage from that guidance. and you stated that
00:48:57 from that guidance. and you stated that you remember reading that or a similar version whilst you were in the back office.
00:49:06 office. You then go on uh to say uh that I interpreted the guidance by making decisions for myself, assessing the
00:49:17 decisions for myself, assessing the risks of getting involved in something or with someone against get not getting involved. I felt that if getting involved was the only way to maintain my
00:49:30 involved was the only way to maintain my cover role and enable me to continue to provide information on my targets then I was prepared to do so. Can you help us uh with when you went
00:49:44 Can you help us uh with when you went through that thought process? That would have been after I deployed. Um I mean know this statement is made years later and I think on reflection
00:49:55 years later and I think on reflection that's that is the process that I I went through recalling the guidelines such as they were and the steps I took um later when I had the relationship with
00:50:07 when I had the relationship with Allison.
00:50:08 Allison. Can I be clear then when you are in the back office and you read this guidance what do you think? I didn't really think anything. It was
00:50:19 I didn't really think anything. It was these were general guidelines. Um, and it was all covering all bases essentially. And you know, I thought, well, okay,
00:50:30 well, okay, it just seems to be very sort of cut and clear, you know, and and very prescriptive, but it didn't really I didn't really pay much attention. It wasn't certainly it was a very general
00:50:42 wasn't certainly it was a very general guidelines and something to be aware of and that was it. Did you discuss this guidance with any other officer before you deployed? [clears throat]
00:50:53 [clears throat] I had the only time I would have remembering that [clears throat] because I only saw the guidelines when I was in the back office. So it would be with either of the officers that I overlap
00:51:06 either of the officers that I overlap with in they were subsequently deployed in the field. Yeah. But it was just as a point, you know, look at there's something about sex and all of that which is always a something that attract attention but you know we
00:51:18 that attract attention but you know we just sort of noted and you know it was nothing special but yeah we spoke about it and that was it. In what terms did you speak about it? I can't remember. It was just it was it
00:51:29 I can't remember. It was just it was it was something that I don't think any of us or whoever I was I was spoken to speaking to at the time could really you know bring to life. It was just a it was a a word in a statement in a
00:51:41 was a a word in a statement in a guidelines be aware of it then yeah whatever same there's no thought really behind it's quite a significant thing isn't it to have sex with somebody in a false
00:51:52 to have sex with somebody in a false identity
00:51:55 identity well you may say that yes with benefit of hindsight it was necessary we'll come come back to that later but on the question of
00:52:07 on the question of what you might have to do undercover. Did it not strike you as quite startling that [clears throat] you might have to have sex with a member of the public in your undercover identity?
00:52:19 your undercover identity? It wasn't because I think when I knew the area that I was going to be deployed in, that wasn't uh there were other things that concern me more uh not sex.
00:52:32 things that concern me more uh not sex. In the conversations you have with your colleagues uh about uh sex in your undercover identities
00:52:43 identities is the uh
00:52:47 is the uh the sense that it's a good thing or a bad thing? Neither. I think it was an inevitable thing. It's not good or bad. I mean it's I suppose everybody dealt with it in their own ways but it wasn't something
00:52:58 their own ways but it wasn't something that we discussed openly. any sense that um sexual gratification whilst on the job would be a perk of the job? No, definitely not. Are you sure? Not in my experience. No.
00:53:14 You go on to say, I would say the wording is a very accurate example of the s thought processes the field officer would go through when confronted
00:53:25 officer would go through when confronted with this situation. Why did you state that? Well, that was my belief at the time. You I don't think anyone could prepare
00:53:36 You I don't think anyone could prepare themselves in the way that it sets out in the manual to confront that particular situation. Um, and of course when you you don't really bring it to mind at the time until you actually
00:53:48 mind at the time until you actually confronted that situation out in the field. And why is there a difference between the guidance which says if you have no other option
00:54:03 but become involved with the weary, you should have a fleeting disastrous relationship. and your interpretation which is to the effect uh that you uh
00:54:16 which is to the effect uh that you uh make your own assessment weigh up the pros and cons of getting involved and if you need to do it to maintain your cover and continue to provide information then
00:54:29 and continue to provide information then you do it. This was written by Andy Kohl's and it's all very uh prescriptive and I I can't I don't know when he where he was in the SDS thing at when he time he wrote this.
00:54:42 SDS thing at when he time he wrote this. It's very easy writing all this theoretical stuff but it was never that is not a blueprint for how you you know you conduct yourself or what should happen.
00:54:54 happen. You're basically put in that situation and you can deal with it. you if you're fortunate looking at what he's written here, you might be able to say it's a disastrous or fleeting relationship.
00:55:05 disastrous or fleeting relationship. Absolute nonsense with experience, but at the time I wasn't aware of that. Can I take it then that you didn't pay much attention to Mr. Coohl's thinking?
00:55:16 much attention to Mr. Coohl's thinking? No, I didn't. Not really. No. And did you speak to uh anyone at all about what your thinking should be? Was
00:55:27 about what your thinking should be? Was it prior to my deployment? Yes.
00:55:30 Yes. On a matter of sex? Yes.
00:55:32 Yes. No.
00:55:34 No. So you went into your deployment thinking essentially it was up to you. Yeah. [clears throat] Exactly. But no one had anybody said to you in
00:55:47 But no one had anybody said to you in terms it was up to you. No.
00:55:54 Can I ask you now about uh Peter Francis? Did you speak to Peter Francis before you deployed?
00:56:03 [sighs]
00:56:05 I didn't speak to him as in like a nice uh a one-to-one discussion. I might have been introduced to him when I was in the back office, but I don't I don't recall
00:56:16 back office, but I don't I don't recall it if I'm honest. in particular, can you recall whether or not he spoke to you and gave you any advice uh to the effect that uh you should use condoms if you
00:56:28 that uh you should use condoms if you have sex with someone undercover? Francis never mentioned anything about sex to me at all.
00:56:37 At any point during your time in the SDS,
00:56:42 SDS, did you hear any rumors about any undercover officer having fathered a child?
00:56:52 While I was in SDS, no. No, I didn't hear any rumors. Not until I'd finished. Uh, can I take it from that answer? There was a time uh when you heard a
00:57:04 There was a time uh when you heard a rumor that a UCO had fathered a child. That was after I finished my deployment. Yeah.
00:57:09 Yeah. When was that? It was in the press. I I can't remember when it was. The early 2000s.
00:57:20 Can I move now to the question of your cover identity? Uh you've you tell us in your witness statement that that was checked and approved by your managers.
00:57:31 checked and approved by your managers. Uh, was anything built into your legend to assist you to avoid sexual relationships? No.
00:57:40 No. Why not?
00:57:41 Why not? Because it wasn't an issue. And how do you build something, you know, you tell me how that could be done? And it it may have been done. The fact was sexual relationships weren't discussed. Uh,
00:57:52 relationships weren't discussed. Uh, particularly in, you know, in that scenario when I'm building a legend, how how on earth do you mitigate against something like that? You can't. You have to be a credible individual. Uh, and
00:58:03 to be a credible individual. Uh, and your legend is built around getting involved in the field that you've been directed to. Well, there are all sorts of ways of doing it, aren't there? You could have built into your legend a partner.
00:58:15 built into your legend a partner. Unsustainable. You could have built into your legend some past trauma that meant that you didn't want to form uh a relationship. Unsustainable. Did you give those questions any thought
00:58:28 Did you give those questions any thought at the time or are you now just expressing your view with the benefit of hindsight? I at the time when and and this was this was later on uh not uh at this time when
00:58:40 was later on uh not uh at this time when I was getting my legend sorted out um I just thought both of those options. Yes, you could have a a girlfriend in wherever or you know be traumatized or
00:58:52 wherever or you know be traumatized or whatever, but completely yes, you might hold things off for a little while, but it was not sustainable. Let me be clear. Let me be clear about this. Are you saying that you positively
00:59:03 this. Are you saying that you positively addressed your mind at the time to the question of whether you should build something into your legend to deter sexual?
00:59:11 sexual? Not not at that time when I was building my legend.
00:59:16 Did you tell your uh e now ex-wife about the previous practice within the SDS of using deceased children's identities to
00:59:28 using deceased children's identities to build cover legends? I can't remember speaking to her about it. No, but it didn't affect me. Uh but some of your colleagues who were deployed with you at the time were using
00:59:40 deployed with you at the time were using deceased children's identities. They were. Yes. uh her evidence to the inquiry last week is that you did mention it to her. Do you have any reason to doubt her? No, not at all.
00:59:51 No, not at all. Why did you do that? Why did I mention that to her? I was quite open with her when I was in the back office. Um you know, I was basically working a 9 to5 and I this she
01:00:02 basically working a 9 to5 and I this she was, you know, I told her about what was going on in general terms. And
01:00:09 And how widespread was knowledge of the practice?
01:00:13 practice? outside of the SDS, it it wasn't known. I I wasn't aware of it until I joined. But in terms of sharing that practice with your wife,
01:00:24 with your wife, uh
01:00:25 uh can we take from that that it was an open secret or was it a case that you were breaching security but with someone you trusted? Not at all. I think um the importance of
01:00:37 Not at all. I think um the importance of there's a big thing made about people being in a stable relationship, you know, married preferably before going into this job. So I couldn't expect her
01:00:50 into this job. So I couldn't expect her to be cut out of things that were of interest to me at that time. Obviously that changed later on, but at that time, no, I was I was quite happy to confide her. was no issue of it being kept top
01:01:02 her. was no issue of it being kept top secret because she was part of that SDS family at that particular time. [clears throat] Did any undercover police officer tell you that they had researched the
01:01:14 you that they had researched the background of the child whose identity they had taken or their family? Can I just initially have a yes no answer to that?
01:01:26 initially have a yes no answer to that? Yes.
01:01:27 Yes. Um, can you is this an officer whose name is out in the open? Uh, or is it somebody who might be? Could you write the name down, please?
01:01:38 write the name down, please? Yeah. [sighs]
01:01:50 [snorts]
01:02:08 Uh if that um post-it note could be shown first of all to the chairman and then to me please.
01:02:21 Thank you. [clears throat]
01:02:43 Can we take uh the document down from the screen, please? Uh I'm going to rewind uh now back to when you joined the Metropolitan Police Service in the
01:02:54 the Metropolitan Police Service in the first place. That was in 1985, wasn't it?
01:02:56 it? Yes.
01:02:57 Yes. In 1985, in terms of race and race discrimination, the world was a different place, wasn't it?
01:03:07 it? It was. Yeah. Uh and uh there was more widespread overt racism in society, wasn't there? I would say so. Yes.
01:03:18 I would say so. Yes. Uh and
01:03:19 Uh and diversity within the Metropolitan Police Service when you joined. Racial diversity
01:03:25 diversity amongst officers. Yes.
01:03:27 Yes. Uh there were a small number of of black officers, but it was a small number and that was it really. As a uniformed officer, did you ever
01:03:39 As a uniformed officer, did you ever experience any of your colleagues uh in the 1980s saying and doing anything racist?
01:03:45 racist? Yes. Uh, and how prevalent was that? I wouldn't say it was prevalent, but it wasn't unusual. Uh, and you went on to join special
01:03:57 Uh, and you went on to join special branch in 1989. Correct.
01:04:00 Correct. Uh, still culturally a long way from where we are today. Less so, I would say. and in a special branch
01:04:08 branch [snorts]
01:04:08 [snorts] uh between 1989 and joining the SDS at the end of 1994. How prevalent were uh instances of uh
01:04:21 How prevalent were uh instances of uh people saying racist things? Very very rarely I would say in my experience. You are painting a significant contrast
01:04:33 You are painting a significant contrast between your experience in uniform and your experience in special branch. Can you help us as to why that was? Um, well, it's a it's based at Scotland
01:04:45 Um, well, it's a it's based at Scotland Yard. It's a different unit. They're not dealing with the public face to face as was I was in Lambbeath. Um, so it was it was a very different, you know, it was
01:04:57 was a very different, you know, it was different culture basically. Does that mean they were simply not coming into contact with black people as often?
01:05:03 often? No, there were black officers there and of course there were inquiries that you know with black people in various guises etc.
01:05:14 etc. I think there was more discipline up there and if anyone did uh speak in Well, nobody did. I can't remember anyone speaking openly in racist terms
01:05:25 anyone speaking openly in racist terms or even on the side with me. Not in my hearing. No, nobody saying any racist comment at all in a special branch officer in the five years you were there before joining the
01:05:38 years you were there before joining the SDS.
01:05:39 SDS. Not that I can recall. I can honestly say that. No.
01:05:45 Uh the work you did on Special Branch included a stint on C Squad, didn't it? It did.
01:05:52 It did. Um dealing amongst others with Red Action.
01:05:55 Action. Correct.
01:05:57 Correct. Uh and you did some work on E Squad, which involved the SEK community. Correct.
01:06:04 Correct. Uh uh were were there ever uh any uh prejudice comments made about Irish people when you were working on Sea Squad with Red Action?
01:06:19 Um I can't recall any. No, I can't recall any other than, you know, sort of patties or what that type of thing, but not not not [clears throat] racist in that in the sense that we would know it
01:06:31 that in the sense that we would know it today.
01:06:33 today. And in terms of people from the seek community, absolutely not. No. No. Was there a feeling uh that
01:06:46 Was there a feeling uh that justice campaigns might be manipulated by groups from the far left? I think that be Yeah, that would be a fair assessment as I understood it at
01:06:57 fair assessment as I understood it at the time. Yes, that was that one of the important things that you were looking out for? No, I wouldn't say it was important things. No, what was the significance then of of the
01:07:08 what was the significance then of of the possibility of manipulation of justice campaigns by far-left groups? Well, it was a DC back then, so you're you
01:07:16 you basically you're dictated by what files are put in in front of you to update and you learn then about the different groups and the relationships and interactions between them. But at that
01:07:27 interactions between them. But at that stage, um, bearing in mind it was my first proper posting at Scotland Yard, it was very much a question of certain left-wing groups obviously very keen to
01:07:40 left-wing groups obviously very keen to vive for uh, public attention and the best way of doing that is to jump on the back of a a justice campaign. That was the sort of my understanding of it
01:07:52 the sort of my understanding of it and special branch was going to be alert to that happening. Yes.
01:07:58 in order to do what to be aware of it. I mean the we weren't in a position to do anything as such other than where there's conflict between potential conflict between different groups which could result in
01:08:11 different groups which could result in public disorder. I'm not talking large scale riots here. This can be pickets which can turn ugly outside of police stations or whatever. We have to be in a position to preempt that as far as
01:08:22 position to preempt that as far as possible.
01:08:24 possible. Uh you were serving in special branch when Steven Lawrence was murdered in 1993.
01:08:31 1993. I was. Yeah. Can you remember the reaction within special branch when that happened? Well, I was actually on a surveillance team then and I there wasn't a reaction.
01:08:42 team then and I there wasn't a reaction. I I was too busy dealing with other things at the time other than it was in the news. Um and that was it really.
01:08:53 Detective Chief Superintendent Bob Potter. Was he ever in your chain of command?
01:09:03 I think when I the very first posting I had was at Heathrow airport and I think he was the chief superintendent there but I had never met him and I obviously I knew his name [clears throat] and I
01:09:15 I knew his name [clears throat] and I knew he had certain uh mental health issues laterally just by rumor. Well, I never met him. No. Uh, when you say you knew he had mental
01:09:26 Uh, when you say you knew he had mental health issues latally, the inquiry has received evidence that there was an incident at a bingo hall in Batisy involving a significant racist outburst
01:09:41 involving a significant racist outburst which set in course a chain of events which led to DCS Potter being medically retired.
01:09:49 retired. Did you hear about that when it happened?
01:09:51 happened? No, I didn't. No. Are you sure about that? Absolutely sure. Mr. Francis's evidence to this inquiry two weeks ago was to the effect that news of this dramatic incident spread
01:10:02 news of this dramatic incident spread like wildfire. In his imagination, maybe it did. I can tell you absolutely categorically I had no knowledge of that whatsoever. a a detective chief superintendent
01:10:16 a a detective chief superintendent overtly racially abusing members of the public. Is it your evidence that that was not part of special branch gossip? You remember I was on a on a
01:10:27 You remember I was on a on a surveillance team. We were deployed all over the UK for all of that time. We weren't based at Scotland Yard. We we're based in other premises and so we were
01:10:38 based in other premises and so we were isolated really from the mainstream was going on at Scotland Yard but even the management in that surveillance unit that I was never mentioned it. I had no idea that that was going on.
01:10:50 idea that that was going on. Did you ever come to learn about it? Only when I heard Francis talk about it.
01:10:58 HN86 before you joined the SDS.
01:11:07 Bear with me.
01:11:16 Yeah. Before that you joined the SDS, was he ever in your chain of command? No. No, he wasn't. Did you know him by sight?
01:11:28 by sight? And obviously you got to know him when you were in the SDS. He did I think he did my initial my very first contact with that unit was a discussion with him. Yeah.
01:11:40 discussion with him. Yeah. But then he left fairly soon afterwards. He did. Yeah. Was he ever racist in your presence? Never.
01:11:49 Never. Uh Mr. Francis has given evidence to the effect that HN86 uh used crude racist slurs such as calling black people monkeys. Did you
01:12:01 calling black people monkeys. Did you ever hear anything to the effect that HN86 was prone to using racist language? Absolutely not. What was his reputation?
01:12:15 He was uh I think he was known as he was he looked his physical appearance made him look like one of the Thompson twins and he was he was quite an eccentric character but he was very kind competent
01:12:26 character but he was very kind competent manager. That was his reputation and that's how I found him to be. When you say kind do you mean thoughtful of the needs of others? I got that impression. Yes.
01:12:41 Presumably in the short period of knowing him, you wouldn't have able to get to know him too well. But in the period you did know him, was he kind to everyone or were there exceptions?
01:12:54 everyone or were there exceptions? Well, I I couldn't possibly say. I mean, there was two two occasions I met him and it was basically a recruitment uh drive on his part to to to try and
01:13:06 uh drive on his part to to to try and want me to become involved in SDS, I suppose. So I can only put it from that perspective.
01:13:13 Was your chain of command always all white in the SDS?
01:13:21 Yes, as far as I remember. Yeah. In special branch.
01:13:28 Me personally, yes. And whilst you were in uniform? Uh, no.
01:13:36 Uh, no. And uh what was the approximate ratio of white people to people from other racial backgrounds? Are we talking management or yes in total management?
01:13:48 total management? See um
01:13:52 See um I'd imagine it's got to be 15 to one perhaps.
01:13:59 What was the impact on the culture within the SDS of having from a race discrimination perspective an all-white management?
01:14:11 an all-white management? Didn't even give it a thought. They were management. Did it affect the culture and the attitude and approach to people from other racial backgrounds?
01:14:22 other racial backgrounds? I would say no. No special branch.
01:14:27 Well, in general, yeah,
01:14:29 yeah, I don't know. I know. Not in my experience, it didn't uniform.
01:14:38 Again, in my experience, I mean, I can only go back to my time at at uh at Clappen where the the most respected senior officer at that station at that
01:14:49 senior officer at that station at that time was a black chief inspector
01:14:54 and he was the gold standard of of managers and and you know, to this day it was. And did he bring a perspective to the unit
01:15:05 to the unit of someone who [clears throat] was black which added to understanding? What in uniform you're talking about? Um he would have done. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm pretty sure. But there weren't in that
01:15:17 pretty sure. But there weren't in that particular relief I worked on there were no black officers. And in that that sort of perspective and lived experience and understanding
01:15:29 understanding as a black person was missing from the SDS management, wasn't it? Yes, it was. As in they weren't there. Yeah.
01:15:40 Yeah. Were you aware that there hadd been a number of racially motivated attacks in Southeast London prior to the murder of Steven Lawrence? Yes.
01:15:51 Yes. Um,
01:15:52 Um, and as a special branch officer, what was your experience of what special branch was doing about that? This was well, this would be what early ' 90s. Again, I mean, this is I' I'd
01:16:05 ' 90s. Again, I mean, this is I' I'd have heard that through the news media. Um, I was completely on a working on a different line of of stuff under surveillance. So I had no
01:16:17 stuff under surveillance. So I had no real insight into what the reaction in special branch was or what the action or the reaction to dealing with that would have been.
01:16:28 have been. I'm going to move forward just a little bit uh to follow this theme. when you were in the SDS in April 1996, um there was an attempt at a private
01:16:40 um there was an attempt at a private prosecution of those suspected of murdering Steven Lawrence.
01:16:49 There was quite a lot of publicity about um the collapse of that prosecution. Was that the subject of any talk or discussion within the SDS?
01:17:02 discussion within the SDS? I can't honestly remember it, but it was a big story. We'd seen it on the on the news. Um, unless somebody had been specifically reporting on that, then no,
01:17:13 specifically reporting on that, then no, it wasn't it wasn't discussed as a have you seen this, look at what's happening on the news sort of thing. So, no, that's not my recollection of it at all. Well, was the unit keeping tabs on those
01:17:25 Well, was the unit keeping tabs on those left-wing groups that might wish to influence the Steven Lawrence campaign? I'm sure they would have been, yes, but I can't recall who or what those groups
01:17:37 I can't recall who or what those groups were.
01:17:38 were. And was there any discussion of those groups and their activities in respect of the Steven Lawrence campaign? Not to my knowledge, there weren't no.
01:17:50 Not to my knowledge, there weren't no. In February 1997, [clears throat] uh there was uh the inquest uh verdict which predictably found that Steven had been unlawfully
01:18:03 found that Steven had been unlawfully killed by racist murderers and the Daily Mail uh famously printed the headline murderers the following day. Did that uh cause conversation in
01:18:17 day. Did that uh cause conversation in the SDS back office? Not that I was aware of. No. Are you sure? Not that I was aware of. It may have done. I'm not saying it didn't, but not within my recollection. No.
01:18:28 within my recollection. No. Was there any was there an acceptance uh that the inquest verdict was correct? No, I don't think there was any there was no discussion about it and I can't
01:18:40 was no discussion about it and I can't remember either way what people's opinions were. There was certainly no collective opinion or conversation that I was aware of. Had there been any conversation up to that point as to whether or not Steven uh was wholly
01:18:53 whether or not Steven uh was wholly innocent?
01:18:55 innocent? Not that I remember. No. No. In March 1997, the Police Complaints Authority launched an investigation and went on to conclude that there had been
01:19:07 went on to conclude that there had been failings in the investigation of Steven's murder. Can you recall that conclusion being the subject of conversation in at the SDS back?
01:19:19 conversation in at the SDS back? No, I don't. No. Might it have been conceivably? Yes. You got to remember at that time we're very in when you you deal purely with your own field. That's
01:19:30 deal purely with your own field. That's what you concentrate on. People may talk about this but I can't remember that.
01:19:37 Coming back to Peter Francis, did he or anyone else at the safe house meetings ever discuss obtaining information about the Steven
01:19:48 obtaining information about the Steven Lawrence campaign? If they did, I didn't hear about it. Might they have done so? And you not remember it now? No, I would remember it now. Obviously,
01:19:59 No, I would remember it now. Obviously, it's a significant thing and I've had a long time to think about that and I do remember a lot of things, but I certainly don't remember that. Did anyone speak about obtaining any intelligence that related to Steven
01:20:11 intelligence that related to Steven Lawrence's family? No, not as far as I know. No. Or Dwayne Brooks? No.
01:20:22 uh when the public inquiry uh was announced in the summer of 1997, did that spark any conversation within the SDS?
01:20:33 the SDS? Not that I remember. No.
01:20:38 Did you hear Pria Francis or anyone else talking about the Brian Douglas campaign?
01:20:44 campaign? Yes.
01:20:45 Yes. Can you help us with who said what about that? this you talking about purely in the SDS office at that time. Uh well I I was aware of it myself through my own contacts but I think um
01:20:59 through my own contacts but I think um Francis mentioned it because I can't remember what it was but his group was involved in asked to be involved in the stewarding side of it as was the Colin Roach Center at that particular time. So
01:21:10 Roach Center at that particular time. So yes we would have discussed it. Uh and what sort of discussions would have been had? Well, at that time it was um I think there was a big demonstration being planned
01:21:22 being planned uh through I think started off in Brix and going down at the oval um and various groups were going to be involved in it including the one that I was involved with. So that was the
01:21:34 involved with. So that was the discussion basically around the practicalities of that. So I'm getting a picture if you're in the SDS office and there is discussion about a forthcoming demonstration
01:21:45 demonstration and you are speaking to your colleagues about that. Yes.
01:21:51 Yes. Was that sort of conversation had about any justice campaign in circumstances where there might be a
01:22:02 in circumstances where there might be a big demonstration coming up? It would normally be discussed. Yes. before you had an input or possibility of an input. Yeah. And what sort of um things were said
01:22:15 And what sort of um things were said about the campaigns themselves?
01:22:19 Very little. I mean, as far in the actual, you know, the reasons for it and and all those details, certainly from my perspective, it was purely about the potential for public disorder. Um I
01:22:33 potential for public disorder. Um I again I was I was very sort of early in service in SDS at that time but it was I think there were problems anticipated because
01:22:43 because we were they were looking for stewards to steward that particular march and they were called to a meeting which I attended at Lambeath Town Hall. Did people discuss um the role of
01:22:56 Did people discuss um the role of left-wing groups in relation to the potential for disorder at uh marchers organized
01:23:06 organized in support of black justice campaigns? Well, in general or you talking about the Brian Douglas? Um
01:23:13 Um yes. I mean it was that's always a possibility. And and what was the feeling as to how um black justice campaigns
01:23:24 um black justice campaigns mixed with left-wing campa camp campaigners uh in the context of public disorder.
01:23:34 On the face of it, you think, well, the two like-minded groups are helping each other, but there's always people on the fringes, and it's often the the disguise or the language that's used then is
01:23:46 or the language that's used then is we're fearing attacks by the police. So, we're ready to be attacked by the police, and if that happens, they're going to retaliate. Well, of course, whatever your perspective is on on policing, I think they don't go out
01:23:58 policing, I think they don't go out there to deliberately attack people. However, there are people who readily attend the fringes of these these large gatherings who will make trouble.
01:24:10 gatherings who will make trouble. The start of that answer was to the effect that you would regard the Black Justice campaign and the left-wing campaigners as likeminded people assisting one another. Can you help us
01:24:21 assisting one another. Can you help us with in what sense you mean likeminded people? Yeah, I mean on my I mean this is only my perspective of it, but certainly the black justice campaigns are are quite the ones that I had. I
01:24:33 are are quite the ones that I had. I Brian Douglas's one was was obviously my my introduction to it all. They were very much you know I family orientated or
01:24:44 or small community organizations which obviously needed greater publicity and support which some of the bigger left-wing groups could offer them. So yes, generally the left appeared to be
01:24:56 yes, generally the left appeared to be only too willing to get involved in it on some to try and escalate the publicity and you know the the push to achieve their aims of achieving the justice that they needed.
01:25:11 So are you saying you regarded Brian Douglas's family as likeminded in comparison to the left-wing activists? Well, no, I'm not saying that. I'm what I'm whatever their actual views and the
01:25:24 I'm whatever their actual views and the backgrounds here are I don't know but in terms of organizing a demonstration certainly they wanted a peaceful demonstration they wanted a large demonstration to highlight their aims
01:25:35 demonstration to highlight their aims but alike in the sense they both wanted justice
01:25:39 justice I would say so yeah justice being the holding to account of as the case may be
01:25:50 as the case may be whatever it was Yeah. The police. Yeah.
01:25:52 Yeah. Uh or racist murderers. Yes.
01:25:57 Yes. Nothing wrong in that. Nothing wrong with that. No.
01:26:03 So why the police interest? Again, public disorder. It's all very, you know, very nice and clinical talking about these sort of groups in complete isolation. But you look at the you look
01:26:16 isolation. But you look at the you look at the people around the edges who want to make trouble. If there's a police presence there, [clears throat] they will go out of their way to to make problems. Now, obviously the family groups and and certain elements of the
01:26:29 groups and and certain elements of the organized leftwing groups don't want that to happen, but it will happen. When you get large crowds like that, you will get these agitators who will start problems with the police in the hope that it will escalate.
01:26:41 that it will escalate. HN81 who use the cover name David Hagen. Bear
01:26:47 Bear with me. [sighs] Okay.
01:26:52 Okay. Yeah.
01:26:52 Yeah. Our understanding is that he over overlapped with you from about the summer of 1996 onwards. Is that about right?
01:26:59 right? I I can't remember. It was somebody I didn't really know. Did he or anyone else at the safe house um ever
01:27:09 um ever refer to his activities collecting intelligence about the movement for justice in Brixton? I honestly can't remember if
01:27:20 Brixton? I honestly can't remember if he'd just started. He was very quiet bloke. Uh, and I was, you know, I was quite surprised that him being put in that position, but I honestly can't remember anything about his his
01:27:31 remember anything about his his deployment around that particular time. Asking you to focus on him. Did he say anything about the Steven? He may have mentioned the Steven Lawrence at some point. I don't know when it was though.
01:27:42 when it was though. And what when you say he may have mentioned, can you remember him doing so? Well, at that point again in sort of sort of later 90s, you know, the Steven Lawrence was an important, you know, a
01:27:54 Lawrence was an important, you know, a big news story. Um, the name he may have mentioned his name. I honestly can't remember, but he that was the area of I think he was based in South London anyway. So, that was the
01:28:06 South London anyway. So, that was the area he would have come into contact with that. Whether he was relaying something he'd seen on news, I honestly can't remember. It was obviously a very big news story, of course. And it was one that was
01:28:17 of course. And it was one that was closely associated with criticism of the Metropolitan Police Service, wasn't it? Yeah.
01:28:23 Yeah. Was the Was that criticism of the Metropolitan Police Service ever the the subject of discussion within the SDS? No, I don't think it was. No.
01:28:36 Can you recall uh HN81 ever saying anything about speaking to acting detective inspector Walton or anyone else about the Steven Lawrence
01:28:48 anyone else about the Steven Lawrence inquiry
01:28:50 inquiry at the time? No. When did you first learn of that? That was years later. Uh I'm probably when I was back at Scotland Yard. Was anything said at the time about
01:29:04 anything said at the time about HN81 receiving praise from the commissioner for his work? No. I not not to my knowledge. No.
01:29:15 Where were you when you first heard the name Dwayne Brooks? I think I first heard it on the media. In relation to what? into into uh into
01:29:27 In relation to what? into into uh into well into relations with Steven Lawrence and the initial murder. I think he was a was he with Steven Lawrence when he was murdered?
01:29:35 murdered? How was he perceived by the SDS? By you and your colleagues? He was just a was it was another racist murder in in London. There was no
01:29:47 murder in in London. There was no perception of him at all. Was he regarded as the surviving victim of a murderous racist attack
01:29:59 racist attack or or was he or was that something that just wasn't con considered? It wasn't considered, but that's in fact what he was. He was a surviving victim. I don't think he he wasn't never
01:30:11 I don't think he he wasn't never mentioned in my presence at all. I say most of this I've read in the media.
01:30:20 Did you ever hear Dwayne Brooks spoken about by your colleagues? No.
01:30:27 Did you ever hear talk about Ricky Real and the Justice for Ricky Real campaign? The name is familiar, but I I can't remember. No.
01:30:39 Of the Black Justice campaigns that you were familiar with. You've mentioned the Brian Douglas campaign. What what were the other campaigns of that nature that you were principally involved in
01:30:52 you were principally involved in for black justice campaigns?
01:30:57 Well, without going through all my statements and and report I can't remember. Brian Douglas stands out because I had a role in obviously the stewarding role there, but the others I I can't remember. I may have reported on
01:31:09 I can't remember. I may have reported on them, but unless you tell me otherwise, I I have no recollection of any others. We'll come to your reporting in in due course. Okay. HN60.
01:31:19 HN60. Can you ever recall HN60? I'll give you a moment to remind yourself who he is.
01:31:28 Okay. Yep.
01:31:31 Yep. Did he uh ever speak about what he was doing in relation to the Steven Lawrence campaign?
01:31:39 campaign? I didn't know he was involved in that area. No.
01:31:44 when you I'm going to come back to the question of the atmosphere within the office, the SDS office. Were there ever any
01:31:56 Were there ever any jokes with a racial underpinning? No.
01:32:00 No. Jokes about Irish people or black people or Asian people? No. Not that I remember. No.
01:32:09 Was there ever any racist language at all in relation to
01:32:18 to people of color that the SDS was dealing with? The only time that that ever was uh I heard that and that was a direct
01:32:29 uh I heard that and that was a direct quote from another officer uh deployed that he was quoting persons that he was deployed against.
01:32:43 So is it your evidence that there was no racism at all within the SDS? No. No. Not that I was not in my presence. Certainly not. No. How well equipped were you to detect racism uh in
01:32:54 equipped were you to detect racism uh in that era?
01:32:56 that era? I don't know what you mean by equipped. I mean, you know, it's fairly obvious if someone's being racist, then yes, it's it's pretty obvious to know that, but terms of being equipped. Uh well, recognizing
01:33:08 Uh well, recognizing overt to express racism, the use of racist slurs, for example. Of course. Yeah. Yes.
01:33:15 Yes. But did you have an understanding, for example, of the difference between conscious and subconscious racism? No.
01:33:22 No. Between direct and indirect discrimination? No. Not at the time, though. Did you have an understanding of stereotypes? Not as we do now. No.
01:33:38 During your time in the SDS, did you ever uh ex come to know of anyone making a complaint about racism?
01:33:51 No. No. Special branch? No.
01:33:56 No. Uniform?
01:33:58 Uniform? Yes. Uniform is it's common. Complaints by police officers or members of the public. Yes. Oh, sorry. By no members of public or police officers.
01:34:09 or police officers. Complaints emanating from within the MPS about racism. Did you ever come across those?
01:34:18 those? No.
01:34:24 You [clears throat] have given evidence that there was overt racism when you were in uniform. [clears throat] Can we take it from the lack of internal complaints that those remarks simply
01:34:35 complaints that those remarks simply went unchallenged?
01:34:38 Um, yes, I think so. I think I'd be correct in saying that. Yeah. Yeah. But they were. [clears throat] Can we move now to your targeting strategy, sir? It's at tab B21 of your
01:34:51 strategy, sir? It's at tab B21 of your bundle. It's 735 326.
01:35:14 Um, if we could uh go please to page four of your targeting strategy.
01:35:25 your targeting strategy. [snorts]
01:35:26 [snorts] Um, And I'm going to ask you first of all about paragraph 3.3.
01:35:34 Before I do so, who wrote this strategy? Uh Bob Lambert reads, "As indicated, London class war and the Hackne Community Defense Association are probably not worthy of
01:35:46 Association are probably not worthy of monitoring in terms of their own importance, but both are assessed to be suitable vehicles for an undercover officer establishing an anarchist reputation.
01:36:01 Is that an accurate summary of the targeting direction that you were given by Bob Lambert about those two groups?
01:36:14 It's, you know, at the time I didn't know any better, but I think as when I after I sort of launched into the SDS world, this is all written from a very late 1980s perspective.
01:36:26 late 1980s perspective. um you know anarchism here is spoken in terms of
01:36:32 terms of a lifestyle rather than actual political conviction. So you know it's all very sort of wishy-washy in that sense. To what extent did anarchism feature in
01:36:43 To what extent did anarchism feature in your initial targeting briefings? I think when um Bob tended to use it, as I say, as more of a lifestyle thing, but and he would
01:36:56 of a lifestyle thing, but and he would use your anarchism as being a bit of a a bit of a freewheeler in that in that sense. That's how I took it to be. Um there was no because I wasn't targeted against a particular group, just an
01:37:08 against a particular group, just an individual. So, you know, it was a word that was used, but I didn't take it seriously as a in terms of your appearance when you first deployed. Is it right you deployed
01:37:20 first deployed. Is it right you deployed with a mullet? A mullet?
01:37:23 A mullet? Yes.
01:37:23 Yes. No, I didn't know. Offended.
01:37:26 Offended. Uh, what look were you sporting when you first deployed? Well, it was a crew cut and goatee. [snorts]
01:37:33 [snorts] We've seen photographs and videos with that look. But is it right that you initially deployed looking rather differently and then adopted the crew cut later?
01:37:46 then adopted the crew cut later? I don't No, I don't think so. No, not not knowingly.
01:37:54 To what extent did you think you were deploying into the anarchist arena? I didn't really, if I'm honest. Um I
01:38:06 I didn't really, if I'm honest. Um I mean class they mentioned here class war class war a spent force they were just a newspaper anyway they hadn't been active since the pole tax riot but they are anarchists aren't they
01:38:17 but they are anarchists aren't they allegedly yeah but not in I wouldn't say strictly speaking in in terms of their political convictions however I'm not an expert on the class war so I I couldn't say regards the the HCDA
01:38:31 say regards the the HCDA uh I'd read up in about them but again that was a sort late 80s, early 90s things which had sort of co coagulated really into the Conro Center, but I didn't think that it
01:38:44 Conro Center, but I didn't think that it was it didn't sound like an anarchist. Not how I would expect an anarchist to be. They're in a group for a start. So, well, what was your understanding of what an anarchist was?
01:38:55 what an anarchist was? Well, an anarchist has is a political conviction um you know, without sort of it's a loose confederation. There are certain anarchist groups which are out there not mentioned here. Um but I think it in
01:39:10 mentioned here. Um but I think it in Bob's interpretation he would look at the sort of the crusty types. All of those people that you saw at the roll pax right in 1990 dressed like that had no particular affiliations but it was a
01:39:21 no particular affiliations but it was a lifestyle driven thing. And I think that's
01:39:24 that's that's where it was as opposed to a very tedious boring anarchist dialective. and I've been to some of those meetings so I do know about that.
01:39:36 do know about that. What was said to you by Bob Lambert before you deployed about Mark Metaf? Um it was decided that Mark Metaf
01:39:47 Um it was decided that Mark Metaf because he was I I didn't know the boat at all. Um because of where he was positioned um and his obviously his numerous
01:39:59 um and his obviously his numerous contacts. He has got a lot of contacts and he is essentially community-based that he would be a useful person to to target against.
01:40:11 target against. Was he described to you as an anarchist? No, I don't think it was. No. Well, if you are trying to establish an anarchist reputation, as paragraph 3.3
01:40:22 anarchist reputation, as paragraph 3.3 says, what is the significance of Mark Medaf to that? Because what I mean HCDA is in that same paragraph there which were part of the organization which
01:40:34 were part of the organization which Metaf was uh running at the time. And in what in what way was t was
01:40:44 was t was a focus on metaf going to help you? I can't answer that. I was told that he that I was the first this is how I recorded. I was the first person to be
01:40:55 recorded. I was the first person to be targeted
01:40:56 targeted against an individual as opposed to a group or an organization which had happened before. And did Bob Lambert actually say that? Yes.
01:41:05 Yes. In a meeting about targeting? Yes.
01:41:10 And did he explain to you why that groundbreaking approach was being taken? I think his his point of view from my recollection was that you know the days
01:41:21 recollection was that you know the days of these sort of specific groups you like militant labor the ENL these just great big huge organizations which if
01:41:33 great big huge organizations which if anyone joining you're just a foot soldier there you're not getting any real useful intelligence other than what anyone else could could get. Um whereas you're going to an individual who is
01:41:44 you're going to an individual who is actually at the hub of a lot of potential sources of intelligence and he was right
01:41:51 was right because he was a community-based activist.
01:41:55 activist. Correct.
01:41:55 Correct. If we go back to page two please in paragraph 2.3.
01:42:07 give you a moment to refresh your memory about the contents of that paragraph.
01:42:16 [clears throat]
01:42:21 Okay. Yeah. Does that accurately sum up
01:42:28 sum up uh the thrust of your targeting strategy? Well, except in relation to Norman Blair, who I never met um and I had until I'd actually read
01:42:40 um and I had until I'd actually read this um a couple of weeks ago, I didn't even realize he was on there. Never met the bloke. What I'd like to understand is were you told to go and uh get close to people
01:42:53 told to go and uh get close to people like Norman Blair and Mark Metaf and then what you actually did was get close to Mark Metaf or were you only told to get close to Mark Metaf? Only told to get close to Mark Metaf.
01:43:07 Only told to get close to Mark Metaf. From the wording of this paragraph, can we take it that Bob Lambert misunderstood Mr. Metaf to be an anarchist at that stage?
01:43:17 stage? I I think that's a fair comment. Yeah. And is the list of campaigning activity set out in the second half of that paragraph an accurate summation of the
01:43:30 paragraph an accurate summation of the sort of activity you were to take an interest in. It's I think that's it's covering every possible angle there, but it's the general flavor of community activism. I mean the criminal justice act I think
01:43:42 mean the criminal justice act I think there was a big demonstration before I went out but you know had nothing to do with that. So he was basically drawing on a very broad range of areas which you know to cover himself in this report
01:43:54 know to cover himself in this report really
01:43:55 really and so the we'll come in a moment to the perception of the HCDA but can I take it that Bob Lambert when instructing you understood
01:44:08 Lambert when instructing you understood or again we may may turn out to be misunderstood the Hackne Community Defense Association to be at the hub of campaigning activity.
01:44:19 activity. I think that's probably they may well have been five or six years previously when he was active, but not at the time. Now,
01:44:28 Now, can we go back to page four and paragraph 4.3, please?
01:44:39 This is about accommodation.
01:44:58 Mhm. Does that accurately sum up the direction you were given about cover accommodation before you deployed? Yes, I think well that's that's Bob's understanding of it. But um
01:45:09 understanding of it. But um was anything else said on that subject before you deployed? No. And you did in fact get yourself um a bedset, didn't you? I did. Yes.
01:45:20 I did. Yes. A particularly Spartan. It was particularly Spartan. Yes. And uh the reasoning uh given here for adopting this strategy was to avoid the
01:45:32 adopting this strategy was to avoid the difficulties of residing permanently in a squat.
01:45:36 a squat. What were the perceived difficulties of residing permanently in a squat? I had no intention of residing in a squat. I think that again uh you know
01:45:47 squat. I think that again uh you know Bob dug this out again anarchist squats and all this sort of thing. Um, yes. I mean, Stone Newington had uh a lot of squats and a squatting activity around
01:45:58 squats and a squatting activity around there in the late 80s as I recall, but it was never going to be an issue for me in that respect. So, I didn't really pay any attention to that.
01:46:09 any attention to that. But why didn't Bob Lambert want you living in a squat? I think well because I think you put yourself into a position you know you
01:46:20 yourself into a position you know you can't I don't know why he's written that but I I'm entirely against Mark Meetoff who's a pretty straight sort of person in in his lifestyle to to living with a load of crusties in a squat in you know
01:46:31 load of crusties in a squat in you know you're not going to get anywhere with that.
01:46:35 that. We have to look at this document through the prism of Di Lambert's understanding or misunderstandings at the time about Mr. Metaf and the HCDA.
01:46:48 Uh what I'm interested in is whether you are being advised not to reside in a squat uh because they are squalid or for some other reason. I just to be squalid
01:47:00 some other reason. I just to be squalid and what sort of in you're sort of limited to what you can do and you're living in a squad intelligence gathering wise
01:47:06 wise and you are living fulltime with other activists. There is that. Yeah. Was that regarded as problematic? Not at the time. No, but obviously there
01:47:17 Not at the time. No, but obviously there were potentials for that. When you say not at the time, what's the basis for asserting that? because well well the way he's written it here there's there's you know you're living with amongst other people it's very
01:47:28 with amongst other people it's very difficult to have a life outside of that which is the subtext of what he was writing there but it didn't really compute with me because I had no intention of living in a Scott squat
01:47:39 intention of living in a Scott squat uh and another uh reason to avoid living in a squat uh would be uh to reduce the risk of sexual activity with members of the public
01:47:51 the public that ever uh articulated to you? Not at all? No. Can we take that document down now, please?
01:48:03 Can you help us with the research you did uh in the back office before deploying? First of all, did you do any research about class war? Probably read the files. Yeah.
01:48:14 Probably read the files. Yeah. Uh Hackne Community Defense Association. Again, read files. Yeah. Uh, and uh, what did you glean from reading the files on the Hackne
01:48:27 reading the files on the Hackne Community Defense Association? I can't I can't remember the details. You just get familiar with who's involved with it, what their general aims were. That that was what it was, but you were reading the file out of
01:48:39 but you were reading the file out of context. So, I was looking at it really familiarizing myself with names of people who may be involved with it and still come across. You obviously became very familiar with the Hackne Community
01:48:50 very familiar with the Hackne Community Defense Association. Can you help us with whether the file accurately uh reported on what HCA HCDA was doing
01:49:01 uh reported on what HCA HCDA was doing or whether it misunderstood uh association? I I can't remember that. And it's a file that was years old as well. So, you know, I can't remember that specific
01:49:12 know, I can't remember that specific details. No.
01:49:18 Did you know that the HCDA was involved in assisting people to bring legal claims against the Metropolitan Police
01:49:29 claims against the Metropolitan Police Service as commissioner? Yes, I did. And uh that it was involved in helping people
01:49:39 people defending themselves in certain criminal prosecutions. Yes, I became aware of that.
01:49:46 that. Did you come aware aware of that as a result of reading the files? I can't remember, but I certainly did when I first got involved with it. Did you discuss those activities with
01:49:57 Did you discuss those activities with your managers? when I was involved in those sort of at any time other than that's yes I might have mentioned it in a report but it was not
01:50:08 mentioned it in a report but it was not uh it wasn't discussed as a a specific uh
01:50:14 uh subject at all. No well any boundaries set for you uh about reporting on litigation against the Metropolitan Police Service?
01:50:25 Metropolitan Police Service? No.
01:50:26 No. Or prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service? No. Did that ever change? No.
01:50:34 No. Was it regarded as an issue at all reporting on that sort of thing? I don't recall it was. No. Were you ever tasked in relation to a particular case to find anything out?
01:50:46 particular case to find anything out? No.
01:50:50 Did you we'll come to your reporting in due course course that's been recovered but can you can you recall as a matter of generality uh whether you would report upon the cases that were being
01:51:02 report upon the cases that were being supported by HCDA it depends I mean all this information that I got in relation to HCDA I mean my recollection is that they those meetings
01:51:14 recollection is that they those meetings where you they had solicitors coming in and chat happening in the daytime where I wasn't I was was working. So I didn't have any sort of direct experience of that. All the information I got was
01:51:25 that. All the information I got was directly from Metcov. He may said, "Oh, we've had someone in that you know the complain about this or whatever." And that was as general as that and I reported it. So secondhand you would report about the
01:51:38 So secondhand you would report about the cases that the um HCDA was taking an interest in. I would report anything that I come across and it's for them to decide whether it's relevant or not. Any
01:51:49 whether it's relevant or not. Any [clears throat] feedback on that sort of reporting? No.
01:51:53 No. Never told not to do it? No.
01:51:56 No. Never asked to do more? No.
01:51:59 No. Did you research Graeme Smith uh before deploying? No. But it was a name I was familiar with, I think, under it may have been under the HCDA research. So, he was
01:52:10 under the HCDA research. So, he was someone I was familiar with through reading about the files. I may even have drawn his file um for background. Can you recall what impression you had formed about Dr. Smith um as he now is
01:52:25 formed about Dr. Smith um as he now is before you deployed? Just that he was a long-term committed campaigner and that was it really. A campaigner in what sense? Well, social justice and and
01:52:36 Well, social justice and and particularly issues around Hackne and Stoington. So you regarded him as a general political activist? Yes, he was. Yeah. How did that impression compare to the
01:52:48 How did that impression compare to the reality when you met him? Well, from my recollection, I only met him the once. Um, he didn't look particularly active to me.
01:53:03 The defendants information service. Did you learn anything about that uh before you deployed? Never heard of it until I deployed.
01:53:15 Never heard of it until I deployed. When you did begin to learn about it in your deployment, did you know that there was a dispute between it and the Metropolitan Police Service about data
01:53:27 Metropolitan Police Service about data protection? No, I didn't. Did you know um that they'd been burgled in December 1994?
01:53:38 in December 1994? If that refers the to an office, their previous office, I remember reading that article is in the Timeout magazine. If that is the same incident and there was graffiti or something left on the wall.
01:53:50 graffiti or something left on the wall. Is that reading time out in your work capacity or in your private capacity? that was in the work capacity because I was in the back office then and I thought I I did think Christ that's
01:54:01 thought I I did think Christ that's that's really bad timing for me that that's come out you know it was that's why it sticks in my mind why was it really bad timing because I was going to be targeted into that group just after they were now
01:54:12 that group just after they were now saying that the police had broken into their building and graffitied uh certain words I can't remember what they were now I thought well you know it's going to be even more difficult yes or no answer do Do you know who
01:54:25 yes or no answer do Do you know who burgled the premises? No, I do not.
01:54:31 Did you know uh that uh the defendant information service and what it did had been featured in the media other than through the time timeout article?
01:54:43 through the time timeout article? No, I didn't.
01:54:47 Did you research the Colin Roach Center before deploying? I did. Yes. Uh, and what was your understanding of the Col Colin Roach Center as a result
01:54:59 the Col Colin Roach Center as a result of that research? Putting aside what you later learned, uh, that they were certainly active. Mark Meov was very much at the center of that and by the often in these files,
01:55:12 that and by the often in these files, they're mentioned if they're involved in various pickets, group, demonstration, they seem to be quite active right across a spectrum of of things. So, were you aware that they were involved in the
01:55:24 you aware that they were involved in the Trevor Monavville campaign? Not I I can't remember being aware of that before I deployed? No. Were you aware of Operation Jackpot?
01:55:36 If you need I can prompt you. That was the investigation into corruption, drug dealing at Stoke Newington Police Station.
01:55:47 Station. Not before I deployed. It wasn't. No. Were you aware uh that the Colin Roach Center was involved in campaigns, police accountability campaigns relating
01:55:59 police accountability campaigns relating to the conduct of police officers at Stoke Newington? In general terms, I was when I when I had deployed, but not before. Were you aware generally uh that Stone
01:56:10 Were you aware generally uh that Stone Newington Police Station in the early 1990s had a very poor reputation? I did hear that. Yeah. Was that common knowledge within
01:56:21 Was that common knowledge within within the police? Yeah. Generally. Yeah.
01:56:23 Yeah. And what was the thinking? They got a lot of problems. Was the thinking uh they're coming in for a lot of unfair criticism or was the
01:56:35 for a lot of unfair criticism or was the thinking uh this is a terrible police station that needs sorting out? I don't think there was e either of those things. It was something that was obviously pretty uh damning, but it was
01:56:46 obviously pretty uh damning, but it was just another incident of police activity in the media. So, we didn't give it a lot of thought to be honest. Was it right that by the time you deployed um the alga it was well known
01:56:59 deployed um the alga it was well known that some of the allegations against that the officers at that police station had been made out. I only became aware of any of this when I deployed.
01:57:12 In your research before deploying, did you take any steps to understand the community in Hackne that you would be
01:57:25 community in Hackne that you would be deploying into and in particular its racial diversity? Not specifically. No. Did you discuss the sort of political campaigns that the CRC was involved in
01:57:38 campaigns that the CRC was involved in with your managers before deploying? Probably in passing. Yeah. In on the basis of what I'd read in the files. Well, in
01:57:48 Well, in passing,
01:57:50 passing, I if these campaigns are the campaigns you're supposed to be getting intelligence about, presumably you would have discussed what was required from your managers or did you
01:58:03 required from your managers or did you already know? Well, I already knew and of course from their point of view is we put you in here. Here's Mark Meov. get close to Mark Meov and you will have access to all this intelligence from whatever
01:58:15 all this intelligence from whatever groups are involved with. That goes without saying. That was the expected thing. You hoover up everything. I was going to you've stolen my next question.
01:58:24 question. Did you speak to any of your former UCOs about these groups to get background before going in and these campaigns? I I did actually speak to one um and but
01:58:36 did actually speak to one um and but that was to get a bit of background on on class war that was in very early before I you know I didn't know much about them at all but that was the that was the only time
01:58:47 was the only time was there any consideration by you or instruction from your managers about Irish related matters at this stage
01:58:58 stage other than the fact that Metaf had on his file he'd been involved allegedly with AFA and Red Action and my particular
01:59:09 and my particular interest but I you know I'd spent three years
01:59:13 years being involved with all of this sort of stuff which was so it was particularly interesting to me but at that stage it was a scatter gun at you know you pick up everything yes there could well be an Irish angle to all of this we didn't
01:59:25 Irish angle to all of this we didn't know what it was and to what extent
01:59:29 Sir, [clears throat] is this a convenient time to take our morning break?
01:59:32 break? Certainly. Um, we have a 15minute break for the benefit of the transcribers and you uh in the morning and similar in the afternoon.
02:20:51 Mr. B. Thank you, sir. Uh, and like to move now, uh, please, Mr. Jenner, to your first meeting with Mark Medaf, which, uh, we believe occurred on the 18th of
02:21:03 uh, we believe occurred on the 18th of March, 1995. at a Trevor Monavville campaign event. Does that ring bells? Is that the Halvy Center? Yes. Do
02:21:15 Is that the Halvy Center? Yes. Do uh this was an event that followed Trevor's death, wasn't it? I believe so. Yeah. There was also a vigil. Did you attend
02:21:26 There was also a vigil. Did you attend that? I I remember standing outside of Stone Newton Police Station just really just to have a look and before going into the alchemy. So I
02:21:38 before going into the alchemy. So I wasn't actually involved in that vigil as such.
02:21:41 as such. [clears throat]
02:21:44 When you say you weren't involved, could you be more precise? Well, I didn't I didn't go there with the intention of standing amongst them and looking at this particular vigil. I
02:21:55 and looking at this particular vigil. I turned up um I think it yes the vigil had been advertised but because I was on my own I just stood outside to see what was going on and then I went into the
02:22:06 was going on and then I went into the alchemy center and there may be some semantics going on here is is is the reality you were present
02:22:13 present only for a short time yes I don't know how long the thing went on for or what I can't even remember if there was speeches or whatever it was but there was a crowd outside the police station and are you sure it was the police station
02:22:24 station in my mind it it was and now you've said that you're putting doubt in it but I thought it was the police station may not have been cuz there was a vigil at the spot where Trevor was murdered
02:22:35 Trevor was murdered I don't know where was that is that near the police station or I don't know did you give any consideration to whether it was appropriate to attend the
02:22:47 whether it was appropriate to attend the vigil
02:22:49 vigil of a man who'd been murdered who was whose family were running a campaign against the police were grieving.
02:23:00 grieving. No, because it was a prequel to a big public meeting.
02:23:08 And so can I take it that you were attending
02:23:12 attending as part and parcel of your cover? Correct.
02:23:16 Correct. For any other reason? No.
02:23:19 No. And in terms of the event that went on afterwards,
02:23:25 presumably there was a reason for going to that
02:23:30 to that to the actual meeting and yes of course because he was there and the purpose of that was to meet Mark Meov and you introduced yourself to him.
02:23:43 and you introduced yourself to him. Yes.
02:23:44 Yes. Told him that you were interested in black justice campaigns. I can't remember what I told him. But would that have included black justice campaigns? Not necessarily. So, no. Well, you were at a Trevor Monavville
02:23:56 Well, you were at a Trevor Monavville campaign event. It would have been natural to say you were interested in the Trevor Monavville campaign. Yeah. I think I can see what you're saying there, but at that stage, this was my first dip into the SDS. I knew he
02:24:09 was my first dip into the SDS. I knew he was going to be there. There was various stalls for various things. So my main purpose was to go there as a member of the community. I think I was I was living around the corner at the time. So that's what it was.
02:24:22 that's what it was. Why did you choose that event? Because I was told that they would have a presence there and it was a public event
02:24:31 event um and I could get talking to him then which I did. Did you report on that? Yes, I did. Can we go now sir in volume two tab C1
02:24:44 Can we go now sir in volume two tab C1 to document number 74049
02:24:54 when we've got it up could we start with page two please
02:25:02 report in time that the inquiry um has recovered I understand from your evidence though that you had been reporting before this.
02:25:13 that you had been reporting before this. You've told us about a couple of things you reported on. Could you help us more generally what sort of things were covered in that early reporting that we have not been able to recover?
02:25:26 have not been able to recover? Well, it would have been anybody um who I'd met at the Colin Roach Center whose name was you know met introduced me to various people. uh this individual here
02:25:37 various people. uh this individual here being one of them. But it was it was that really everything that was I was introduced to the things that they did. I'd report on all of that. I didn't know what was relevant or who was what I was
02:25:49 what was relevant or who was what I was just names or organizations and I just reported on them. If we could expand the text of this first nominal performer, I'll give you a
02:26:00 first nominal performer, I'll give you a moment to
02:26:02 moment to refresh your memory.
02:26:20 Okay. What was the significance of Celia Stubs's
02:26:27 Stubs's involvement in what you term anti- police activities? Well, can I say first of all, I didn't write this report. This is based on intelligence that I supplied. This would
02:26:38 intelligence that I supplied. This would have been written by the office. Um, and in in respect to the Celia Stubs thing, that would again that would be I don't think I spoke to her directly. This would all have been spoken to me or
02:26:50 would all have been spoken to me or introduced to me by Metaf. The phrase anti- police activities. Is that one that you would have used? No, that's that sounds like a general generalization office speak. It's not
02:27:03 generalization office speak. It's not one I'd have used. Well, what I'm interested in is whether it was the generally ex the generally used term by SDS officers.
02:27:15 by SDS officers. I in general terms, yes, it would have been.
02:27:17 been. And also whether that was a term that was in general use within special branch.
02:27:24 branch. I think so. Yes. Generically, yeah.
02:27:31 Can you help me by putting into context um what the SDS's interest in anti- police activity was?
02:27:43 police activity was? Again, it just goes down to that the scatter gun approach um the anti-olicing things by definition had again I suppose we're looking back to the likes of the
02:27:54 we're looking back to the likes of the um the pole tax riots and also it was wasn't particularly anti police. it turns into anti police. Any of these different um certainly if there's action or police uh misconduct that conflrates
02:28:08 or police uh misconduct that conflrates into a a public order situation and of course uniform police are involved then there is certainly potential for disorder and it's on the basis of that that this term has come into effect. So
02:28:20 that this term has come into effect. So it doesn't need to be particularly it can be fairly innocuous event which could turn into a public order interest. Uh anti- police activity involves
02:28:34 Uh anti- police activity involves criticism of the police doesn't it? Yeah of course that's yeah a bit more than that I would say but and was the well it in what sense? Yes. Well, everybody's critical of the
02:28:46 Yes. Well, everybody's critical of the police. Um, but when it's an issue that involves so-called uh police violence, all of all of those other things, it
02:28:57 all of all of those other things, it takes it beyond that into wanting to do something about it or certainly protest against that. You can yes there are certainly issues where that's justified but also it can be used by others as an
02:29:10 but also it can be used by others as an excuse to bring violence to the police and that's what we were looking to avoid.
02:29:16 avoid. So anti police activity might cover campaigning in certain respects. Yeah. Litigating. I don't know. I wasn't involved in that
02:29:27 I don't know. I wasn't involved in that litigation thing. I can see where your question is coming from but I couldn't answer that. I don't know. [clears throat]
02:29:37 So, how would you define anti- police activity?
02:29:42 activity? In the context of the SDS, I would say that it's it's activity uh against the police for specific reasons which could lead to a public order situation that the uniform
02:29:55 order situation that the uniform policing would need to know about. Special branch.
02:30:01 How do you mean special special branch? Did they define anti police activity different? It was a generic term really.
02:30:13 The left-wing groups that the SDS was infiltrating and the special branch was studying often felt that the police were agents of oppression.
02:30:26 agents of oppression. That's probably fair to say. Yeah. as a result of their political analysis of the capitalist state. Yes, I would say so. Yeah. So, was there a feeling that activity
02:30:40 So, was there a feeling that activity that sought to undermine the police was subversive? No, I don't think so. I think you know any police officer since the dawn of
02:30:51 any police officer since the dawn of Robert Peele, you know, expected to be criticized at every event. That's, you know, that that's different from actually organizing violence against the police,
02:31:02 police, I would suggest.
02:31:06 Did you ever get any feedback as to the use to which your reporting on anti- police activity had been put? No, unless it was the only time would be
02:31:18 No, unless it was the only time would be if there'd been a uh actual public order issue. [clears throat] I can remember one one event, but it wasn't anti-policing as such. It was a different thing, but not not
02:31:30 different thing, but not not specifically in the way that you've asked that question. Now, let's look at the anti- police activities that you go on to describe in this paragraph. You say currently
02:31:41 this paragraph. You say currently involved with the Colin Roach Center, particularly its anti- police activities. She is a regular contributor to the thrice weekly advice sessions at the Colin Roach Center, where her
02:31:53 the Colin Roach Center, where her experience of community politics and criminal law are much valued by Mark Metaf and Graeme Smith. So, the nature of the advice that was being given at
02:32:04 of the advice that was being given at these sessions, can you help us with that? Well, I'm assuming I was never a party to this. It would be people who had complaints against the police or local people who had particular issues
02:32:15 local people who had particular issues with a specific police office or some action or whatever it was. So, giving advice to people who are making complaints against the police
02:32:27 making complaints against the police anti police equals anti police activity. That's how I understood it. Yeah. Uh and there is nothing unlawful about doing that is there? No.
02:32:39 No. It goes on. Stubs is participate. Stubs is participating in the recently started self-defense classes organized by the Hackne anti-fascist
02:32:52 by the Hackne anti-fascist collective. Uh are you able to help us with the nature of these self-defense classes? Yeah, it was um I think it was this was another metaf initiative and another
02:33:04 another metaf initiative and another individual at at the center who was uh I think he was a sort of karate expert or something. Um and it was an just a it was more of a social thing, but we used
02:33:15 was more of a social thing, but we used to go to a gym and do a bit of self-defense classes that was for men and women at the center. Mr. Metaf's evidence was to the effect there were quite a lot of women uh who
02:33:26 there were quite a lot of women uh who attended the Colin Roach Center. Uh and uh he wanted them to be able to defend themselves. Is that fair? That's a fair point. Yeah. And is self-defense um an accurate
02:33:38 And is self-defense um an accurate description of what they were? Yes, I would say so. Yeah. Can we uh zoom back out, please? And if we look at at the paragraph which
02:33:50 And if we look at at the paragraph which is to the right of orgs,
02:33:57 this reads Colin Roach Center CRC formally the Hackne Community Defense Association. Can you help us with why you wrote that? I didn't write that.
02:34:09 I didn't write that. Can you help us with what your understanding of the Colin Roach Center was as at May 1995? At that when I as I understood it then it was they were all one and the same
02:34:20 it was they were all one and the same thing. It was like an umbrella organization for all these different interests that Metaf had put together and I and I think that was the first time anyone had spoken to me about the
02:34:31 time anyone had spoken to me about the HCDA
02:34:33 HCDA in relation to to that. But it was all part and parcel of the Colin Roach Center at the time. And what understanding did you eventually come to about uh the relationship between those two
02:34:44 relationship between those two organizations? I I just thought they were one and the same. Metaf was at the the center of everything, but I didn't sort of split the differences. You know, I reported on whatever was was mentioned. If they were mentioned in a
02:34:55 mentioned. If they were mentioned in a particular by him in relation to something, then I'd mention them, but essentially it was all one and the same. [clears throat] Would you take any issue with the proposition that the Hackne Community
02:35:06 proposition that the Hackne Community Defense Association was involved in police? What it did was police accountability work? From their point of view, yes, I suppose that's what they would have done. Yeah.
02:35:17 would have done. Yeah. Whereas this Colin Rope center was a setting at which there was a much more wide ranging um spectrum of political activity. I honestly don't know. I really took
02:35:29 I honestly don't know. I really took that from a practical point of view um it was all one and the same. But obviously the policing, the legal advice and stuff was in this. It looks as
02:35:40 and stuff was in this. It looks as though that was a different part of it, but the reality was it was all one and the same organization. Hackne Community Defense Association, not an anarchist organization.
02:35:52 not an anarchist organization. Well, I I certainly wouldn't describe it as that. No. No. Dr. Smith, not an anarchist. No, definitely not. No, not in my estimation.
02:36:03 estimation. Mark Metaf committed to democratic centralism? Yeah, I would say so. Oh yeah, he was the antithesis of anarchy. Absolutely.
02:36:15 Absolutely. How quickly did you appreciate that the leading figures operating the CRC in the HCDA were not anarchists? Uh pretty quickly. There were perhaps
02:36:28 Uh pretty quickly. There were perhaps one or two sort of lifestyle but certainly you know political commitment there's been one person who was a member of an a different organization was the
02:36:39 of an a different organization was the only one who I would describe as an anarchist politically but not the others. No. And so what was to what extent were anarchists coming to
02:36:50 to what extent were anarchists coming to the center and participating in the political life there? Well, I can only think of one person. Um, there may have been others there who were sympathetic
02:37:02 been others there who were sympathetic towards it perhaps as a as a a counterweight to uh the Marxist route that Metaf was intent on. But, you know, I wouldn't say there was this stream of
02:37:14 I wouldn't say there was this stream of anarchists wandering in and out the office. No, I only really know of one person who was involved in an actual anarchist group. Could
02:37:25 Could you could we could you move to page one now please of this document and expand that left hand page
02:37:33 this is the accompanying minute uh sheet uh there is I'll give you a moment to have a look at it but what I want to ask about once you've familiarized yourself
02:37:45 about once you've familiarized yourself with the top and for my purposes what's significant is two it records two copies being sent to the security service on the 2nd of
02:37:56 to the security service on the 2nd of May.
02:37:57 May. If we move then to the bottom, we've got um an annotation by DCI HN
02:38:08 we've got um an annotation by DCI HN 58.
02:38:10 58. Uh are you able to help us with um the meaning of what is written there? It seems to say Detective Sergeant Titty to see
02:38:23 to see something to note. Comp to note. What does that mean? So, this is not out of my pay grade, but my understanding of that comp to note is that that's a recording uh in special
02:38:36 that that's a recording uh in special branch files is a note. And then it says SB to note, special branch records. And then PA we understand to be put away.
02:38:48 away. Okay. I didn't know that. So that explains the internal special branch disposal of this report. Okay.
02:38:58 Okay. In terms of the security service [clears throat] getting two copies, what was your understanding as to why the security service needed to know about Celia Stubs's involvement in community
02:39:11 Stubs's involvement in community politics in Hackne? I have absolutely no idea. I didn't know they were in I haven't seen that minute. As I say, it wasn't written by me and it wasn't for our to to to look at or see. That was for management.
02:39:23 That was for management. Uh, but I have no idea. Was it your understanding that at least some of your reporting was sent to the security service? I don't not at this stage it wasn't. No, I wasn't made aware of it. Anyway,
02:39:35 I wasn't made aware of it. Anyway, when you were in the back office, did you become familiar with the system for distributing reports? No. Well, other than the fact that they were written in the office and then they were taken by management to whatever
02:39:48 were taken by management to whatever field they were, but that was it. We weren't bogged down with the bureaucracy behind it or were you aware in general terms that the SDS was feeding intelligence to the
02:39:59 SDS was feeding intelligence to the security service in certain circumstances? Yes. For counter subversion purposes? Yes. In that sort of generic thing. Does it follow that somebody
02:40:10 thing. Does it follow that somebody thought that this intelligence was relevant to counter subversion? I well I I can't speculate on what somebody else thought, but yeah, clearly if they've sent it up there, they did. Can we take that document down now, please? Can I ask you now about how you
02:40:24 please? Can I ask you now about how you behaved in your early days at the Colin Roach Center? Uh what stance did you take initially
02:40:36 take initially in the center itself? Well, I was brand new. Obviously, I was I let myself get drawn into Metcaf. I mean, he probably
02:40:47 drawn into Metcaf. I mean, he probably wouldn't thank me for saying it, but we actually had quite a lot in common, not withstanding, you know, me being as a police officer, but so we there was a natural sort of chemistry. So, we, you
02:40:58 natural sort of chemistry. So, we, you know, we get on, we drink a lot, go to a pub, do all the social sort of thing, and that's how it was. I was just the sort of new bloke that was willingly being led along along and and that was
02:41:09 being led along along and and that was fine. It's the way I wanted to be. So, did you try and follow the Metaf line in the activities of the center? Oh, I would say so. Yeah, certainly.
02:41:21 Oh, I would say so. Yeah, certainly. And did you play the role of a working man who'd come down uh from Liverpool to London?
02:41:28 London? That was my role. Yeah. And did that mean that at early meetings you were quite uh vocal and assertive? I wasn't aware of that. No, I wouldn't
02:41:40 I wasn't aware of that. No, I wouldn't couldn't, you know, I couldn't uh you expected to sort of contribute, but I wouldn't say I was assertive and vocal. No, I couldn't afford to be. Not at that stage. Well, what what's been said in evidence
02:41:51 Well, what what's been said in evidence is that from an early stage, you had the confidence to argue with experienced activists. Is that right? Well, yes. I think I've come across as a complete half whip. So yes, I wasn't
02:42:02 complete half whip. So yes, I wasn't afraid to speak my mind within reason. And did speaking your mind um include asserting that there was no room for
02:42:13 asserting that there was no room for Labor supporters at the center? I can't recall that. No. Is that the type of thing you might have said?
02:42:18 said? I might have done. Yeah. They were seen as being sort of quite conservative at that time. So yeah, I may well have said that. I don't remember it. Yeah, that's consistent with my character.
02:42:30 with my character. It's been said that you came across as aggressive and confrontational. [clears throat] Is that the way that you might have been perceived by some?
02:42:41 perceived by some? I have no idea. That wasn't I? No, I I I didn't think at that stage. Certainly, that's not how I was.
02:42:51 Dr. Smith said that your aggressive and confrontational behavior helped to confirm a decision he'd already taken to leave.
02:43:00 leave. Uh, might it be that you came across as borish
02:43:07 borish and opinionated? I met him once. I was in his flat with Metaf. Um, I can't answer for how he I didn't have
02:43:19 I can't answer for how he I didn't have an awful lot to say to him to be honest. on that particular occasion. But I know if he says that then that's I can't alter that. Were you at any meetings with him? I can't recall being at any meetings with him.
02:43:30 with him. Might you have been? If he'd have been at the Colin Roach Center meeting, which I doubt very much he did. That's the only occasion that I can think of.
02:43:42 can think of. Can we have up now from your file sir C3 245
02:43:47 245 085.
02:43:53 [clears throat]
02:43:58 This is a report dated the 23rd of May 1995. If we could expand the text please [snorts]
02:44:08 [snorts] give you a moment to read that.
02:44:18 Okay. [snorts]
02:44:19 [snorts] So, this follows um
02:44:24 um prominence given to the CRC in HCDA. It is said in organizing demonstrations after the death of Brian Douglas in police custody in Kennington, Graeme
02:44:36 police custody in Kennington, Graeme Smith agreed to give an interview to the Mail on Sunday. To be more precise, what was the role of the CRC in organizing the demonstrations?
02:44:48 demonstrations? I don't organize. Well, from my perspective, I think I knew Metaf was in contact or I'm assuming it was Metaf. It might have been Smith. I don't know. He was in contact with the the Brian
02:45:02 was in contact with the the Brian Douglas defense campaign group. Um, and it was all around stewarding. and I was asked by him to go down to meet this fellow in Brixton and it was either to
02:45:13 fellow in Brixton and it was either to take some leaflets or bring something back in readiness for this particular demonstration. Um and then of course we provided stewards for the march itself and as far
02:45:25 stewards for the march itself and as far as I'm aware or I was sort of made aware that was the only um act activity that well I was privy to anyway and I s the apart from Smith's um
02:45:39 anyway and I s the apart from Smith's um interview and all that was you know I had picked that up from Metcov. Were you a steward at that event? I was. Yes. What was the HCDA's contribution to the
02:45:51 What was the HCDA's contribution to the Brian Douglas campaign? I have no idea.
02:45:57 Uh the interview, it is said, outlined the work done by the HCDA and the CRC as community- based advice and self-help organizations. Is that a fair summation of what they
02:46:09 Is that a fair summation of what they were actually doing? Well, I suppose in his in his life, yeah, it was when I say that that sort of policing type of stuff. I only heard or got information secondhand from uh
02:46:23 or got information secondhand from uh Metcov, but yeah, I'm I'm not going to dispute that. Yeah. Records the fee that Mr. Smith was paying and how he used that and the profits made from selling HCDA
02:46:34 profits made from selling HCDA publications to the journalist. 12 all from Mechov.
02:46:41 What is the purpose of reporting uh on uh this interaction with a journalist?
02:46:53 uh this interaction with a journalist? It was passed to me. Uh it concerns somebody that I was I obviously knew through the group and I passed it on. It's not for me to evaluate how important that is or how it may become
02:47:05 important that is or how it may become important to elsewhere. That's a decision above my pay grade and I was quite happy to report it and leave it at that. It is one way of interpreting that that
02:47:17 It is one way of interpreting that that even though a lot of this information was in the already in the public domain, the purpose of reporting it was so that it all went on to special branch files. Well, I put it up for consideration. I
02:47:28 Well, I put it up for consideration. I didn't make that decision. It's down at the office as to whether they think it's worth clearly by this report they did. Uh they have special branch references both Graeme
02:47:40 special branch references both Graeme Smith and the HCDA CRC. Uh would you have done any research or had any briefings about those files for these purposes or are those simply file
02:47:53 these purposes or are those simply file references added afterwards? These are file references added afterwards. If we could [clears throat] take that down now and go to C4 245106.
02:48:12 Uh this is a nominal performer about Mark Metaf. uh says he will be finishing his employment at a children's nursery
02:48:23 employment at a children's nursery uh in Qu Road, Kilburn on the 26th of May and will become a full-time worker at the CRC receiving payment of £100 per week. Reported
02:48:34 week. Reported A because you were hoovering up and B because Mark Metaf was the focus of your deployment. Yeah.
02:48:41 Yeah. No piece of information too small. Not at all. No. Can we take that down now and go to C5 245116?
02:48:58 Uh if we could expand the text of this May 1995
02:49:04 May 1995 uh report. uh and if you concentrate on the interaction between CRC and Certa.
02:49:25 Okay. Did Cersa use a desk and telephone at the CRC?
02:49:30 the CRC? I
02:49:32 I I can't remember. I remember it being discussed. I I don't know. I don't know. If they had, I would have reported on it, I'm sure. Are you able to help us with whether or not Cersa ever did anything unlawful on
02:49:45 not Cersa ever did anything unlawful on the premises of the CRC? No.
02:49:49 No. And if they had, you would have reported it,
02:49:51 it, of course. Yeah. Did Cersei have any involvement in public disorder?
02:50:00 No, they had a public face certainly. Um, but no, not not that I was aware of.
02:50:09 Cersa was a prisoners support group, wasn't it?
02:50:13 it? It was. Yeah. Why was Cersa being reported on if it was not a public order threat? Well, in this instance, they were here
02:50:24 Well, in this instance, they were here at uh [clears throat] there was an organization which obviously they've been heard of and it came into the the headlights of Mark Metav at the center. Hence, it was valuable to report it.
02:50:40 Can you help me with whether you're applying any filter at all? By which I mean, are you literally reporting anybody who come through the door or are
02:50:51 anybody who come through the door or are you reporting on this because it's an Irish Republican prisoners? It's an Irish Republican prisoners with a profile. Yeah, that's why it it came up to my attention and I I was surprised
02:51:03 up to my attention and I I was surprised that they pitched up at there, but all from me.
02:51:12 Can we take that down now please and go to C8245152?
02:51:20 We're going now to preparations for the Justice for Brian Douglas March on the 10th of June 1995. This is a preemptive report on the 2nd of June 1995.
02:51:36 report on the 2nd of June 1995. If we could have the first two paragraphs uh up please.
02:51:43 I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory.
02:52:13 Okay. Yeah. I Is it uh right to say as is recorded here that the Brian Douglas campaign was capable of pushing back on Socialist Workers Party demands
02:52:27 Workers Party demands in this specific circumstances as I'm reading here. I think you know if they've been let down by uh this organization yes I think you know there certainly the family um in this instance
02:52:40 certainly the family um in this instance they are the primary focus of the whole campaign so yes I would say that is a realistic assessment they would have pushed back against the SWP capable of asserting their win
02:52:51 capable of asserting their win I think [clears throat] so yeah can we have paragraph three please
02:53:00 uh give you a moment to refresh your memory.
02:53:09 Okay. Yeah. Is it right to say uh that Donald Douglas uh Brian's brother very competently chaired the meeting?
02:53:21 competently chaired the meeting? As I recall it, yes. Perfectly capable of running the campaign.
02:53:26 campaign. Well, I couldn't say that. He was certainly capable of chairing a meeting. Yeah. When you say you wouldn't say that, what is the extent of your qualification? Well, it's not he he's actually chaired a meeting here because he is the pri as
02:53:37 a meeting here because he is the pri as I said is they are the family is always going to be the primary focus of any campaign. Whether he could organize a whole um or this was a you know a demonstration etc. Um I don't know about
02:53:50 demonstration etc. Um I don't know about that.
02:53:51 that. How much insight did you get into the way in which the Douglas family uh were running the campaign? I didn't. That that was it pretty much based on that meeting I attended.
02:54:03 based on that meeting I attended. Can we go to paragraph four please? Uh it will be the second half that I'm particularly interested in.
02:54:30 Yeah. Uh, and so this report asserts that Donald Douglas made it clear that the family wanted a peaceful demonstration in the context of a debate about hard
02:54:42 in the context of a debate about hard hats and banners with robust handles which could be used as weapons. Is it fair to say that the Douglas family were completely against violence?
02:54:53 completely against violence? That was my impression. Yes. And capable of asserting uh that at the meeting
02:55:00 meeting that they were making it perfectly clear at the meeting.
02:55:05 meeting. Well, I I picked it up. Yeah, certainly. If we go over the page, please to the source comments paragraph.
02:55:19 I'll give you a moment to read that.
02:55:34 Okay. Can you help me with why you use the phrase the number of non-political but I rate black youth who turn up on the day
02:55:47 rate black youth who turn up on the day could be a critical factor because that's um obviously in this particular occasion the it was in a sensitive area in terms of the history of uh the behavior um alleged behavior
02:56:01 of uh the behavior um alleged behavior of the the police towards black people. So yes, there was a lot of um of course they were irate against anything that um like this and that was to be expected, but they weren't particularly involved
02:56:15 but they weren't particularly involved in any of the mainstream political organizations in my estimation. And what is the significance of them being black youth? Well, because it's a black family. It's
02:56:27 Well, because it's a black family. It's a a black family that's um claiming that they that uh this person had been killed by the racist actions of white police officers
02:56:37 officers in you know in in Lambeath. I've worked in Lambeath. I know what it's like. Um so that was Yeah, it was. And what do you mean by you know what it's like? Well, because black people uh
02:56:51 it's like? Well, because black people uh the majority of people living in places such back then were black people and a lot of the issues with police alleged
02:57:03 lot of the issues with police alleged allegations of police crime and and misconduct were made by black people quite angry about about the police response back in the day.
02:57:16 response back in the day. And why would black youth be a critical factor?
02:57:20 factor? Well, because they weren't uh affiliated in my I said they're non-political. They were people who were obviously emotionally charged about this particular event, but there was no
02:57:34 particular event, but there was no I say discipline, but they weren't affiliated to a particular left-wing or support group um that could have any influence over them in my estimation.
02:57:46 influence over them in my estimation. So, was there a concern that I rate black youths could cause um public disorder?
02:57:53 disorder? In my mind, yes. And a fear that a black mob uh might um run out of control. Well, I'm not sure that I think that's overegging it slightly. Um because the
02:58:06 overegging it slightly. Um because the actual the organizers, as I said, at this thing um were expect they weren't expecting disorder. uh other than to be attacked by the police. Hence the issue
02:58:17 attacked by the police. Hence the issue of the uh the the helmets and the the substantial banners sticks. Would you accept that identifying black
02:58:29 Would you accept that identifying black youths as a potential source of public disorder is a racial stereotype? No, I wouldn't. Why not? Because in my experience, this type of event, of course, it was a it
02:58:40 type of event, of course, it was a it was black youths at that particular, you know, when they living in that community, the same uh community as as as Mr. Douglas was killed, obviously the
02:58:52 as Mr. Douglas was killed, obviously the it the focus has been on racial attacks allegedly by the police. So, of course, they're going to be completely charged up and angry with the police on
02:59:03 charged up and angry with the police on the on the basis of that.
02:59:10 Why is it necessary to identify them by race?
02:59:13 race? Because it was I did it well because that's what I thought it was going to be. You're not going to get groups of white uh I don't know like football casuals. This was a
02:59:26 know like football casuals. This was a inherent racial perceived racial attack. So the racial lines are already drawn. Then there's potential for violence on the back of that. That's where it fitted.
02:59:37 That's where it fitted. The source comment goes on, there is a general fear and distrust of police among the factions represented at the planning meeting. What was the source of
02:59:48 planning meeting. What was the source of the fear?
02:59:51 the fear? Police attacks, distrust.
02:59:55 distrust. Yeah, of course. Yeah. Yeah. The fear that the police had, you know, murdered this individual. That was the bottom line. And what was the source of the distrust?
03:00:05 distrust? Because nobody trusts the police. Why not?
03:00:11 Why not? Because nobody trusts the police, particularly in a place like Lambeath. Of course, they didn't. That's I didn't actually write this, you know, this is I I didn't actually write again this report is uh an amalgam of of what I'd
03:00:24 report is uh an amalgam of of what I'd said. But yeah, there is I don't sort of looking even back on it now. I don't take back anything I said. That was my general appreciation of it at the time.
03:00:35 general appreciation of it at the time. And of course, yeah, the police were seen as the enemy and any violence emanating on that particular event would seem to be started by the police themselves.
03:00:47 It headed source comment. You were the source, weren't you? Yes, I was. Yes. So, this is your comment, isn't it? Well,
03:00:54 Well, they're my comments. Yeah, but I didn't actually write this thing.
03:01:01 were the Brian Douglas campaign cooperating with the police in the organization of this demonstration? I don't know.
03:01:12 Do you have any reason to suspect that they were not? I have no idea. I apart from that one delivery of those leafers, I had no didn't speak to anybody from that campaign.
03:01:22 campaign. And it was clearly well publicized. Clearly. Yes. So the uniform police would know it was coming. Yes, I think so. Yeah. Well, they had they was given the usual official
03:01:34 they was given the usual official notification uh that was required for a demonstration of this size. If we could take that down now, please. Can we have up tab C11245187?
03:01:52 Uh this is a report about the march itself. Can we go to the first paragraph?
03:02:03 There is no doubt that tactful and wellplanned policing prevented potentially serious outbreaks of disorder during this long and tiring march. There were certainly elements in
03:02:14 march. There were certainly elements in and around the demonstration who were expecting trouble and who were ready and willing to join in. The lack of any incident to set things off was fortuitous.
03:02:25 fortuitous. The only major period of tension was outside Kennington Police Station when a significant section of the demonstration seemed to want a confrontation. The march organizers and the Douglas
03:02:36 The march organizers and the Douglas family made it clear that this was not to be and stewards led the march away. If I've understood your previous evidence, you were one of those stewards.
03:02:46 stewards. I was. Yes. Uh and is it right uh fair and right as a result of this report to say that the family and the stewards deserve credit
03:02:57 family and the stewards deserve credit for their conduct on the day? Well, yes. and also the intelligence provided to the police. I think they they they obviously weren't attacking the the uh demonstrators as or the
03:03:08 the the uh demonstrators as or the procession as was feared. So yes, I think it was it was it was it was well organized. And when you say there were elements expecting trouble and who were ready and willing to join in, is there anything
03:03:21 willing to join in, is there anything above and beyond the answers you gave me to the last document to substantiate that assertion? I witnessed personally there was a
03:03:32 I witnessed personally there was a couple of scuffles around the oval uh with some black youths and the police, you know, they broke it. I I don't know what it was about, but it did. But it
03:03:43 what it was about, but it did. But it you could see that it there was there's certainly a tension there, but it was dealt with pretty fairly by the police, I felt.
03:03:52 I felt. Could we have a paragraph two, please? [clears throat]
03:03:59 There was another incident about this time which could have proved inflammatory. A black police officer was subjected to verbal abuse by black demonstrators and at one stage he was surrounded. Some of the demonstrators
03:04:11 surrounded. Some of the demonstrators had the clear intention of attacking the police officer with makeshift clubs made of sturdy placard handles before Stuart stepped in. The black officer was
03:04:23 stepped in. The black officer was extricated by two colleagues, shaken but uninjured. How close to these events were you? I think it was probably the other side of the of the road. Um
03:04:36 of the of the road. Um I don't know 50 60 yards away. So the stewards deserve more credit. Well, in that instance certainly, yeah, they were doing what they were supposed
03:04:48 they were doing what they were supposed to be doing. So, it' be fair to say that both the family and the stewards were doing everything they could to ensure an orderly demonstration.
03:05:00 orderly demonstration. Yes.
03:05:01 Yes. Could we go to the source comment, please, at the bottom of the page?
03:05:10 Militant Labor put the turnout at about a thousand, which they consider to be a very respectable size for a local demonstration. In an attempt to cash in on the issue, ML is organizing public
03:05:24 on the issue, ML is organizing public meetings on the Douglas case. A copy of the ML leaflet distributed during the demonstration is attached. There were significant numbers of black youth in the vicinity of the
03:05:35 youth in the vicinity of the demonstration, but who did not participate in the long march who would have joined in had disorder erupted. the phrase uh in an attempt to cash in
03:05:48 the phrase uh in an attempt to cash in on this issue. What is the basis for describing ML's activity as cashing in? didn't mean it in a a monetary way, but
03:06:00 didn't mean it in a a monetary way, but it's like a lot of, you know, militant or the SWP, they're desperate to lend their or to get credibility from a a campaign which is essentially not
03:06:13 campaign which is essentially not politically motivated. And so they would they do what they always do, which is
03:06:19 which is publicize it, try and influence it. And obviously in this instance um you know organized the public meetings taking it on because they're using that case for
03:06:30 on because they're using that case for their own ends. It might be said that what they were doing was entirely in accordance with their own sincerely held political beliefs. Would you accept that?
03:06:44 beliefs. Would you accept that? Entriism opportunism. Yes. Of course they'd say that. There's no entry going on here. Is it ML are overtly overt in their support?
03:06:55 are overtly overt in their support? Well, they don't need to make it. It's not covert activity. That's what they do. They will try and use any campaign to further their own cause. That's there's no secret in that.
03:07:07 there's no secret in that. But they also believe that racism is an evil and the police force are uh an oppressive agent of the state. Of course. Yeah. Of course they do. And so supporting a demonstration like
03:07:18 And so supporting a demonstration like this is entirely consistent with their political beliefs. Yes. Of course it is. Yeah. Which they're entitled to hold. Absolutely. So what is the basis for your cynicism?
03:07:29 So what is the basis for your cynicism? Because they're a leftwing organization. You're looking at that on on this particular thing. They want to as say take over all these things. They want to jump on the back of any sort of campaign they can to enhance their own
03:07:41 they can to enhance their own reputation. This is just another example of it. This report, this source comment could have been written up in a more neutral way, couldn't it? Just factually
03:07:52 way, couldn't it? Just factually describing what ML had done. But you use the phrase attempt to cash in. Was that view,
03:08:02 view, which you obviously still hold to. Yes.
03:08:05 Yes. Widely accepted within the SDS? I would say so. Yeah. Special branch. Yes, I would say so. Yeah.
03:08:16 the basis for saying black youth would have joined in. I've asked you questions in relation to this document and the last document. Is there anything else that you would add
03:08:28 that you would add as to the basis for that sentence at the end? was because there were large groups of in my view large groups of black youths particularly when there was that
03:08:41 youths particularly when there was that slight bit of disorder suddenly had a lot of people there. So but again decent stewarding good policing prevented any issues. So I I that's why I made a
03:08:52 issues. So I I that's why I made a mention of that. And [clears throat] so am I understanding you correctly? Your view is the presence of numbers of black youth increases the risk of public disorder
03:09:01 disorder in a in that particular instance. Yes. Uh and in general no you can't make generalizations like that. No.
03:09:10 that. No. Was there
03:09:12 Was there in this era in the 1990s rising activism by black people?
03:09:22 Not that I can recall. No. number of justice campaigns going on. Some of them very high-profile. I say a number of them. Yes. But I mean this is the this is the first one that
03:09:33 this is the this is the first one that I'd had any sort of dealings with myself. But yes, you were aware of I mean you mentioned earlier the Tre Trevor Monavville I think there were cases that you know historical cases but
03:09:44 cases that you know historical cases but I don't remember there was a a golden era of of black justice campaigning. No. Was there a sense that there was a rising tide of black activism that
03:09:55 rising tide of black activism that needed to be monitored? No, not in my estimation or I didn't hear anything to that effect. No, even for public order purposes. No.
03:10:08 Can we take that down now, please? Have C10 245186.
03:10:20 This is a document dated the 13th of June uh 1995. It's a proformer on Graeme Smith. If we
03:10:31 It's a proformer on Graeme Smith. If we could just have a look at the text please.
03:10:37 [clears throat]
03:10:43 Okay. still being described as an anarchist. Not by me. How has that happened? Uh I think you'd have to ask the uh
03:10:54 Uh I think you'd have to ask the uh reporter. I mean, that's sort of got the the mark of uh Bob Lambert there, I think. But I didn't have any input into how that was written. and it's recording that he is
03:11:06 and it's recording that he is withdrawing uh from activity in the Colin Roach Center and says first of all that his father was terminally ill with cancer.
03:11:17 cancer. Why report the fact that a man's father is terminally ill with cancer? Because that's what I heard and article reported on goes up on the hoovering of
03:11:29 reported on goes up on the hoovering of all information. And it's not for me to evaluate how important relevant it is. That's for others to decide. Well, presumably there was lots of things that you heard whilst deployed
03:11:40 things that you heard whilst deployed that you didn't report. There must have been some level of relevance that caused you to pass that information on. Yeah. And I think the relevance there is
03:11:51 Yeah. And I think the relevance there is the fact that he is leaving. um which was significant even I didn't have much to do with the Boke himself but considering his history uh and activity within that organization. Yes, that was
03:12:02 within that organization. Yes, that was a significant piece of information. Why is he leaving? Well, there we go. That's the reason for it. That's why I reported it.
03:12:10 it. Is a stranged wife is threatening divorce. Can you help us where you got that information from? Uh I it was either Metcov. I don't think
03:12:21 I it was either Metcov. I don't think when I met Smith I don't I don't think he would have said that in front of me but that would have come from Metaf.
03:12:31 Dr. Smith has given evidence that this simply isn't true. Are you able to help us with whether or not it is true? No. No. Well, yeah. I'm sorry. Mech
03:12:42 No. No. Well, yeah. I'm sorry. Mech Mecharov has reported it to me and I don't know. I can't I can't evaluate that.
03:12:49 Is there any threshold or guidance as to accuracy of reporting? How confident you have to be something's true before you report it? Well, you can you have to evaluate it
03:13:01 Well, you can you have to evaluate it yourself. I mean, obviously Mark Metaf is prone, as I got to know him, to exaggeration. So, I had to put it through a slight filter in that respect. But by and large, that's not my
03:13:12 respect. But by and large, that's not my role to to make judgments on that. If I hear something, then I will put it through unless I think it's just ridiculous. And why isn't the fact that it's hearsay recorded here to enable the information
03:13:24 recorded here to enable the information to be evaluated? Because it's an intelligence document, not an evidential document. But even from an intelligence point of view to assess the veracity of that, it
03:13:35 view to assess the veracity of that, it would be significant to know that it's been said by somebody else and not come from Dr. Smith himself. Perhaps that would be something for the management to to uh question me further
03:13:46 management to to uh question me further on had that been an issue, which it wasn't.
03:13:53 Second paragraph. to keep his hand in. Smith will spend his time producing leaflets at home on his computer and making himself available for advice on anti- police matters. Uh can I take it
03:14:05 anti- police matters. Uh can I take it the significance to the police of this reporting is that he isn't going completely to abandon uh his activism. Yes, I think that's a fair
03:14:16 Yes, I think that's a fair and will be continuing to assist those who wish to seek justice against the police.
03:14:21 police. Yes, as I understood it. Yeah. [gasps]
03:14:25 [gasps] Two registry files were opened on Dr. Smith in 1990. We've got the numbers. We can take the document down now. One is RF 402
03:14:36 RF 402 stroke 90 stroke 11. The other is RF 405 stroke 90 stroke 62. Were you aware that there were two
03:14:48 Were you aware that there were two files?
03:14:52 Are you waiting to put it up on the screen or Oh, no, no, no, I wasn't. I don't No, I wasn't aware of that. Are you able from those two file reference numbers to give us any assistance as to why there might have
03:15:04 assistance as to why there might have been two files? No, I don't I have no idea why that is the case.
03:15:10 the case. Could we have um 245356 up, please? It's tab C19.
03:15:21 Now, this is a report about an individual whose privacy we are respecting by anonymizing them. Dated the 1st of August 1995.
03:15:35 the 1st of August 1995. I'll give you a moment to read the text. If you need to know, need to be reminded of who the person is, we can remind you. Yeah. Could could you remind me? There
03:15:46 Yeah. Could could you remind me? There is a privacy checklist that you should have available. This is number one on that list. Okay. Yes.
03:15:58 If we expand then the text please. Thank you.
03:16:23 Okay. The first paragraph, as you can see, deals with a fight in a pub. Were you there?
03:16:32 there? No. Not no not if this this is report 1 of August 90. Was it 95? 95. Yes.
03:16:39 95. Yes. No, I wouldn't have been there. The second paragraph uh refers to the individual's trade union activity.
03:16:50 union activity. Yeah.
03:16:51 Yeah. And it says that it is through his union activity
03:16:56 activity that he is a regular contact of the CRC.
03:17:03 Is it is trade union activity uh that is of interest to special branch? No.
03:17:13 No. What is the relevance of the fact that this person is an active member of UKAT uh involved in distributing the building worker?
03:17:25 worker? It was his previous involvement in red action.
03:17:31 action. And what is your understanding of why special branch would want to know that an active trade unionist was also a member or former member in this case of
03:17:44 member or former member in this case of red action and specifically want to know about it. That was the the fact that he was and I think that's the first I I met I
03:17:55 think that's the first I I met I certainly met him and and got to know about what he was about. uh and certainly in contact with the with the Colin Roach Center. There's no specific interest in his membership of UKAT.
03:18:09 But if it is through his union activity that he's come to be involved in the Colin Roach Center, there does appear to be a connection, doesn't there? Yeah, there is. And I think I think one of the remits of the Colin Roach Center,
03:18:22 of the remits of the Colin Roach Center, as I remember, they had a like a trade called a trade union support unit or something like that. Um I'm not quite sure what that that was.
03:18:33 I'm not quite sure what that that was. Um but it yes I and his connection through that brought him into contact with the Colin Roach Center. So that was the the chain of events. And because you were hoovering up information you reported exactly that. Yeah.
03:18:44 exactly that. Yeah. And would that apply to anything to do with the trade union support unit? Yes. If it if it was at the center, yes, I would.
03:18:52 I would. And then subject to any filter applied further up the chain. all reported and filtered and filed on special branch records
03:19:01 records that I don't know but I did I when I you probably come to this later on but as UKAP became more of an issue for me I was specifically told that special
03:19:12 was specifically told that special branch weren't interested in union activities specifically who told you that Bob Lambert when
03:19:21 when it was when um when I became did I get involved with the building worker because obviously I was a purporting to be a builder. I wasn't in a in a trade
03:19:33 be a builder. I wasn't in a in a trade union and um you they obviously the building worker is obviously a group of workers who involved uh in UKAT where they come to this uh the Cullen Roach
03:19:45 they come to this uh the Cullen Roach Center through that and it was at that I think it was one of those meetings that I met uh this this individual.
03:19:55 The question was when did Bob Lambert tell you
03:19:59 tell you that would have been I don't know before I can't I can't remember when I actually I did end up joining UKAT that would have been a bit later in 95
03:20:12 have been a bit later in 95 it was that it was sometime within the first six months or so of because I wasn't reporting on anything sort of trade union related the fact that he is mentioned here as being in UKAT
03:20:23 mentioned here as being in UKAT it didn't You joined UKAT, didn't you? I did? Yes. And did you remain a member throughout your deployment? No.
03:20:32 No. No.
03:20:32 No. No, I didn't. When did you leave? I think I was in there for two years, something like that. Why did you leave? Waste of time, waste of money.
03:20:43 Waste of time, waste of money. Why did you join? uh at that time in the college center in the early days they were they're all sort of saying to me well I was obviously a building worker
03:20:54 well I was obviously a building worker and oh you should be involved in the unit I'm not interested you know don't really want to be involved blah blah blah blah blah and then when I got to know um or get involved with the
03:21:05 know um or get involved with the building worker and the person involved with that
03:21:09 with that um that to then took me off in a different direction then when He suggested it was be a good idea to join. I did and I was a bit and and and certainly this you know Bob Lambert
03:21:21 certainly this you know Bob Lambert would know about all of this and I said we're not interested in that. I said but it's I have to because that's I've been maneuvered into that position and I did. And what was his reaction to your saying
03:21:32 And what was his reaction to your saying effectively you'd be maneuvered into the position?
03:21:36 position? Well that's it. That's such is life. There's no there's no no problem with that.
03:21:42 that. Necessary for your cover. Absolutely. I resisted it because again this is another drain on your time. Um I could I didn't I knew nothing about the mechanics of a trade union movement. I
03:21:53 mechanics of a trade union movement. I thought I'd have to join the be voted in and all this thing. The truth of it was I sent off for a card, paid the membership. I never went to a union meeting at all and that was it.
03:22:04 meeting at all and that was it. Can we zoom out please?
03:22:08 says under orgs that this person ha [clears throat] had lapsed from red action.
03:22:16 action. Why am I right to understand that if a person has been involved at any time with red action and has joined a trade union
03:22:27 union that combination would justify reporting on them?
03:22:29 on them? No, that's not true. No. Could you help us then why you are reporting on a red action a lapsed red action members trade union activity because I I met him and that's that came
03:22:43 because I I met him and that's that came to light I mean it was somebody I hadn't heard of previously and it transpired that that's what his background was. It was just because I met him in the circumstances I did and this was all the the background information on him. He
03:22:55 the background information on him. He was wasn't specifically of interest in himself.
03:23:02 Can we take that down now? Go to C20. 245364.
03:23:08 [clears throat]
03:23:12 We'll be coming back to uh other trade union matters uh later. Uh this again on your privacy checklist is number two.
03:23:24 is number two. Okay. Right. Yeah. And I'll give you a moment first of all to orientate yourself to this report. Um, if you want any of it expanded,
03:23:35 Um, if you want any of it expanded, please say.
03:23:42 Yeah, that's fine. If we could go to par page two and expand uh the top paragraph,
03:23:55 his privacy turns him moody and unpredictable, giving him an urge for violence, which in the past has led to trouble with the police. He was arrested during a violent demonstration last year. He is currently suing a police
03:24:06 year. He is currently suing a police officer PC then we've redacted the name from Stoke Newington in connection with the incident and he is therefore violently
03:24:16 violently anti- police. Why did you report the fact of this individual's litigation against the Metropolitan
03:24:30 litigation against the Metropolitan Police Service? And because he told me well people may have told you many things but why was this this worthy of reporting? Well so reinforced his virolent hatred
03:24:43 Well so reinforced his virolent hatred of the police.
03:24:47 If one exercises the right of access to the courts to complain about the activities of a police officer. Why does that make
03:25:00 of a police officer. Why does that make you violently anti- police? He told me himself that he was violently. There had been many confrontations. Uh this is all from the horse's mouth. So yes, it was worthy
03:25:11 horse's mouth. So yes, it was worthy reporting in the way that I did. But it says after referring to the litigation, he is therefore violently anti- police linking the litigation to
03:25:22 anti- police linking the litigation to the stance. is the reality that you concluded that this person was violently anti- police because they were suing the police. No, no, at all. And again, I didn't
03:25:33 No, no, at all. And again, I didn't write this report as intelligence based on what I provided. Um, he was he was violently disposed towards the police anyway. You know, that was the way the lifestyle he had. He was a violent individual.
03:25:44 individual. Can we have the second paragraph, please?
03:25:50 In spite of his impeccable working-class credentials, he is not regarded as being a great organizer and often succeeds in exasperating Mark Mechaf. However, he is regarded as being reliable and turns up
03:26:02 regarded as being reliable and turns up for CRC meetings and anti-fascist events. He is not a character who is easily manipulated and his proven ability for violence commands respect from the likes of Mark Metaf and Graham
03:26:15 from the likes of Mark Metaf and Graham Smith. What is the basis for your reporting
03:26:20 reporting that his violence commands respect from Mark Metaf? This individual fitted the uh you know their their definition of a real
03:26:33 their their definition of a real workingass downtrodden sort of person who they were very happy to take on board. Although he wasn't, you could not describe him as being political in certainly not
03:26:46 being political in certainly not committed. He was more of a lifestyle. Um, but we're nearer to the sort of anarchist description said earlier. Um, but also Metaf in particular and I mean
03:26:58 but also Metaf in particular and I mean Smith knew him as well, but they like to have people around them who fitted that nice stereotype and who were capable of looking after themselves. Does capable of looking after themselves
03:27:10 Does capable of looking after themselves uh mean self-defense? Yes.
03:27:14 Yes. Graeme Smith. Well, we've seen both Mr. Metaf and Mr. Smith give evidence. Graeme Smith is very different character, isn't he? To Metaf. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, I would say.
03:27:26 To Metaf. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, I would say. So,
03:27:26 So, what is the basis for your reporting that Mr. Smith respected a capacity uh for physical self-defense? I don't I mean I can't see
03:27:37 self-defense? I don't I mean I can't see the context of that quite honestly because um other than Smith would have known him. Um as I say I haven't written that but I could only really speak for
03:27:48 that but I could only really speak for Metar. I'm not I can't explain why that's
03:27:51 that's and your evidence is you only ever met Mr. Smith once as far as I can remember. Yeah. In his flat with Metar. Were you being careless in your reporting here? I say I didn't write that report. It's
03:28:02 I say I didn't write that report. It's the first time I've seen that. Somebody's written it up on the basis of what you said to them. They have. Yes. But or wrote or wrote down in a draft report possibly, but I wouldn't have equated this individual with Smith uh other than
03:28:17 this individual with Smith uh other than the fact that he would know he'd known him for some considerable time for whatever reason. Sir, I'm about to move on to a different topic. Is now a convenient time to take lunch?
03:28:26 lunch? Certainly. Can we resume um shortly after 5 to 2, please?