Testimony from Evidence Hearings regarding their experiences and knowledge relevant to the undercover policing inquiry.
00:26:39 Good afternoon. I must repeat what I said this morning about um the use of mobile devices. They may be used to report what you hear in the hearing room, but only after 10 minutes have elapsed since the event that you're
00:26:54 elapsed since the event that you're reporting. They may not be used for photography or recording. Mr. B.
00:26:56 Mr. B. Thank you, sir. Sara's evidence to the inquiry
00:27:09 Sara's evidence to the inquiry is that when she found out that you had started an intimate relationship with Ellie,
00:27:10 Ellie, she Sara gave up hope that her relationship with you would ever rekindle.
00:27:20 rekindle. She describes herself as totally devastated by that news.
00:27:31 devastated by that news. It evinced in her feelings of rejection and it affected negatively her selfesteem.
00:27:37 Did you consider when initiating your sexual relationship with Ellie how Sara might feel about it? No.
00:27:49 No. If you had addressed your mind to that topic,
00:27:56 topic, it was entirely foreseeable, wasn't it, that she would be upset? Yes.
00:28:06 Yes. Particularly given the explanation that you had provided for stopping the sexual relationship with her. Yes.
00:28:14 She moved abroad. You didn't have a visitor there, did you? No. But you did keep in touch with one another by email. Yes, I think so.
00:28:28 There came a point, didn't there, when she asked you about the discrepancy between the reason you had given her for ending the sexual relationship with
00:28:47 for ending the sexual relationship with her and the fact that you had commenced a sexual relationship with Ellie. Is that right? Yeah. I don't recall the conversation particularly, but yes, I'm sure it is. You didn't reply to that email. Okay.
00:29:03 Okay. And that was the end of your electronic correspondence. Okay. Accept that. Why didn't you reply?
00:29:14 Why didn't you reply? I can only assume I didn't have a good reply.
00:29:19 reply. Reality being there was nothing you could say. Exactly.
00:29:21 Exactly. or too awkward both.
00:29:36 Sara describes an incident which he now thinks probably occurred in October 2001
00:29:48 when you learned that Sarah Sara was seeing another man. Do you recall that? No.
00:29:52 No. Do you deny so learning? No.
00:29:58 Her recollection is you asked her why she had shared a room
00:30:10 why she had shared a room in Goa with her in the light of this man. In other words, you were effectively questioning her morals. Do you dispute doing so? I don't want to dispute anything in her statement. I certainly don't remember doing so and I can't imagine why I would have done.
00:30:26 Ironic in the circumstances, wasn't it? Absolutely. To do that. Yeah.
00:30:27 Yeah. Yeah.
00:30:28 Yeah. Did you consider the impact on her? So, I can't remember the conversation at all.
00:30:35 all. And her
00:30:39 And her intimate life was none of your business. Correct.
00:30:48 Could we have up please 7 MPS0719722
00:30:58 and could we have page 10
00:31:05 paragraph 4.2.2 to this is a a management document um arising from investigations into you
00:31:17 into you further down the line. Uh this is call analysis. I'm interested in the table below the text please.
00:31:36 If you look at the row which under the subscriber column, look for the name Sara. Do you have that? Mhm.
00:31:42 Mhm. 48 calls described as the exgirlfriend of L1.
00:31:50 Sara was never in a relationship with L1. Is that right?
00:31:54 right? I can't remember ever being in relationship with L1.
00:32:04 This information recorded here is wrong.
00:32:10 is wrong. Did you mislead your managers as to
00:32:13 as to who Sara was the ex-girlfriend of?
00:32:24 I can't remember doing so, but it wasn't L1.
00:32:25 L1. It wasn't
00:32:26 It wasn't It wasn't L1.
00:32:41 It was a different cipher. Might it have been that you were deliberately trying to misrepresent events to throw managers off the scent of your own misconduct? Entirely possible.
00:32:57 Can we take that down now, please?
00:33:08 I don't want you to go into any details of the precise locations, but it's right um isn't it that Sara
00:33:19 but it's right um isn't it that Sara lived near your ex-wife and children? Reasonably close. Yes. And you knew that at the time you started the sexual relationship with Sara.
00:33:27 Sara. Yes.
00:33:39 That geographical proximity gave rise to a risk that you might be recognized in your real life. It did.
00:33:43 did. By those who you were reporting on.
00:33:51 Can we be clear? There's no suggestion, is there, that Sara was in any way a physical threat to you, your wife or your children, is there? No. None whatsoever.
00:34:02 No. None whatsoever. The risk was of recognition. And yeah,
00:34:03 And yeah, compromising the operation. Recognition and that information being passed on, but it was never a threat from her.
00:34:19 from her. Why did you commence a sexual relationship with Sara given this risk? Apparent stupidity
00:34:34 putting your own sexual gratification ahead even of basic security. Yes.
00:34:46 One consequence of that is we see reference in managerial documents to protecting you because of this geographical proximity. In other words, Sara becomes the focus of more management attention, doesn't she?
00:34:57 she? Yes, that's fair. Entirely because of your conduct. Entirely.
00:35:04 Could we have up please MPS-302555?
00:35:16 Um, this is a very brief report. Following the demise of his beloved Citroen BX L1 has now purchased SAR's vehicle, a light blue Ford Escort registration. Uh, and then we've
00:35:34 registration. Uh, and then we've redacted the registration number. This is dated the 7th of September 1999.
00:35:39 So this is when you were in a relationship with Sara, isn't it? Um I can't remember the exact dates, but if you say so I'm precept that. Yeah.
00:35:53 And this information is false, isn't it? Because Sara didn't sell her vehicle in this way. I don't remember the report, but you would surprise me with that if it's written down there.
00:36:14 Can we take that down now, please? In your witness statement, you've expressed regret to the Crosslands, but not to Sara. Now, I
00:36:25 Crosslands, but not to Sara. Now, I appreciate that you have made an apology earlier today. Why didn't you do so in more than a preuncter way in your witness statement to the inquiry?
00:36:42 to the inquiry? I think primarily because I saw I was writing a statement to the inquiry, not to her.
00:36:46 to her. Is it right that you offered to meet Sara
00:36:49 Sara when? Sorry. Well, Sara sets out in a statement, we can pull it up if needs be, at paragraph 4.20.
00:37:03 4.20. We'll get the reference in a moment. Can you recall ever offering to meet Sara? This is post deployment. Yes.
00:37:08 Yes. No.
00:37:13 No. Come back to that once we've got the reference. In the meantime, uh, I'd like to return to the Cuden Hunt saboturs and their activities, in
00:37:35 saboturs and their activities, in particular, the Shamrock Farm campaign. Could we have up please first of all from volume forer C44 MPS-30
00:37:39 668
00:37:52 very short report 12th of January 1999 animal rights activists have begun
00:38:03 animal rights activists have begun following workers from Shamrock Farm to their home addresses Several of the staff have already had their homes identified. When you became involved with the Cudden Hunt savurs, was the Shamrock Farm
00:38:15 Hunt savurs, was the Shamrock Farm campaign already ongoing or did it start during your time? I can't remember. There were some campaigns underway. Um I can't remember when this particular one started. Can you help us with the nature of the
00:38:31 you help us with the nature of the protesting that was used um to protest against activities at Shamrock Farm? I think there are a variety of tactics. There were certainly some larger
00:38:43 There were certainly some larger public if you like demonstrations at or near the farm. Did you attend any of those demonstrations? Yeah.
00:38:54 Yeah. And can you help us um by giving us a flavor
00:38:58 flavor of how orderly or disorderly they might have been? I think for the most part they were fairly orderly. They were fairly well, if not heavily policed. Um
00:39:13 Um so I'm I'm thinking I'm imagining the right
00:39:17 right location here and therefore how it was done. Um
00:39:21 done. Um but yeah, the police could put demonstrators in a particular area and control them while they were actually at the demonstration.
00:39:36 Another tactic that was used according to your reporting was home visits. Yeah.
00:39:42 Yeah. Can we take this document down now and have up please from file 4 tab C63 0719599.
00:40:11 Uh this is an intelligence report dated the 12th of April. So it's just over two months after the first report I showed you. And um I'll give you a moment to have a look at that.
00:40:41 Thank you. In particular starts by saying the campaign against Shamrock Farm and its staff continues and at least one member of staff is known to have resigned following a home visit on Friday the 12th of March. Can you
00:40:56 12th of March. Can you help us with how you obtain that intelligence?
00:41:08 No, I don't can't remember it. Did you attend that home visit on Friday the 12th of March? It's possible. I can't remember it.
00:41:17 Can I take it from that answer that you did attend some home visits? Yes. Approximately how many home visits do you recall attending?
00:41:28 do you recall attending? I don't know. There were periods when there was a lot of them. Um there were periods when they happened very close to each other and you'd bounce on from one to the next fairly quickly. So I'd have no idea.
00:41:42 no idea. And were they all in relation to the Shamrock Farm campaign or did you participate in the use of that tactic in other campaigns as well? No, other campaigns as well.
00:42:07 Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the information that you had provided that somebody had resigned following a home visit? No.
00:42:15 No. Can we take that down? Tab C64, sir. MPS trip02023.
00:42:30 This is a prospective report about a planned home visit on the 6th of May.
00:42:42 planned home visit on the 6th of May. says the target address isn't known but likely to be one of those that have previously been visited 12 to 15 activists predicted in the late evening if the opportunity arises then damage
00:42:54 if the opportunity arises then damage will be caused to the premises how did you obtain that intelligence I can't remember it particularly again by association
00:43:06 and was the withholding of the target address until the last minute. A common security precaution taken by
00:43:14 taken by your targets. I think it's it's more that it hadn't been decided. So there's a number of options.
00:43:32 options. Would they be open within the group as to which home was going to be visited or would that be um decided at the last minute?
00:43:34 minute? It would be decided at the last minute anyway depending on the situation on the ground.
00:43:39 ground. For what reason? In in this case because it said it's not known.
00:43:45 known. But for what reason would it be left to the last minute? Um
00:43:48 Um police around um does it look like there's anyone there anyway? Because obviously there's no point if not.
00:44:01 point if not. Was the objective to go to premises where the police were not present? Yes.
00:44:02 Yes. And why was that? So that you could conduct the home visit.
00:44:14 visit. We heard evidence yesterday that at this point in time home visits were at least capable of being conducted in a lawful manner. Is that right?
00:44:26 Is that right? Um
00:44:30 Um I don't know about lawful. The objective was to frighten the people there or their associates to make them in turn stop doing what they were doing or drop the links they had to whichever company it was or depending on the association.
00:44:46 it was or depending on the association. What is a basis for your saying that the intention was to frighten as opposed to
00:44:54 make a point and disagree with what that person was doing by way of legitimate protest. I suppose that's how I remember it. Um, but it was, you know, balaclavas on and running around and shouting at best. Just intimidatory.
00:45:13 And why were balaclavas worn? Just for identification, non-identification purposes? Purely for that or for intimidation? They obviously help with the intimidation. Anyway,
00:45:24 intimidation. Anyway, that might be a slightly separate point. You could wear a balaclava to protect your identity and it have the impact on the homeowner of being intimidating separate from wearing it for the purpose
00:45:39 separate from wearing it for the purpose of intimidating somebody. Do you see the difference? I I do. Yes. Can you help us with why the balaclavas were worn? I I can't remember it being particularly discussed as this will help it become more intimidatory,
00:45:54 more intimidatory, but it would have been I think that was self-evident. You said that running around in Balaclavas might be at best from your own personal experience of attending
00:46:05 own personal experience of attending home visits, what did at worst involve?
00:46:16 home visits, what did at worst involve? Um, somebody getting hurt, I suppose. Who did you witness getting hurt? No names?
00:46:24 names? No, I mean the one I can remember was actually not the target address. It was a neighbor who came out to try and intervene. Um, so yeah. And what happened? He was assaulted very quickly. How?
00:46:35 How? Pushed, kicked. I think that was about it.
00:46:47 Were you ever present at any home visit where criminal damage was occasioned to the home of the person being protested against?
00:46:52 against? Certainly at least once that I can remember. Yes. And what did you witness? That was windows being broken. And that was after the police had actually got there as well which is why didn't it
00:47:16 now having looked at this um prospective report take that down and have up C78 MPS02420.
00:47:31 This is the event itself. Campaigners have been delighted by the success of the visits to the home addresses of Shamrock employees. By their calculation, at least four members of staff have resigned thus far, and only one is believed to have been replaced.
00:47:42 one is believed to have been replaced. No doubt that the visits will continue to take place in the hope of the remaining staff will capitulate. Was it spoken about in those terms within your group?
00:48:00 Yes, I think that's fair. I mean, different words I would imagine, but in terms of Yeah, delighted by certainly. The bottom to prevent any advanced warnings, the target for the night is chosen at random at the last moment. Therefore, all the staff addresses
00:48:13 Therefore, all the staff addresses should be considered at risk at the above times.
00:48:23 In those circumstances, how does your intelligence help with policing?
00:48:30 policing? Because it's Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday after 8:00 p.m. and a limited number of addresses. I think at this stage it says employees. So there's a limited number of targets. So you are able to assist to some extent to inform local police
00:48:53 to inform local police that they've got the necessary reserves and so on available. Yeah. But you don't have the access to give precise targeting data. That's how I read that. Yeah. Can we take that down please and look at tab C8 sir triple0 2570.
00:49:23 This is um a report dated the 1st of November about um events on the 31st of October [snorts] 1999. I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory from this report.
00:50:02 Can I have the next page?
00:50:38 Thank you. Can we start at the end? And there's reference to one of the subjects of a home visit being in a state of near hysteria.
00:50:42 hysteria. How were you able to obtain that intelligence?
00:50:50 I don't know. It would have been told to me by one of my associates, but I don't know how they got it.
00:51:03 This report describes essentially that despite such intelligence as you were able to provide, the activists being able to dodge police and to make not one but two home visits on a single occasion.
00:51:17 single occasion. Does it follow that we can conclude that your intelligence was of some but limited value in preventing home visits?
00:51:29 limited value in preventing home visits? I think you can conclude that for this occasion, it's obviously more useful for the next occasion.
00:51:38 [clears throat] Were you present on the occasion of the 31st of October 1999? I can't remember it particularly, but I assume so. I was going to ask but do say if you can't help us if you can help us with
00:51:52 can't help us if you can help us with the manner in which those visits were conducted. I presume it's the same manner that I sort of described to you a moment ago but again I can't remember that one particularly to single it out
00:52:03 to single it out and you are quite right. We're coming up to the next example where you do provide intelligence that appears to have made a difference. Can we have C91 up please? 02749.
00:52:20 This is moving on to the 16th of December. And there's prospective intelligence.
00:52:34 And again, it's not entirely specific, is it?
00:52:37 is it? Yep.
00:52:43 Yep. But if we go to C93 sir MPS02763
00:52:56 and you can uh refresh your memory from that but essentially this is a report to the effect that an overt police presence thwarts home visits.
00:53:16 thwarts home visits. Okay. Are you able to help us as to whether in fact it was your intelligence which enabled the police to be ahead of the protesters on this occasion?
00:53:25 [clears throat] Again I don't remember this occasion particularly. Um I can pick up from one of the earlier ones it sent the sort of intelligence that would be useful would be the meeting point because if police
00:53:38 be the meeting point because if police can pick up a sab van or whatever from a meeting point they can go wherever there's no then great risk to me having identified an address. Uh we can take that down now please. We know that in fact what happens is the
00:53:53 know that in fact what happens is the closure of Shamrock Farm was ultimately announced and in that respect um the objective of the campaign was realized whether or not it was because of the
00:54:04 whether or not it was because of the campaigning maybe a separate question but
00:54:11 but uh those you were mixing with what was their reaction when Shamrock Farm announced it was going to close I'm sure very pleased genuinely very pleased
00:54:23 Now, as to the cause, there's some suggestion it may have been because of financial improprieties at Shamrock Farm, but there's another report I'd like to take you to. Uh, C100, sir, trip03412.
00:54:39 trip03412. It's a report dated the 25th of May of 2000.
00:54:44 I'll give you a moment to read that.
00:55:05 It's attributed to you as this intelligence and it says a person whose name we're protecting has discovered through an employee of the firm that the arson on privacy's garage was the final straw that led to the closure of the
00:55:22 straw that led to the closure of the premises. This admission will no doubt be used to justify the validity to others of employing such extreme measures.
00:55:24 measures. Are you able to help us with any information about the arson on someone whose name we are protecting's garage?
00:55:37 whose name we are protecting's garage? Do you know whether or not that in fact occurred?
00:55:42 Uh assume so. I can't remember it particularly.
00:55:55 particularly. Don't name any names in this answer. Um, but I assume if you had known who did it or suspected who did it, you would have said so in your reporting. Yes.
00:56:03 Yes. So, can we take it that you're at least distant enough from events that you had no idea who did it if it in fact occurred?
00:56:07 occurred? With the slight caveat, it might just not be recorded on this particular report and have gone elsewhere on a different report.
00:56:17 This admission will no doubt be used to justify the validity to others of
00:56:29 justify the validity to others of employing such extreme measures. Is that based on your supposition or is that based on what you have heard people saying?
00:56:30 saying? Both I suspect.
00:56:34 If we can take that down please.
00:56:44 Could we have up please from volume one tab B35 sir MPS052673
00:56:58 moving from home visits to the police act of 1997 Seven.
00:57:32 Thank you. Could we have page three, please?
00:57:43 And if you could expand that. This is the SDS code of practice. I'm interested in paragraph 2 five. Sorry.
00:57:51 2.5, please.
00:58:03 That's about journalistic and legal professionally privileged material at the top and then at the bottom it says the foregoing notwithstanding any action which involves trespassers to property will only be authorized in
00:58:17 property will only be authorized in accordance with part 111 of the police act 1997.
00:58:20 act 1997. Now that came into force. If we go to the front of the document, please I can show you what the document is.
00:58:36 As I say, the SDS code of practice. Uh the
00:58:46 police act came into force this provision on the 22nd of February 1999. Can you help us? Were you shown or given this code of practice whilst you were deployed?
00:58:57 deployed? I've got no memory of it. Were you told about any change in procedure for trespassing onto property in your undercover identity?
00:59:11 in your undercover identity? No, I can't remember. Were you ever given any instruction about the circumstances in which you could lawfully enter somebody else's premises as an undercover police officer? Not that I can remember.
00:59:24 Not that I can remember. Can you ever remember any change in the procedure? No, I can't really remember a procedure. Would
00:59:32 Would it be fair to conclude that um although the paperwork referred to the change in the law, the practice on the ground did not change?
00:59:44 not change? I certainly remember no change at all. Can we take that down please? Can we go sir to file 4 tab C66 MPS-302072.
01:00:06 This is a report dated of the intelligence was dated the 11th of May 1999 attributed to you. Hunt Sabotur and AR activist privacy is holding meetings
01:00:27 AR activist privacy is holding meetings with solicitors to discuss taking action against Sussex constabularary following his arrest in Brighton on the 24th of April at the Shamrock Farm March. Privacy is collecting video, photographic, and medical evidence to support this case.
01:00:39 support this case. Why did you report on this potential civil litigation? because I reported everything I came across.
01:00:49 across. Was there any management reaction? Not that I reporting on this. I mean, I can't remember it particularly anyway, but I can't recall any kind of reaction like that.
01:01:04 reaction like that. And presumably if management had thought it was an inappropriate subject on which to report, uh, we would not be looking at a report. [snorts] No.
01:01:18 you if we can take that down now please and have up from B42 sir volume one MPS triple02618
01:01:31 this is an injury report uh about you being placed on sick on the 18th of November 1999 with a slip disc. Can you
01:01:44 November 1999 with a slip disc. Can you recall slipping a disc in the course of your duties on the 18th of November 1999?
01:01:50 Um, I mean, I know I did. I can't remember the when and where particularly, but yes. And was the impact of that injury such that you had to really start to be
01:02:02 that you had to really start to be careful about the extent to which you got involved actively in hunt sabotage with your target group?
01:02:13 Not that I can remember particularly. I think it certainly slowed me.
01:02:24 think it certainly slowed me. Can we take that down please? Can we have up sir from volume one tab B43 MPS18359.
01:02:37 This is the SDS undercover operations code of practice. Um,
01:02:43 Um, I'm going to ask you in a moment, but we'll go to a specific paragraph first, whether you recall being given this or shown it.
01:02:55 shown it. Uh, could we look at page two at paragraph 1, please?
01:03:13 This is about collateral intrusion. Do you recall being shown this code of practice which we understand is dated the 7th of January 2000? I don't. No. Do you recall being told about it? Not specifically. No.
01:03:24 Not specifically. No. The paragraph about collateral intrusion reads, "Before authorizing any undercover operations, authorizing officers will take into account the risk of intrusion into privacy of persons
01:03:37 of intrusion into privacy of persons other than the specific target of the undercover operation." Bracket collateral intrusion. Measures will be taken wherever practicable to avoid collateral intrusion.
01:03:55 collateral intrusion. Was the concept of collateral intrusion ever discussed with you by your managers?
01:04:02 managers? I've certainly heard the term since. I don't recall hearing it as a term back then in terms of the concept.
01:04:17 No, I don't think so. Um, was there any ever discussion between you and your managers about measures to be taken
01:04:21 be taken where practicable to avoid collateral intrusion? None that I can recall. I mean, a near impossible task.
01:04:40 impossible task. You say it's a near impossible task. There was no need for you to embark upon sexual relationships. That's above and beyond that. But in terms just normal collateral intrusion, there was no need to report purant information about people's private lives.
01:04:49 lives. Correct.
01:04:54 Correct. But as I understand your evidence, you're saying nobody ever told you not to do that. I recall no conversation about collateral intrusion. Was there in practice a change in the
01:05:09 Was there in practice a change in the way that you operated after the 7th of January 2000? No, I don't think so.
01:05:22 No, I don't think so. Are you aware of any of your colleagues? Don't no names, please. Uh are you aware of any of your colleagues changing the way they operated after the 7th of January 2000? No.
01:05:28 No. Was there any discussion of any of this in the meetings that you were going to at the safe house with your colleagues?
01:05:39 at the safe house with your colleagues? I certainly can't remember any. I can't say with absolute authority there wasn't.
01:05:40 wasn't. Could we go to page four, please?
01:05:54 To paragraph 3.2. This is under the heading authorization of undercover operations deployment of officers. Before [snorts] giving authorizations for the deployment of off of undercover officers, the authorizing officer must be satisfied that the deployment of undercover officers is likely to be of value in
01:06:06 officers is likely to be of value in connection with national security in the prevention or detection of serious crime in the maintenance of public order or community safety or in the case of a
01:06:20 community safety or in the case of a significant public interest. The desired result of the deployment cannot reasonably be achieved by other means. The risk of collateral intrusion have been properly
01:06:37 been properly considered. And then if we go to page five, paragraph 4.1 at the bottom, duration of authorizations. Written authorizations last for a
01:06:54 Written authorizations last for a maximum of three months beginning with the day on which they took effect and may be renewed at intervals of not longer than three months. Was your authorization as an undercover police officer ever
01:07:05 as an undercover police officer ever discussed with you uh in connection with this policy? No, I don't think so.
01:07:16 No, I don't think so. Were you told that your authorizations were being reviewed? No.
01:07:30 No. Was there any ever discussion with you as to whether or not the preconditions for authorization had been met? No.
01:07:37 No. Was there any ever discussion with you as to whether those preconditions continued to apply? No.
01:07:54 Maybe more a question for your managers, but I'll ask you in case you can shed any light on it. But if they did not speak to you, how could they form a view as to whether your
01:08:06 your deployment met the preconditions that we have just looked at? I think they'd be basing it on the intelligence I was providing. So I'd do that to the handler and then the handler was presumably part of this process.
01:08:22 was presumably part of this process. Talking to you would have been much better, wouldn't it?
01:08:30 I don't know. I suppose it would lack object. I'd have certainly lacked objectivity. So
01:08:36 if you'd been honest with your managers, at least they would have known what the extent of the collateral intrusion was, wouldn't they? That's true. Certainly.
01:08:54 Could we take that document down now please? Could we go up to B46 uh MPS0526895.
01:09:02 [snorts]
01:09:12 Uh this is an authorization dated the 12th of April 2000. It's for a number of officers. If we go to page five please.
01:09:26 And if we could have the section at the bottom operation magenta triangle expanded. This is you. And if we look at the grounds for deployment,
01:09:38 deployment, the actions of animal rights extremists over recent years are well documented and encompass public order threat, serious damage to property and physical harm to targeted individuals. Government personnel and institutions are continually under threat, as are many
01:09:49 continually under threat, as are many high-profile public figures, including the royal family, public order, and serious crime. Intelligence on these matters will be unlikely to be achieved by other means. Participation in minor criminal acts may be required in order
01:10:02 criminal acts may be required in order for the undercover officer to maintain credibility amongst leading ALF activists. Were you ever shown this? No.
01:10:10 No. And for example, targeting of high-profile public figures, including the royal family, doesn't form any part of your reporting, does it?
01:10:27 does it? I think the only relevance to the royal family was they were part of I think it was the corn hunt. My memory may be wrong on that. That was the only crossover that I can ever remember.
01:10:42 Thank you. Can we take that down please? Can we move now to Mayday 2000 tab B45 sir in volume 1 MPS0394.
01:11:07 This is a strategy meeting dated the 27th of January 2000. Says that you are present with Sergeant Greeny, HN53 and HN
01:11:09 and HN 58.
01:11:17 58. Magenta Triangle continues to maintain a close contact with L2 and L1. This has been particularly useful during the protests against Shamrock Farm and the ensuing home visits. MT sabbing activities remain an important facet of
01:11:28 activities remain an important facet of his operation. Through this activity, he meets new wearies and maintains his credibility, although his latest injury
01:11:40 credibility, although his latest injury has prevented him from becoming involved in the running around. Stopping there. Is that correct about the running around?
01:11:42 around? Yeah, I should think in that period I was doing more of the driving or something. I can't particularly remember it, but yeah, it's likely sabbing will remain an important area, particularly as the ground is prepared
01:11:53 particularly as the ground is prepared for the anti-hunt bill to be presented in parliament. MT's group has the potential that most demonstrations to cause violence and may be involved in events surrounding
01:12:10 events surrounding the May day. Can you help us MT's group? Which group is that a reference to?
01:12:18 I presume the whole sort of fraternity of Cud and Hunt Sams, Brix and Hunt Sams and all the others.
01:12:31 and all the others. Did they attend the Mayday protest in 2000?
01:12:34 2000? That's the protest that included the gorilla gardening event. I can't remember any gorilla gardening. Um I think
01:12:46 Um I think Mayday and I presume 2000 was yeah a huge demonstration that we did attend. Sorry. Did you attend? Yeah.
01:13:00 Yeah. Did any of the people that you were mixing with and reporting on cause any violence?
01:13:12 I'm not completely comfortable with what caused it. It certainly took place and were involved in. Can you No names for the moment. You can use ciphers if that's appropriate.
01:13:25 use ciphers if that's appropriate. Did you witness any member of your group involved in physical violence? Yes.
01:13:29 Yes. Is that somebody you can refer to with a cipher?
01:13:30 cipher? I think that's most of us.
01:13:38 Don't want you to utter any names, but can you identify any individuals?
01:13:57 I can't really do this with complete authority. My memory is not good enough. Um, so on this cipher list, there's L2 and L3 certainly, but there's also
01:14:08 and L3 certainly, but there's also another one that doesn't seem to have an L number
01:14:10 L number um,
01:14:15 which sort of says relevant too, and then some document numbers,
01:14:24 but there would have been a number of others that aren't on this list as well. What did you witness? um fighting with the police, throwing bits of um pavement furniture for one of a better word,
01:14:36 a better word, bricks and so on. Um
01:14:49 yeah, just it it was a carnage essentially for a period of time in that one.
01:14:56 Was this violence which appeared to you to be legitimate self-defense? No, it went beyond that on that case. Again, if I'm thinking of the right
01:15:10 Again, if I'm thinking of the right demonstration which would involve two particular places on Whiteall for our group, is your recollection reliable enough to make a firm allegation against either L2 or L3 of any specific violent act? No.
01:15:37 Did you report any of this violence and the people who were the perpetrators at the time? Um, shortly afterwards rather than at the time. Yes. Including particulars about individuals. Yeah.
01:15:48 Yeah. Are you sure about that? Yeah. We have not been able to find any. Why might that be?
01:16:00 Why might that be? I don't know. I mean, there's a lot of reporting that isn't in this bundle. I don't know why. Might it be that you didn't reported because you were intelligence gathering and there was never any prospect of a prosecution? No, I think it would have been intelligence gathering.
01:16:22 Can we take that down now, please? Can we have up from B47? Sir, MPS triple triple03403.
01:16:34 This is a file note dated the 22nd of May
01:16:36 May 2000.
01:16:38 2000. Um, and it is uh reviewing your operation. It says that it's been discussed with you and signed by HN
01:16:49 signed by HN 58.
01:16:58 There's a suggestion in the third paragraph that it would be difficult for you to change direction having forged close links with active ALF types and so you couldn't move to fluffy activities.
01:17:10 fluffy activities. That's in response to your ongoing back problems.
01:17:12 problems. And it then goes on to say, "Magenta triangle indicated that L1 and two were considering other campaigns separate from the HLS, but they had not decided
01:17:23 from the HLS, but they had not decided on one. He agreed that he would not go sabbing again, but could restrict himself to map reading or driving, although the cubbing season begins in August.
01:17:39 in August. What I'd like to explore with you is how much
01:17:41 much hunt sabotage, including driving or map reading, did you get involved in in the 2000 to 2001 season? The 2001 to 2002
01:17:59 2000 to 2001 season? The 2001 to 2002 season and the 2000 Well, I think this those were the last two seasons you would have been around for. Can you help us? Did you continue saving?
01:18:07 saving? Yes. I don't think there was any drop off particularly. Was there a change in the role you played?
01:18:14 played? Perhaps for a period. Yeah.
01:18:23 We have very little intelligence reporting from you in this period. There is reporting about the injuries suffered by L4
01:18:37 suffered by L4 and responses to that which will be coming to in due course. But we do not see as we have done to date
01:18:49 date a stream of reporting about hunt sabotage.
01:18:51 sabotage. Why is that? I don't know.
01:19:04 There is reference uh in the second paragraph in view of NPOIU's ever expanding remmit. It is becoming increasingly difficult for SDS to
01:19:19 increasingly difficult for SDS to operate effectively outside London on anything other than an occasional basis.
01:19:25 basis. Can you help us with what the Miu's ever expanding remitt was?
01:19:35 Not really. No. Um, I [snorts] was aware and I can't remember if I knew it as those initials or something else, but I was aware of them.
01:19:44 them. Um,
01:19:52 Um, but clearly there's something else going on in terms of who's responsible for what there that I wasn't really cognizant of.
01:19:58 Was there a feeling that you were aware of of the SDS's
01:20:03 work being encroached upon by the NPIU?
01:20:23 Not that I can ever remember feeling or was there a feeling that the SDS needed to do something else other than animal rights work because of the expanding remitt of the NOIU? Again, I can't remember it as a as an issue.
01:20:31 issue. Did you have any direct contact with the Miu?
01:20:33 Miu? No.
01:20:44 If we look at the bottom two paragraphs or the bottom three paragraphs perhaps the suggestion there from HN58 is that you should begin looking at a
01:20:55 is that you should begin looking at a withdrawal strategy with early next year as the finish date. In other words, early 2001. You are recorded as expressing some disappointment
01:21:06 disappointment at that and the reasons are then set out. Is it right that you were disappointed at the prospect of ending your deployment in early 2001? Yeah, I'm sure it was.
01:21:23 Uh, and is that something you felt really pretty strongly about? I suspect so. Yes.
01:21:33 And so would it be fair to say that your cooperation with this plan was rather begrudging? Yes, I imagine so.
01:21:41 Can we take that down now, please?
01:21:54 We'll come back in due course to why that might have been at a later stage. 7th of April, 2000. Could we have B50 up? Uh, MPSO 526 892,
01:21:59 892, page 7, please.
01:22:14 Is that page seven?
01:22:34 That's it. The authorization page eight. There's an authorization signature. This is Roger Pier signing in July. Continuing the April
01:22:41 authorization. Can we go to the first the first page of text please?
01:23:04 And we get we again see a document which is of the same format as the last one. And if we could scroll through until we get to the magenta triangle entry.
01:23:18 Thank you. Could we have that expanded?
01:23:23 And then if you look at that text,
01:23:32 it is essentially the same as we saw in the April document, isn't it? As as far as I can tell. Yep. Yeah.
01:23:46 Yeah. Can I take it from your previous answers? You weren't consulted about any of this paperwork and its creation? No.
01:23:54 Can we take that down? Uh, please. Can we go to B5203952?
01:24:05 [snorts] This is again a further renewal of the 7th of April uh authorization. This time dated the 15th of September 2000. As you can see from the top of the
01:24:18 2000. As you can see from the top of the page, if we go to page five, please that should be
01:24:23 should be yes. Uh your entry. Could we expand that again please?
01:24:29 I'll give you a moment to read it.
01:24:39 any involvement in this review? No.
01:24:42 No. Looks as if the cut and paste function has been mastered, doesn't it? It does look like they'd found that on the computer by then.
01:24:56 Thank you. Could we uh take that down, please? Can you remember any training or guidance when the regulation of investigatory powers act 2000 was introduced? No.
01:25:15 No. Can you um recall any discussion or any practical effects of the implementation of that act of parliament? No.
01:25:22 No. Would it be fair to say within the SDS everything continued just as it had always?
01:25:31 I think probably yes. But while there was no specific guidance whether the way management managed might have changed say that some paperwork was generated perhaps I yeah I don't know.
01:25:48 Can we move now please to Ellie.
01:25:56 You met Ellie through her best friend Wendy, didn't you? Yes.
01:26:05 She was Wendy was an animal rights activist.
01:26:09 activist. Ellie was not. No.
01:26:14 No. She was though an animal lover. Yes.
01:26:18 Yes. And she volunteered and later worked at an animal hospital. Yep.
01:26:31 Did you first meet her when you came to do some work at the animal hospital? Yes.
01:26:39 Yes. And at that time, were you still in the sexual relationship with Sara? I can't remember.
01:26:44 [snorts]
01:26:50 Did there come a time when you asked Wendy
01:26:52 Wendy to set Ellie up with you? Not that I can remember. But did you deny doing so? No, I accepted it in her. I didn't.
01:27:07 I didn't. And you started going out with Ellie. Correct.
01:27:14 Correct. That was initiated by you. Yes.
01:27:21 And was that around early 2001?
01:27:25 2001? I say I can't remember the dates, but if that's what is in the statement, then I'm perfectly happy to accept it. It's Ellie's understanding, then that's fine. You saw one another by going out on
01:27:39 You saw one another by going out on dates approximately once or twice per week.
01:27:40 week. Yeah, that's fair.
01:27:48 Why did you start a sexual relationship with Ellie?
01:27:54 I don't know. I did start a sexual relationship with Ellie. I think I started a relationship that became sexual, which isn't quite the same thing.
01:28:03 thing. Why did you start an intimate relationship with Ellie? I liked her. I liked her.
01:28:14 So again, your own sexual gratification in amongst the other parts of like Yes. Certainly wasn't needed for operational purposes, was it? Absolutely not. And it was certainly completely wrong. Yes.
01:28:28 Did you use your relationship with Ellie
01:28:36 to report upon and gather information about Wendy?
01:28:48 about Wendy? Not that I can ever remember doing. No. Was that any part of your purpose in forming an intimate relationship with Ellie?
01:28:52 Ellie? No, there was no operational gain whatsoever. It did involve you staying at Wendy's home though, didn't it? It did
01:29:04 It did because that's where Ellie was living. Exactly.
01:29:13 Exactly. Did you ever search through Wendy's things while staying in that house? I very much doubt it. When you say you very much doubt it, uh I'm taking from that you're not ruling it out.
01:29:22 it out. Not completely, but as near completely as I possibly can. It would have to be something very specific, and I can't imagine what that would have been.
01:29:33 imagine what that would have been. Very specific for the purposes of your deployment. Yeah, I'd have had to been looking for something
01:29:42 that I don't think she'd ever have had or not at that stage anyway. Now, as you say, the relationship did become sexual. Yes.
01:29:52 Yes. And that was because you wanted it to become sexual. Yes.
01:30:00 Yes. You told her that you were 33 years old, didn't you? I can't remember what I was supposed to be then.
01:30:06 be then. Do you dispute that figure? If it's in her statement, then I'm sure that's what I said.
01:30:17 that's what I said. In fact, at the start of 2001, you were 37 years old, weren't you? I realized, you mean? Yes.
01:30:21 Yes. Yes.
01:30:24 Yes. She was 21. Yes.
01:30:26 Yes. And you knew that? Yes.
01:30:42 For a 37year-old serving police officer undercover to initiate a sexual relationship with a 21year-old woman is an aggravating feature of your deception of her, isn't it? Yes.
01:30:53 Yes. Was
01:30:58 there a time when you later said you were 36?
01:31:09 I'm sure I would have said whatever my date of birth as James Draven and claimed that you'd made a mistake whilst talking to Sara.
01:31:20 whilst talking to Sara. Yeah, I don't remember that conversation. Um, so I don't know where it came from or whatever.
01:31:30 whatever. Might that have given Ellie the impression that you were coming clean about not
01:31:43 that you were coming clean about not being 33 because you were in fact 36 when in fact you were at least 37. Conceivably, yes. I don't recall that at all.
01:31:54 very conscious deception of Ellie as to your real age. Yes, it was all a deception. You knew
01:32:08 You knew that Ellie had suffered at the hands of the man who had been her boss at the animal sanctuary and at times also her landlord.
01:32:26 I read that. I can't remember it. He had sexually harassed her, pestering her for sex. Again, I read that in the statement, I think. I can't remember it.
01:32:37 think. I can't remember it. Do you deny knowing of that at the time? I don't deny it. I just can't remember it.
01:32:44 She did leave the job at the animal sanctuary, didn't she? Yes.
01:32:45 Yes. And we assume you knew why at the time. It would be an assumption. I don't know.
01:32:58 When she left that job, she was a young woman who left home, lost her job, been treated abominably by her former boss and landlord, and on her
01:33:15 her former boss and landlord, and on her evidence had her car and the possessions within it. Do you dispute any of that? No.
01:33:21 No. To take advantage sexually of a woman who was not only vastly younger than
01:33:33 who was not only vastly younger than you, but also vulnerable young and naive was a further aggravating feature of your deception of Ellie, wasn't it? I agree that it was. I'm not sure I saw her as vulnerable.
01:33:44 her as vulnerable. Is that because you really weren't thinking about her feelings at all? Entirely possible. Thinking entirely about yourself and your own sexual gratification.
01:33:57 your own sexual gratification. Yeah, I don't like the word entirely, but I won't dispute it.
01:34:08 Ellie has described you as her first real love and serious boyfriend.
01:34:19 and serious boyfriend. You knew that, didn't you? I think so. Did you give that any thought? No.
01:34:28 No. You should have done, shouldn't you? Absolutely.
01:34:38 That is another aggravating feature of this particular sexual deception, isn't it?
01:34:39 it? Yes.
01:34:49 She considered it a committed monogous relationship, didn't she? Yes.
01:34:53 Yes. In fact, you had a real life partner, didn't you? Yep.
01:34:56 Yep. And if we've understood your later statements to the inquiry to be correct, another woman, Lucy, with whom you are sometimes intimate, we're calling Lucy.
01:35:08 sometimes intimate, we're calling Lucy. Yeah, that wasn't at the same time.
01:35:23 You waited for her to arrange contraception before having sex, didn't you?
01:35:25 you? I can't remember that particularly. I read it and I accept it. And you'd raised the subject. Again, I can't remember that, but accept it.
01:35:34 it. And thereafter, you always had unprotected sex.
01:35:41 Not with you. So after the contraception. Yeah. Yeah. So you you you weren't using condoms.
01:35:45 condoms. Oh, I see. Sorry. Yeah, that's true.
01:35:53 And that was to do your best to ensure there was no pregnancy. Presumably. Yes.
01:36:09 Ellie has described that you were not all loveydvey. You gave each other space and she liked that. Do you agree? Yeah, that's fair. Were you mirroring her? In other words, were you working out what she liked and wanted in giving her that?
01:36:26 wanted in giving her that? Only to the extent one does that in any relationship. I think it's not something I'm conscious of.
01:36:35 Doing that to ensure that you continue to get the sexual gratification that you were seeking. Again, you're reading a lot into it. I don't think that's fair. What did determine the way you behaved towards Ellie? Then
01:36:48 towards Ellie? Then the friendship I had with her primarily.
01:36:59 Ellie and Sara are quite different people, aren't they? Um, in some respects. Yes.
01:37:10 How could you genuinely
01:37:20 behave towards two very different women in the same in different ways if you weren't mirroring them? I don't think I did behave in different ways.
01:37:38 Did you tell Ellie that your exartner kept getting pregnant when you were trying to leave her? I can't recall ever saying that. She recalls you saying that. Do you? And I don't dispute it.
01:37:50 And I don't dispute it. Was it a ruse designed to reduce the risk further of a pregnancy? I don't remember saying it. I don't think it was ruse. It was probably if I did say a throwaway comment
01:38:06 like to move to Indonesia. Mhm. Now,
01:38:16 first of all, the genesis of the trip to Indonesia, is it right that L4's partner was
01:38:28 is it right that L4's partner was encouraging activists to go and visit L4 in Indonesia in the early autumn of 2001
01:38:37 of 2001 following
01:38:38 following charges against L5 having been dropped. I can't remember it particularly. Um I wasn't particularly close to his L5
01:38:53 wasn't particularly close to his L5 sorry L4's partner. Um I've read it and I it's entirely possible. Probably
01:39:03 you did know and were in touch with L4 though, weren't you? Yes. What was L4's state of mind
01:39:16 state of mind after the prosecution against L5 failed? He was angry.
01:39:20 Was he in a bad place mentally?
01:39:31 I I think that's probably fair. He had been a very physical bloke and
01:39:33 bloke and was much diminished essentially. And you did go out to see him, didn't you?
01:39:40 you? Yes.
01:39:41 Yes. Was that because the word was that Elfor's partner wanted somebody to go and see him because he was going through a bad patch.
01:39:58 was going through a bad patch. Yeah, I can't recall it starting with her particularly. I think that was a factor,
01:40:00 factor, but it may well have done. Did you give any consideration to whether it was appropriate for an undercover police officer to go and
01:40:11 undercover police officer to go and provide support to a man who was in a bad way mentally as opposed to one of his genuine friends?
01:40:26 No, I think I regarded myself as a genuine friend. But you weren't, were you? I was an undercover police officer.
01:40:38 If you had addressed your mind to that question at the time, would the answer have been that he really should have been supported by a genuine friend and not by you? [clears throat] I don't know.
01:40:55 Why wouldn't it have been? I mean, I think you're right in terms of the reasonleness of what you just said. I just don't know that I'd have thought it like that.
01:41:08 that I'd have thought it like that. Can we look at B77, sir? File 2, MPS 06714.
01:41:20 This is a file note dated the 10th of September
01:41:21 September 2001,
01:41:23 2001, authority to travel abroad
01:41:31 abroad and it recites the attack on L4,
01:41:33 on L4, recites the dropping of charges in the second paragraph. If we expand that second paragraph,
01:41:50 the dropping of charges by the CPS following the imprisonment for unrelated offenses of the main prosecution witness has incensed activists and caused two of
01:42:04 has incensed activists and caused two of their number to express a desire to kill L4's asalent. Magenta Triangle, a close friend of L4, has agreed to travel to Jakarta to seek his views. He will obviously wish to report to the activist that L4 does not countenance violence against his asalent.
01:42:29 Is it in fact true that people were expressing a desire to kill L5? Yes.
01:42:35 Yes. Please don't utter any names but are you able to identify them
01:42:52 L2 L3 I can't remember whether L1 was there at that stage
01:43:01 and again the Another one that hasn't got an L number is. So, how many people are you identifying in total?
01:43:12 identifying in total? Three with a possible. So, four.
01:43:17 So, four. So, L2, L1, L2, L3, and one other person. Could you? No.
01:43:25 So L1's the possible L2 L3
01:43:28 L2 L3 and then the one other person. Could you write down the name of that one other person please?
01:43:52 Thank you. Could you show the chair, please?
01:44:16 Can you help us? Are we talking about a single conversation at which everyone is present or are we talking about more than one conversation? No, we're talking about a series of conversations over time.
01:44:32 Can you start with the first one that you can recall in time and tell us who was involved, where and when it took place?
01:44:41 place? No, I don't think I can be that specific. I think they're talking about a series of conversations. Can you help us generally with where these conversations took place
01:44:59 on or near their home? Probably near. Yeah.
01:45:04 Yeah. Can you help us as to whether the people present varied between conversations or whether it was always the same people? No, it would have varied and that's why I'm not sure about L1.
01:45:22 I'm not sure about L1. Is it your evidence that at every one of these conversations the desire to kill L5 was
01:45:24 L5 was expressed? Yeah. Okay. I think that puts it very boldly. When it's a series of conversations, it's emotional reactions.
01:45:36 emotional reactions. It's a mix of things. Can you explain to us then the sort of terms in which things were expressed?
01:45:52 in which things were expressed? I can't remember anything specific. That's what I took away.
01:46:04 That's what I took away. Was this hot air people who were understandably angry or was it serious? I believe where those were involved it was serious. And what made you come to that conclusion?
01:46:16 conclusion? I'd known them for some time at that point.
01:46:20 point. They were serious. Was there anything about the way in which they said what they were saying or the specifics that they were going into that made you think this was more than hot air?
01:46:38 I can't remember a conversation well enough to say anything specific. These are people you have described as being involved in essentially minor
01:46:53 being involved in essentially minor criminality to advance the cause of animal liberation, aren't they? Yes.
01:47:00 Murder is an entirely different ball game, isn't it?
01:47:01 isn't it? It is.
01:47:04 It is. What made you think that any of these four people was capable of that?
01:47:20 capable of that? Because what you describe as minor, they had an ability, a desire to visit real harm on people and to take satisfaction from it.
01:47:33 satisfaction from it. people that weren't directly connected and certainly not as personally. Can you we'll take them one at a time. We'll start with L1. Can you give the inquiry an example
01:47:45 inquiry an example of L1
01:47:46 of L1 inflicting physical harm on another human being and taking satisfaction from doing that?
01:47:58 taking satisfaction from doing that? On a specific day, date, time, place. Now I was with him on numerous occasions. That's what I took away. What's the most specific recollection you have that would support the
01:48:09 you have that would support the assertion that you have just made? Home visits. I think home visits around some of the campaigns. You've mentioned one, but and what physical violence
01:48:26 and what physical violence did L1 visit on another human being that you witnessed on a home visit? He would have hit people, kicked them. Who?
01:48:35 Who? Whoever it was that was being assaulted.
01:48:43 the homeowner could be if they were exposed if they came out. How many times did you witness L1 being violent in this way? I don't know.
01:48:58 I don't know. Why don't we have any reporting of that? I don't know.
01:49:02 L2
01:49:16 more so. What is the most specific recollection you have got of L2 inflicting harm on another human being?
01:49:26 I can't go more specific. I can only say he did more of that, organized it, relished it more than anyone. I would suggest
01:49:30 suggest more of what? Physical harm. And you're not able to give me a single specific example. It's a lot of years
01:49:41 specific example. It's a lot of years later and it was over a long period of time.
01:49:45 time. Can you help us as to sort of thing you are asserting L2 did
01:49:56 kicking people on the ground trying to kick their head as opposed to their body. Um
01:50:02 body. Um relishing it and that's more the point. Lots of people got involved in confrontations.
01:50:08 And then what made you think he was relishing doing that?
01:50:12 I saw him. He loved it.
01:50:27 What did you see that made you conclude he loved it? Expression, laughter, level of high afterwards.
01:50:34 L3 more like L1.
01:50:39 So, same sort of thing.
01:50:47 You saying that you had witnessed L3 certainly. Yeah. I haven't quite finished the question. Sorry.
01:50:55 Sorry. Commit acts of physical violence against another human being. Yeah.
01:50:59 Yeah. What is your most specific recollection of that?
01:51:02 of that? Again, I can't go any more specific than with the others.
01:51:07 What sort of level of severity are you asserting?
01:51:11 That would depend on the confrontation
01:51:18 more so than with L2. But he was happily physically violent. Not happily. He he was comfortable with physical violence.
01:51:29 violence. Well, there's quite a difference, isn't there? Can you help us with what evidence you can tell us about which would support the proposition that he enjoyed violence?
01:51:44 violence? No, I think I'm saying that about L2 in the actual enjoyment. I think comfortable is the better word for L3. What evidence can you give this inquiry that might support that assertion?
01:51:59 that might support that assertion? Just the years of experience knowing him, doing those sorts of things with him.
01:52:06 The fourth person. Yes.
01:52:12 Yes. Again, what did you see that fourth person
01:52:17 person doing by way of physical harm to other human beings? um routine violence um not restricted to huntabbing and
01:52:32 to huntabbing and actions particularly um
01:52:37 you showed me a report earlier for example um relating to so I can't remember if the town I think the town was shown so I can say that this als
01:52:50 this als no um South London the fascist report. So that one would have been him. He would anything like that.
01:53:12 What's most specific violent act you can tell us about that you witness personally? Um,
01:53:17 Um, I think that would be spontaneous ones. So, out drinking, somebody doing something he didn't approve of and it would become a a pileup.
01:53:30 pileup. We don't see in your reporting any specific reports describing that person doing that sort of thing, do we?
01:53:45 of thing, do we? No. And I don't know why. And I don't know why he doesn't feature in a lot of the reporting that's actually got this far.
01:53:52 far. Going back to the paragraph that's expanded on the screen, the dropping of charges by the CPS following the imprisonment for unrelated offenses of the main prosecution witness has insensed activists and caused two of
01:54:04 insensed activists and caused two of their number to express a desire to kill Alfor's asalent. Why has two in a document generated in 2001
01:54:17 2001 become four in your evidence before the inquiry today? I think it's a large number. I don't think that's accurate. I assume that
01:54:28 think that's accurate. I assume that this report was referring to those two. So the others wouldn't be relevant to to which two. I'm guessing this is L2. L3
01:54:47 who suggested
01:54:53 suggested that you travel to Jakarta to seek L5 views.
01:54:57 I can't remember.
01:55:07 Can you help us with whether it was you? No, I can't remember.
01:55:15 Can you help us with how it came to be you who went?
01:55:20 No.
01:55:24 I certainly said yes.
01:55:34 was the reality that in fact you were going to see L4 and support him because he was in a bad way and his
01:55:45 because he was in a bad way and his partner wanted someone to go and see him.
01:55:50 him. I don't remember the partner being involved particularly
01:56:01 being involved particularly and was a reason why you were very keen to go was because it would be a nice holiday
01:56:07 holiday to an exotic part of the world paid for by the taxpayer. I can't dispute that might have entered into my thinking. I can't remember it as such.
01:56:23 When was it decided that Ellie would come with you? I can't remember. Was it before or after you were instructed by your managers not to go?
01:56:37 I can't remember. I imagine it was before.
01:56:43 before. Is it right that you asked Ellie to come with you?
01:56:45 with you? I suspect so. Yes.
01:56:55 Why did you ask Ellie to go with you? Because I thought she might want to come.
01:56:57 come. Because you were in a sexual relationship with her at the time.
01:57:02 time. Yes.
01:57:09 Yes. And this would have been a very enjoyable holiday for the two of you to go on as a couple. Indeed.
01:57:22 If the reality was you were going to Indonesia to see whether or not L5
01:57:33 L5 approved
01:57:35 approved of a plot to kill sorry L4
01:57:49 sorry L4 L4 approved of a plot to kill L5. You wouldn't have taken a young,
01:57:52 a young, naive,
01:57:53 naive, non-activist animal lover with you, would you? She certainly wouldn't have been present to that conversation. Wouldn't
01:58:08 there have been a risk even if you'd done your best to have any such conversation held privately that she might find out? I think it would have been perfectly possible to have that private conversation.
01:58:25 Did your managers know that Ellie was going on this trip? No, they didn't know about her at all. And that was deliberate concealment on your part? She was
01:58:36 your part? She was because you were behaving very badly indeed.
01:58:37 indeed. So,
01:58:44 so would this be a an appropriate moment for our certainly [clears throat] mid-after afternoon break? Right. We'll break for quarter
01:58:56 guys.
02:19:25 Mr. Thompson, uh, we were talking about plans for the trip to Indonesia. Those plans, um, ran into a hiatus when the al-Qaeda atrocities of the 11th se of September took place, didn't they? Mhm.
02:19:41 took place, didn't they? Mhm. And your managers took the view uh that you should not go to Indonesia so soon after those atrocities because
02:19:53 so soon after those atrocities because of the uncertainties and the tensions. Is that right? Yeah.
02:19:58 Yeah. And it is right. There were tensions in Indonesia. Absolutely. Yeah. You went anyway. Yes.
02:20:08 Yes. We'll come later on to your passports that essentially you subsequently removed evidence of your you had more than one passport so you were able to get one stamped and Mhm.
02:20:19 Mhm. so on.
02:20:24 so on. I want to talk at this stage about the funding of the tickets.
02:20:36 Did L4's partner offer to make to pay for or to contribute to the expenses of that trip in any way? No.
02:20:46 No. Are you sure? Well, certainly not to me when it was me that was going. Did you accept any money from her, even if only indirectly?
02:20:57 if only indirectly? No.
02:21:04 Did you accept any money from any other activist?
02:21:05 activist? No.
02:21:14 Could we have up please MPS 306850? So it's volume 2 tab 78.
02:21:24 Uh this
02:21:37 is a memorandum uh dated the 24th of September 2001 from DCI Dell who was by then in charge of the SDS wasn't he? Yes.
02:21:40 Yes. To an HO
02:21:43 To an HO at something FRM. The 11th of September 2001 DCS Black authorized DC IDEL and DS Thompson escort to travel to Indonesia. copy authority attached.
02:22:00 copy authority attached. Following the recent terrorist incidents in the USA, travel was first postponed and then on the 20th of September cancelled. DCIDell has had not yet asked DPCS4
02:22:08 DPCS4 to obtain flight tickets, but DS Thompson had as instructed obtained his own tickets direct. If I just stop there, is it correct that you obtained
02:22:20 there, is it correct that you obtained your own tickets direct? Yes, I seem so he has returned them to his travel agent for partial refund. Is that true?
02:22:34 Is that true? I don't know. I might have returned those tickets and got some other ones, but I can't remember exactly how that worked.
02:22:47 remember exactly how that worked. Proportion not yet determined. And has claimed reimbursement from DPCS4 on form 290. Copy attached. Is it right that you claimed reimbursement?
02:23:00 reimbursement? Yes, by the look of it. Can you help us with did you claim for a reimbursement and actually go on to use the tickets?
02:23:18 No, I don't think that's what happened. You don't think? I don't think. I can't remember it particularly. Are you permitting that it is it's something you might have done?
02:23:30 something you might have done? No. I mean, I can see myself putting those tickets in, claiming reimbursement, and then using that money for tickets that I didn't tell them about.
02:23:39 about. Well, if you get the reimbursement,
02:23:51 surely that's reimbursing money you've spent on on the tickets in the first place. Yeah.
02:23:55 Yeah. To cover your tracks. Yes.
02:24:06 Who paid for your tickets? Ultimately, I did.
02:24:08 I did. With what funds? My own.
02:24:15 My own. When you say your own, could you be specific, please?
02:24:21 No, I don't think I could. It would be my money from somewhere from your real life personal accounts in your real name.
02:24:32 your real name. Possibly. I mean, I might have moved money from there or taken money from a hole in the wall or whatever it was. It could easily have come from there or from several places. I don't know. What other places might it have come from?
02:24:43 from? The James Straven account. And how would there be money in the James Straven account sufficient to pay for an air to Indonesia?
02:24:55 for an air to Indonesia? I would have need to top it up from where? My own money.
02:25:02 Any other potential sources of funds? No.
02:25:09 Who paid for Ellie's airfare? I think I did. With what funds? My home.
02:25:20 Who paid for Ellie's accommodation? Again, I think I did or most of it.
02:25:36 You asserted operational security to DCS Black
02:25:40 Black when you were caught. Mhm.
02:25:49 There would have been no problem though, would there, with telling activists in the wake of 911 that you wanted to postpone or cancel your trip to see L4?
02:26:02 I genuinely don't think that occurred to me. I don't think I ever thought although as you say now it's perfectly reasonable that it was you know the disruption and tension over there. I don't think that ever crossed my mind.
02:26:24 And in fact ultimately L4 had to leave Indonesia himself didn't he? He did.
02:26:36 was the reality. You were absolutely set on going on a very nice holiday with Ellie to an exotic part of the world. The reality was I was absolutely set on going.
02:26:50 I think that the rest is only part of it.
02:26:52 it. What's the rest of it? I want to go and see L4. For what purpose?
02:27:01 purpose? Partly as a friend, partly to discuss what we needed to discuss.
02:27:15 But the proposition that you had to go for operational security reasons simply doesn't stand up, does it? No. But I don't think I accepted that myself.
02:27:24 myself. I mean, it certainly doesn't make sense in the wider context.
02:27:39 You went to Raffles in Singapore, didn't you? On the way home. Yes.
02:27:43 Uh could we have up please UCPI5038286
02:28:19 This is a photograph. If we could blow up the top half of the page.
02:28:30 This is you. And we've had to to protect her anonymity redact Ellie's image, but this is you and Ellie at Raffles in Singapore on that trip, isn't it? I believe so. Why were you so keen to go to raffles?
02:28:47 I think just because we were in Singapore.
02:28:53 Living the high life. Passing through.
02:28:59 It's an extremely luxurious hotel, isn't it?
02:29:00 it? Yes. We didn't stay long.
02:29:07 This was a very pleasurable trip for you, wasn't it? That bit was. But that is a cocktail. And if we take that down and have up 38287,
02:29:18 38287, please.
02:29:36 And if we could have the image please. Thank you. This is a photo photograph of you taken by Ellie also in Singapore, isn't it? I believe so.
02:29:48 I believe so. Being tourists. Yeah.
02:29:48 Yeah. And lovers.
02:29:55 Was there ever any talk about raffles in the SPS office? Not that I'm aware of. You say this bit of the trip was pleasurable. Can I ask now about
02:30:11 Can I ask now about what happened in Indonesia and in particular? Did you sightsee?
02:30:20 Yes. That pleasurable? Yes.
02:30:21 Yes. Did you go and see L4? Yeah, we were staying with L4. What did you speak to L4 about?
02:30:33 What did you speak to L4 about? Everything, including what was happening in the UK. Can you be a little bit more specific uh by what you mean when you say everything?
02:30:46 everything? We were staying with him, so we had lots of conversations, including his health, how he was feeling, and how he was feeling about the case in the UK.
02:31:01 The case that was no more. Oh, the case that was no more. Yeah. And what did L4 tell you about that?
02:31:15 this. I remember him being sort of cynically resigned,
02:31:17 resigned, much less engaged about it than I thought he would be. Just tired really.
02:31:28 No desire to murder anybody. No.
02:31:38 But you didn't report that because you weren't supposed to be there. Supposed to be there. Mhm. [clears throat] Was
02:31:47 there any risk whilst you were in Indonesia? Risk
02:31:50 Risk risk of
02:31:52 risk of to you?
02:31:55 to you? No, I don't think so. Do you have quite a high tolerance for risk?
02:32:02 risk? I suppose so. Is there any risk to Ellie?
02:32:15 Not that I was aware of at the time. Again, I don't think I'd made any reasonable assessment of that as I would know.
02:32:26 assessment of that as I would know. Approach from another angle. Your managers had and your managers had assessed it was too risky to go. Correct.
02:32:29 Correct. And yet you still took Ellie. Yes.
02:32:33 Yes. Without any regard for such risk as you might be exposing her to. Yep.
02:32:36 Yep. That was selfish, wasn't it? Yes.
02:32:48 We've seen a couple of the photographs that she took of you. Is it right that you offered to get her photographs developed? I read that. I can't remember that at all.
02:32:58 all. Is it right that you presented her with a collage that you'd made from his photographs? Again, I read it. I can't remember that at all.
02:33:04 at all. I don't dispute it. Sorry. You don't
02:33:10 You don't You presumably did that to airbrush your presence out of any documentary record perhaps. Again, I can't remember it.
02:33:19 Did you buy a laptop in Singapore?
02:33:29 Not that I can remember, but I might might have done. I think it was supposed to be cheaper. Did you show a laptop that you'd bought on this trip to your SDS colleagues when you got back? No, I'm sure I wouldn't have done.
02:33:42 No, I'm sure I wouldn't have done. How did your disobedience come to be discovered then?
02:33:48 I think I threw a wobbly in the office and threw one of the passports at HN.
02:33:58 Can you Sorry. Can you write that down? The cipher. The cipher.
02:34:37 Thank you. Thank you.
02:34:44 We can we can that HN53
02:34:56 You threw a wobbly at HN53. Can you help us with what you mean by threw a wobbly? Um, completely lost my temper,
02:35:05 lost self-control,
02:35:14 and yeah. In what circumstances did you come to lose self-control? I can't remember what started it.
02:35:27 And how during the course of this exchange
02:35:29 exchange did you
02:35:34 did you dulge that you had in fact been to Indonesia?
02:35:43 I think by throw again I'm not quite sure of the chronology but I think because of throwing the passport at his face literally. And why did you do that?
02:35:51 do that? I have absolutely no idea.
02:36:00 Are you sure you can't tell us anything about the buildup to throwing the passport at your detective inspector
02:36:16 somewhere in here? I think there's when we're doing the documents that the date will come up and that would give me an indication where it was in the chronology. I It was all coming on top anyway.
02:36:30 I It was all coming on top anyway. Sorry. What do you mean by it was all coming on top? I mean all of my transgressions and everything else. This was the first discovery that management made.
02:36:44 Yeah, I think so.
02:36:53 So, how could all of your transgressions been be coming on top if this was the first one to come out? Again, I'd want to see the chronology. I I think they were expressing a loss of
02:37:04 I think they were expressing a loss of confidence in me or something like that. Something happened. Did they suspect you of having gone to Indonesia? I can't remember it well enough, but I assume so.
02:37:18 Do you know why they suspected you? No.
02:37:22 Back to L4.
02:37:29 You've told us that he wasn't in murderous mood. Is it your evidence that you told him
02:37:40 Is it your evidence that you told him whereas to the effect that some of your mutual colleagues were? I'm sure we must have discussed that. Yeah.
02:37:46 Yeah. And what was his reaction to that?
02:38:00 I think he was vaguely, again, I'm trying to remember, but I think he was vaguely pleased about the degree of friendship that suggested, but no, but not in favor of murder.
02:38:12 but not in favor of murder. No, I I can remember being being just quite indifferent to things generally at that point.
02:38:28 Did you do anything to steer the conversation in one direction or another on the question whether L5 should be murdered? No, I don't think so. We looked at to document uh uh just
02:38:39 We looked at to document uh uh just before the break in which your managers assumed that naturally you'd try and
02:38:50 assumed that naturally you'd try and talk him out of any murderous intent. Could you have done that if he was indifferent? It didn't come up because he wasn't in favor anyway. He was already indifferent.
02:39:02 indifferent. Sorry. There's a difference between indifferent and not in favor. Which was it?
02:39:07 it? I think largely indifferent. So if he was indifferent, presumably it wouldn't have been very difficult for you to weigh in to the debate and persuade him that was not a good idea.
02:39:20 good idea. I don't think there was even a debate happening. It was So I could take that back perfectly happily anyway. Well, taking back indifference is very
02:39:34 Well, taking back indifference is very different from taking back an objection, isn't it?
02:39:36 isn't it? I suppose so. Yeah. I mean, it's You suppose so. Isn't that the core of what you might do for the public good
02:39:48 what you might do for the public good and for L5's good if there really was a plot to murder? Yeah. For L4s.
02:39:53 For L4s. Why didn't you do that then? I think I probably did.
02:40:01 Skipping out of the chronology a little bit.
02:40:08 bit. You asked Ellie for L4's address in 2006 as is her evidence. Did you do that? I don't remember doing it. I don't dispute doing it.
02:40:20 dispute doing it. Why did you ask for Elfor's address in 2006?
02:40:23 2006? probably because I'd asked after him. You should get in touch or give me his address. No more than that.
02:40:35 address. No more than that. Did you do anything with that address? No.
02:40:38 No. Did you contact L4? No.
02:40:42 No. Did you pass on his address to police sources?
02:40:43 sources? No.
02:40:49 All the pretense then? Yep.
02:40:53 Yep. for the purposes of continuing your relationship with Ellie. Part of it certainly
02:41:08 coming back to that relationship after you'd been together for about 10 months in approximately January 2002. Is it right that you said to her that you might need to move to the United
02:41:19 you might need to move to the United States because your ex-wife and children were moving there? Yeah, I can't remember the dates exactly, but I certainly said that. And then about a month later, you had to tell her that you were going to move sooner than you'd thought.
02:41:34 sooner than you'd thought. That would certainly have been the case. Although she didn't know it, what was going on behind the scenes is your
02:41:45 going on behind the scenes is your misconduct was coming out to management in significant volumes and they were very keen to get you out of your deployment, weren't they? That's correct.
02:41:54 You continued to see Ellie and to maintain the sexual relationship right up until you left. Yes.
02:42:05 And the the way in which you parted was such there was no ending of the relationship as such. Was there? No.
02:42:16 Her evidence is that she still had strong feelings for you. First of all, do you accept that? Yes, I did. And was it obvious?
02:42:34 Um I I certainly accept it the degree of those feelings. Yeah. In what
02:42:36 In what what were your final parting moments like before you purport to leave for the United States of America? Sad
02:42:51 on her part. On both our parts. And how did she manifest that sadness to the best of your recollection?
02:43:04 She said something like, "That's not the best news I've ever had." Something like that.
02:43:10 that. When you're actually going, the moment of departure, your last contact before leaving.
02:43:16 leaving. Yeah. No, I'm not sure. It I I remember her sort of saying that, but that's a snapshot.
02:43:22 Is it right that you gave her a gift of a second motorbike course? I don't remember it, but I read it and I don't dispute it. With a poem. Again, don't dispute that.
02:43:38 Again, don't dispute that. And a hint that you could meet up and tour in Italy or France. A hint. Yes. She's described being devastated when you left and missing you.
02:43:49 you left and missing you. You accept that? I do.
02:43:52 I do. And was it clear to you at the time?
02:44:01 Certainly not the degree of that. Um, but obviously it is now. And to what degree was it apparent to you at the time?
02:44:12 you at the time? It was a genuine relationship that was ending. It was sad.
02:44:20 Not really ending, was it? I don't think I knew that at the time. Well, why were you hinting that you could meet up on a tour in Italy or France?
02:44:32 France? Because we talked about that's what you do on a motorbike. That's the sort of freedom it offers. You are an undercover police officer. I was
02:44:44 I was finishing this is a 2002 finishing your deployment.
02:44:57 teeing up the ground for you to stay in contact with Ellie, isn't it?
02:45:00 isn't it? I think there's an element of that certainly
02:45:03 certainly because that is what you did, isn't it? Yes.
02:45:07 Yes. It was deliberate, wasn't it? I don't know at what point
02:45:15 it was planned, intended, or just some vague hope. I don't know. You didn't want your deployment to end, did you?
02:45:21 did you? I didn't.
02:45:33 I didn't. And you were a man who um ignored your managers when you didn't like what they had to say. And you were going to stay in touch with Ellie despite being withdrawn, weren't you? Yes.
02:45:47 We'll resume later in your evidence what happened after your deployment. Now I'd like to move uh to Wendy,
02:45:48 Wendy, please.
02:45:58 It's right, isn't it, that her life when you met her revolved around animals, didn't it? That's fair, I think. Yeah. She was an active hunt saboter. Yes.
02:46:14 And she first met you when she began sabbing,
02:46:20 sabbing, I may describe it as that, in 1997. That sounds right. Pretty early in your deployment. Yes.
02:46:31 She was 17 years old, wasn't she? I don't know.
02:46:39 If that's what she was then, yeah, still a child. Certainly. Did you know that at the time? I don't think so. Was it obvious she was on any view a teenager?
02:46:48 teenager? No, it was obviously she was young.
02:46:56 You sabotaged hunts together? Yes.
02:46:59 Yes. You socialized with the group together? Yes.
02:47:06 You volunteered at the animal hospital on worker bees days once or twice. I remember doing some work there with others.
02:47:23 others. And you became very close friends, didn't you? We were certainly friends. Yeah.
02:47:34 I might have to explore the difference between the proposition I put to you and your answer. Understood. You were spending your deployed life with your targets mixing in a
02:47:49 life with your targets mixing in a pretty small circle of hump saboturs, weren't you? A fairly small circle, I suppose. and you became part
02:48:01 and you became part of what Wendy describes as her inner social circle. Is that fair? Yes. And that's certainly have perspective. I'd agree with it.
02:48:12 perspective. I'd agree with it. And to say that you were a close associate
02:48:13 associate would be to understate the position. The reality was you were very close friends. In which case, I'll accept that.
02:48:32 We're not going to name the person concerned, but Wendy was going out with the man when you first met her.
02:48:41 Can't remember if it that was already a thing, but it certainly was one fairly early.
02:48:46 early. That may not matter. The point of my question is um when that relationship ended, is it right that you became
02:48:59 right that you became closer than you had been before? I don't think so. No.
02:49:04 You sure about that? Because that is Wendy's evidence. Yes, I've seen that. But that's not my recollection at all.
02:49:21 Wendy's evidence is that she encouraged the relationship
02:49:34 she encouraged the relationship between you and Sara by recommending you to her as quote a great guy. Do you have any reason to doubt that? Only the last bit.
02:49:46 Only the last bit. She did think you were a great guy at the time, didn't she? Wendy, you mean? Yes.
02:49:51 Yes. Yeah, I accept that.
02:50:01 Can you understand her sense of despair now that she knows that she was promoting a match between her genuine friend and a deceitful undercover police officer? Yes, I can.
02:50:22 Your relationship with Sara was well known within the social circle you were moving in, wasn't it? I would imagine so.
02:50:33 It's a very small social circle. When you say imagine so, it was, wasn't it?
02:50:34 it? I think it would have been known. Yeah.
02:50:41 There came a time, didn't there, when Wendy's mother became very ill. Yes. I don't particularly remember that. I have read that statement.
02:50:54 I have read that statement. Because when you first met Wendy, Wendy was living at home with her mom, wasn't she?
02:50:57 she? I gather. So, I can't remember visiting her.
02:51:10 During Wendy's mother's illness, you were very supportive to Wendy, weren't you? Again, I don't remember it. I accept that if I had that opportunity, I would have taken it. Yes. Don't remember
02:51:29 protract the protracted course of somebody dying who's close to one of the people you're you're mixing with. No.
02:51:35 No. Why do you think that is? I don't know. Because you just didn't care. I hope not.
02:51:57 Her evidence is that you did things like take a hunt sabbing to get her away from what was obviously a deeply distressing and emotionally draining experience. Might you have done that? I might well have done that. Yes.
02:52:05 Why were you promoting participation in hunt sabotage in this way?
02:52:16 in this way? I think I was providing a lift. Is it to promote your cover? It wouldn't have hurt it.
02:52:23 Shouldn't you have stepped back and allowed Wendy's real friends to support and comfort her during this particularly distressing time?
02:52:34 distressing time? In hindsight, certainly. It's a distinction I didn't make at the time. I would have said I was a real friend.
02:52:45 But of course, you weren't in reality. Way,
02:52:45 Way, as we've said before,
02:52:54 [clears throat] Wendy recalls an incident when she was trying on a top
02:53:10 and she wasn't wearing a bra and the top turned out to be quite revealing. She says that you laughed at her because she hadn't realized.
02:53:17 Did that happen? I've got no recollection of that and I can't see myself doing that. But then there's lots of things I can't see myself doing that I've done.
02:53:29 myself doing that I've done. Laughing at something vaguely sexual. Yeah.
02:53:30 Yeah. Well, we will come to your email correspondence with Ellie in
02:53:41 your email correspondence with Ellie in due course. You're not a man to shy away from sexual innuendo, are you? No.
02:53:42 No. You sure you didn't do that? No, I'm not sure. I just don't think I do.
02:53:54 She recalls looking around a property when she was looking to buy a property after her mother had died. Taking you with her to look around the property. Did you do that? I accept it.
02:54:08 I accept it. She said that you made a sexually suggestive remark about a double shower. I can't remember doing that. And again,
02:54:19 I can't remember doing that. And again, I can't see that I'd ever made a remark like that to Wendy. It would be in keeping with your propensity for sexual innuendo, wouldn't it?
02:54:29 it? I think that is specific to a relationship, but I know we'll come to that anyway.
02:54:41 that anyway. It's not your evidence, is it, that you never engage in any sort of sexual freon with Wendy? It is my evidence I never engaged in any sort of sexual free song with Wendy.
02:54:53 sort of sexual free song with Wendy. I'm not suggesting sexual activity. Just talking about sexual live themes. No, I don't think I ever felt that in any way.
02:55:02 any way. Her
02:55:05 Her evidence is that she wasn't interested in a sexual relationship with you, but she got the impression that had she been, there would have been one. Is that fair? No, I don't think because I don't think that was ever
02:55:20 that was ever just wasn't that sort of relationship at all at any point. Why not?
02:55:26 Why not? I don't know.
02:55:40 Wendy played a role in your getting together with Andy with Ellie, didn't she?
02:55:41 she? Yes.
02:55:49 And in much the same way as I asked you a question about Sorrow, can you understand how upsetting it is to her now to have played a role unwitting as
02:56:02 now to have played a role unwitting as it was at your behest, to help promote the start of that relationship? Absolutely.
02:56:15 Once the relationship between you and Ellie had started, you stayed overnight regularly at her house, didn't you? Yes.
02:56:18 Yes. That relationship certainly wasn't a secret, was it? No.
02:56:33 There's call data showing calls between you and Wendy. Is there is a reality there was a lot of text messaging? I would presume so at that period of time
02:56:40 time to arrange social meetings and that sort of thing for all sorts of reasons.
02:56:55 Would it be fair to say generally that during the course of your deployment you frequently visited places where Wendy was living?
02:56:59 I remember too.
02:57:12 You would not suggest, would you, that Wendy was any form of physical threat to you?
02:57:13 you? No,
02:57:26 there was any way in which there was a threat. Was it the threat of your being recognized in your real life and compromised because your ex-wife and children lived not very far away? That's correct.
02:57:43 Nothing to do with anything that Wendy did?
02:57:45 did? Not personally. No.
02:57:52 Are you going to make any suggestion that Wendy was a violent activist?
02:58:06 Um, she had a temper and she was a committed activist. I certainly don't think she ever started anything.
02:58:25 We've touched upon the relationship she had with a man
02:58:31 which came to an end. Is it right that you discussed the decision to end that relationship with her?
02:58:40 her? I can't remember that discussion, but it's not impossible.
02:58:49 You have no business in getting involved in decisions like whether she should or should not finish with a boyfriend. Of course not.
02:59:07 She can't recall you using or mentioning the name Kevin Crossland. Is it right that you would never have uttered that name to her? I can't imagine why I would have done.
02:59:32 Have you got that email? Going to take this opportunity now to go back to Sara and the email that we were trying to find.
02:59:43 This is in 2018
02:59:50 in the course of the inquiries proceedings
02:59:56 and uh the
02:59:58 the inquiry
03:00:02 inquiry inquired whether you would be prepared to speak to Sara. The response we got back was HM16 is prepared to speak with Sara or meet her
03:00:14 prepared to speak with Sara or meet her if this might assist her in getting some of the answers she seeks.
03:00:21 Did you meet Sara? No, I don't think so.
03:00:37 Is it right that the offer to meet was because the inquiry asked or was a any other occasion on which you considered contacting Sara? No, I don't think I ever thought about contacting her.
03:00:57 Can I now ask you about something completely different? Firearms. Mhm.
03:01:08 Firearms. Mhm. You undertook protection duties. Yes.
03:01:09 Yes. Before
03:01:15 Before uh you became a member of the SDS. Yeah.
03:01:19 That is before the 26th of June 1996.
03:01:31 At any time whilst you were undertaking those protection duties, did any
03:01:37 did any principal
03:01:39 principal give you a firearm? No.
03:01:54 No. Did anyone with any connection to your protection duties ever give you a firearm? No, I was only ever issued with a firearm.
03:02:01 firearm. I was only ever issued with a firearm. Not given in that sense. Can I take it? Your issued firearm was not the cult 45 that was found in your vehicle in Mar?
03:02:13 vehicle in Mar? No.
03:02:22 Were you ever given a firearm by anyone?
03:02:23 anyone? No.
03:02:26 No. Did you ever lead, and I don't want you to identify anybody in your answer, did you ever
03:02:44 anybody in your answer, did you ever give any of your colleagues to believe that you had been given a firearm? by a principal? No. No.
03:02:48 No. No. Did you ever say anything to any manager about wanting to keep a firearm?
03:02:57 firearm? No.
03:02:59 No. Is there any possible confusion that could have crept in to any conversation you had with a colleague which might
03:03:15 you had with a colleague which might have led them to think that you had a firearm?
03:03:22 firearm? I've obviously given some thought to that. I can't imagine what that would be.
03:03:37 In September of 2000, did you own a handgun? No.
03:03:42 No. Did you have access to one? No.
03:03:49 Did you own any 45 caliber live ammunition? No.
03:03:55 No. Did you have access to any? No.
03:04:00 No. Did you own any black powder? No.
03:04:01 No. Did you have access to any? So, just on that last one, we used to use crow scarers. I don't know what goes
03:04:16 use crow scarers. I don't know what goes in them. Sort of a flashbang type thing. If that's black powder, then I had access to that. Had you
03:04:24 Had you disassembled any of those? No.
03:04:26 No. To accumulate black powder? No.
03:04:30 No. Had any of the people that you were mixing with done that? I don't think so.
03:04:40 Did the position in relation to any of the series of questions about gun ammunition and black powder change between September 2000
03:04:52 between September 2000 and your arrival in Marseilles on the 9th of January 2001? No,
03:05:09 we know that L4 was run over on the 1st of September 2000, wasn't he? Accept that. Were you present when that happened? No. Could we have up please from volume 4 C106
03:05:19 4 C106 MPS03867.
03:05:33 This is a report of the 1st of September 2000.
03:05:35 2000. reads, "L4 was seriously injured this morning when a Land Rover belonging to the Syrian Burst Hunt ran him over during a confrontation between Hunt supporters and Hunt saboturs. Others
03:05:50 supporters and Hunt saboturs. Others present at the event included L2 privacy and privacy from Liverpool. Not surprisingly, there is great anger
03:06:06 Not surprisingly, there is great anger amongst the SABS at this incident as it was felt to be a deliberate act. There has been immediate talk of reprisals, but no definite plan has yet been formulated.
03:06:13 How did you get this information on the day of the attack?
03:06:23 I don't know when I wrote it. So, it might have been called and it might have been going to the hospital.
03:06:35 who without naming names that aren't ciphered, writing them down if they're not ciphered, who was talking of reprisals at that stage.
03:06:53 [snorts] I can't remember who I spoke to. I think everyone. It was a truly shocking thing.
03:07:05 What do you mean by that? I mean, everyone was very, very angry. The likes of Wendy, I can't remember talking to her. Ellie,
03:07:10 Ellie, definitely not. She wasn't an activist. She was an activist. Mhm.
03:07:21 Was that hot air then at that stage? Just an expression of venting anger? The latter? I don't think it's I think hot air suggests something much more normal. It wasn't that.
03:07:43 But no indication that that anger would translate at that stage no into action. No.
03:07:52 There was a plan though, wasn't there, to mount a response by way of demonstration and home visits. Yes.
03:08:05 Yes. Could we go to Could we take that down and go to C107 in volume 4? It's MPS03897,
03:08:15 6 of September 2000.
03:08:24 Seran Bursto Hunt report attributed to you. Following the incident last week where L4 was run over and badly injured during a frackar between Hunts Saboturs and Hunt supporters, there is to be another demonstration this evening by
03:08:39 another demonstration this evening by members of the Hunt Saboturs Association against members of the Syrian Burau Hunt. Was this in fact not the first response
03:08:44 response because this is five days? No, it wouldn't have been and it references less violent previous encounters.
03:08:58 encounters. The demonstrators will meet at East Ginstead BR station at 6 p.m. and from there make home visits to a number of prominent members of the hunt. The demonstrators are hoping to have press coverage of the actions which will consequently be less violent than previous encounters.
03:09:12 previous encounters. Given the serious nature of L4's injuries, however, the 20 or so
03:09:25 injuries, however, the 20 or so protesters are likely to be in volatile mood. This appears to be painting a picture of a an angry
03:09:34 but essentially law-abiding protest because the press are going to be there. Is that fair? Yes, I think so. Did you attend this protest? I can't remember.
03:09:44 Going back to the immediate response, we heard evidence yesterday from L3 who said that a large number of activists went down to the kennels. Yes.
03:09:53 Yes. Shortly afterwards,
03:10:04 Shortly afterwards, his evidence was you were not present on that occasion. Is he right about that? I think he probably is. Why weren't you there? I can't remember it particularly. I suspect because it was known about the police were going to be there. There
03:10:15 police were going to be there. There were likely to be arrests and that would have been difficult. I think I was probably told not to go but I can't remember
03:10:19 remember cuz you had been to the hospital. I have been to the hospital. Yeah. And you were aware that things might become disorderly.
03:10:38 might become disorderly. Yeah. I mean I think that one was always going to be. And your job was to report on public disorder, wasn't it? It was.
03:10:46 It was. And you hadn't shied away from being involved in other public disorder situations, had you? No.
03:10:50 No. Right up to and including kicking the shield of a police officer? No.
03:10:51 No. So why shy away on this occasion? I think it was the likelihood of arrest, not the violence.
03:11:10 What did you understand from what you were told by activists in the immediate aftermath of that about what had happened?
03:11:16 Sorry, this one that I'm looking at or the earlier one, the earlier one. You can take that down now, please.
03:11:27 um a confrontation at the kennels, some fighting.
03:11:40 Can't really remember. I mean, I seem to think I got the impression that the SABs had got the best of it actually, but I don't know why I remember that. And there've been, according to L3, a number of arrests. There were certainly arrests. I don't think they were all on the day.
03:12:01 What was their mood? I mean, I wasn't there on the day obviously, but the general mood then was deep abiding anger. Was there a sense that this protest had vented some of that anger? I don't think so. No.
03:12:20 Not asking whether it had completely finished the saga, but that was was your impression that there had been a venting of anger?
03:12:38 No, I don't think so. I think it was especially and then you've got subsequent arrests as well. I think it was almost oil on the flames. that that exaggerates it too much, but
03:12:51 that that exaggerates it too much, but no, I don't think I form the impression there'd been any. Were you given any sense of who had started the violence?
03:13:00 No, I mean it would have been the hunt would have been what I've been told.
03:13:09 Can we have please volume 2 B55 MPS04388.
03:13:22 This is a report entitled The French Connection and it's about a plot
03:13:34 and it's about a plot and a to obtain a firearm and a strategy to disrupt it. says the objective is to gain intelligence on the activities of L2 or
03:13:49 intelligence on the activities of L2 or L3 leading to their arrest or disruption without compromising the source and other long-term SDS operations. A requirement for source to give evidence in court will lead to compromise.
03:14:12 Is it right that your manager's belief uh that there was a plot to obtain a firearm
03:14:16 firearm was the result of your telling them that?
03:14:23 that? I presume so. Yes. No other source. I don't know. Were you ever told there was any other source? No.
03:14:36 source? No. There be any other obvious source? not that specific with L2 and L3 mentioned.
03:14:42 If we go to page two, please
03:14:56 dated the 31st of October 2000 from the DCI then in charge of the SDS HN58 to Commander Special Branch. And this uh is recommending disruption or frustration is the best
03:15:08 disruption or frustration is the best course of action. You can see that at the end of the first paragraph. And uh it is requesting authority
03:15:19 And uh it is requesting authority to proceed with your involvement in what is being called a dry rum. Did that request take place after you had discussed with your managers
03:15:33 had discussed with your managers the plot that you had told them about and how best to respond to it? Certainly, it must have been after I discussed it with my managers.
03:15:44 discussed it with my managers. I presume we'd have had some initial conversations about how to disrupt and deal
03:15:53 deal but they would have been initial I suspect.
03:15:55 suspect. Can we go to page three
03:16:03 and under disrupt under the bullet point disruption
03:16:10 this seems to be the favored option with a possible opportunity to disrupt in France. Having discussed with MT the theft of his vehicle with ordinance inside could be engineered. This would take the ordinance away from the
03:16:24 take the ordinance away from the conspirators and severely disrupt any future plans. The problem with this scheme is that Roger Pierce probably could not authorize it, particularly as the substantive offenses are taking place in France. However, MT feels
03:16:35 place in France. However, MT feels confident that he could engineer a position whereby his vehicle could be stolen. This has the advantage of getting rid of the ordinance without
03:16:48 getting rid of the ordinance without undue suspicion falling on MT. Although there would clearly be some kind of internal investigation. MT feels confident that he could withstand any such inquiry. Internal investigation being an internal
03:17:00 investigation being an internal investigation amongst those you say were conspiring? I presume so. Y and is it right that ultimately the plan that was taken forward was to disrupt Yeah.
03:17:14 Yeah. And that is because any other plan would have risked exposing you as an undercover officer and risked the operational security of the SDS or failed. Yeah. Can we go back to page one?
03:17:32 Under current situation, nothing has been planned so far. The intelligence has come from a number of conversations between interested parties.
03:17:52 Now that intelligence come from you as you've just said could you help us the period between the 1st of September 2000
03:17:59 2000 when L4 was run over and the 31st of October when this document is generated. What conversations had been held between
03:18:16 What conversations had been held between which interested parties? Again, no real names. Ciphers or write it down. I assume we're talking L2, L3, and I. Just the three of you. I can't say that exclusively.
03:18:34 Well, who else? I don't know.
03:18:39 And what had passed between you and L2?
03:18:47 at that point
03:18:54 must have been the genesis of a plan. But nothing much more than that because it says nothing has been planned so far.
03:19:07 planned so far. Well, what nothing had been planned? What had been said that had led to you to go to your managers? conversation we've already discussed about what they wanted to do, how they wanted to do it
03:19:24 that clearly needed reporting. Well, we we had some I asked you some questions earlier about Indonesia in 2000, the autumn of 2001. This is the autumn of 2000. Mhm. You've told us about some
03:19:42 Mhm. You've told us about some anger being expressed on the day the 1st of September 2000. Can you help us with what conversations you had had with L2 L3 between then and the 31st of October 2000
03:19:56 2000 which had caused you to go to your managers?
03:20:01 managers? I would have been going to my managers right through. So this would be a series of conversations which would have been reported almost contemporaneously.
03:20:19 contemporaneously. A series of conversations with L2 and L3 and then a series of conversations with your managers as each took place. Is that what you mean? As near each as possible. Yeah. Did these conversations always include the three of you? No.
03:20:35 Who was a party to them then? You and just one of L2 and L3. Yeah. And then obviously must have been conversations between L2 and L3. And what was what was said to you?
03:20:54 All the stuff I was reporting. I'm not Well, can you help us with what that was because we we don't have any written reports.
03:20:56 reports. um
03:20:58 um the anger, the objective and what the plan was starting to form up with. And the objective was Sorry, I was just about to say
03:21:25 to revenge against L5.
03:21:32 Was any particular form of revenge expressed?
03:21:38 Yes, but I don't think it had got to day date time place. What was a what form of revenge was it? That's how we got to the firearm was something that sent a message.
03:21:53 something that sent a message. Can you be specific? Were people talking about shooting him or or not? Yes.
03:22:00 To hurt him or to kill him. I don't think that was ever stated. And what had been said about a firearm?
03:22:12 Can we get one? I think who said that? L2 certainly. L3 like all of them. It was part of the conversation.
03:22:24 was part of the conversation. When you say all of them, do you mean both of them or was somebody else both of them and me?
03:22:33 What did you say then? Said I don't know.
03:22:42 You're portraying a point in time at which there was a desire to acquire a firearm, but no knowledge as to how to do it. Is that right? No certainty.
03:22:55 No certainty. I think at this point reading that short sentence,
03:22:59 sentence, did that change? Yes.
03:23:02 Yes. At what point did that change? I can't remember the date. at some point after this
03:23:16 before the 3 before the 31st of October 2000 when this document was created.
03:23:22 I don't know that doesn't say that.
03:23:36 And who first said anything which raised the prospect that a firearm could actually be obtained.
03:23:40 Best of my recollection L2.
03:23:50 Where were you when he said that? Can't remember. Was L3 present? Can't remember. What did L2 say? something to the effect I think we might be able to do this.
03:24:08 When I started asking you questions earlier, you weren't entirely sure that it was just the three of you.
03:24:20 it was just the three of you. I think when you were speaking to me earlier, we were talking about who would have wanted L5.
03:24:33 L5. What I'm interested in is who is party to conversations about obtaining a firearm with a view to shooting L5?
03:24:40 I'm only definitely aware of those two with a
03:24:50 with a How sure are you that you weren't talking to somebody else about that? There's a possibility of L1
03:25:03 It's quite a big deal conspiring to either shoot or murder somebody, isn't it? Of course. And one would be pretty careful about who one entered into a conspiracy with to do that. Certainly.
03:25:18 Certainly. Really the case that you're not sure who was party to the conspiracy at this stage?
03:25:20 stage? I only know the people I was talking to.
03:25:36 When was the first mention of black powder?
03:25:40 I can't remember.
03:25:48 Why was there mention of black powder? Again,
03:25:52 Again, I don't know. I'm not sure what you would do with it.
03:25:59 Did you ever get an answer to that question?
03:26:04 question? No, I don't think so. Did you ever ask? I must have done. I mean, I say I mentioned crow scarers and things,
03:26:17 but ask what was going to be done with it. M
03:26:19 it. M and what was the answer? I don't think I ever got an answer. When did France first come into the conversation?
03:26:34 Probably about the time we did the so after this report when things began to firm up. Yeah, I think we have a way to do this.
03:26:59 Well, if we look at volume two, sir tab B56 triple0
03:27:00 triple0 41
03:27:14 paragraph two.
03:27:25 There's been widespread outrage by those within animal rights movement, none more so than L4's close friends L1, L2, and L3. At present, there is a plan to obtain black powder and a gun from France through a French animal rights activist. While the target is unknown, it is very probable that the driver of the vehicle remains the most likely
03:27:43 the vehicle remains the most likely recipient. Magenta triangle is well placed to report on this um enterprise.
03:27:53 Now that comes in immediately after the document we just looked at.
03:28:04 document we just looked at. Are you giving the impression there that L1, L2, and L3 are all involved in the conspiracy?
03:28:07 No, I don't think so.
03:28:13 But there is mention of a French animal rights activist. Yeah.
03:28:17 Yeah. And we saw in the last document there was already talk of jurisdictional problems with France. So France was already on the radar by the end of October.
03:28:26 October. Okay.
03:28:26 Okay. Does that help jog your memory?
03:28:33 Sorry, I've forgotten the question. When did France first come into the picture?
03:28:41 Before that then how
03:28:43 how I can't remember
03:28:50 there's reference in the do this document to a French animal rights activist.
03:28:52 activist. Was there uh reference by any of L1, L2
03:29:04 Was there uh reference by any of L1, L2 or L3 to a French animal rights activist through whom a firearm and black powder could be obtained? Yes.
03:29:10 Yes. Can you help us with what that was? No.
03:29:16 You remember anything being said about this activist?
03:29:21 If there was, it would have been reported.
03:29:26 Did you
03:29:33 ask any questions to try and verify whether there really was a French animal rights activist and if so, whether it was a person who could be trusted
03:29:51 with this risky endeavor? I could certainly have asked about the trust.
03:29:53 trust. Did you?
03:29:55 Did you? I can't remember. Can you help me with whether you ever got any response? No.
03:30:09 No. Is there anything said about the timing at this stage of when a weapon might be obtained from France?
03:30:17 Not if it's not in here or somewhere else.
03:30:19 else. Was there discussion of your role?
03:30:35 There must have been that I was there. And what was your role going to be? I don't know when it was decided in terms of this chron chronology, but essentially the vehicle and the driving.
03:30:52 We, as I've said, don't have any surviving intelligence reports to cover. this period in relation to this plot. Was there any discussion with your
03:31:03 Was there any discussion with your managers about whether or not this should be written up?
03:31:15 Not that I can remember. Would there have been an operational security risk
03:31:22 if reports had been put onto special branch files reporting
03:31:27 reporting that there were [clears throat] discussions between L1, L2, L3 and U about a plot to obtain a firearm from
03:31:40 about a plot to obtain a firearm from France with which to do harm to somebody probably L5. Five, there would certainly I mean there's degrees of security and degrees of access within special branch files. Well, there was
03:31:55 Well, there was Do you mean to convey to us through that answer that there are ways of managing that type of risk and that would not have prevented it being written down? No, I don't think so.
03:32:07 No, I don't think so. So, forgive me for having run slightly beyond 5:00, but uh is this a convenient time at which to stop for the day? Certainly there's quite a lot to cover on this topic and um we can't possibly finish it today.
03:32:21 finish it today. Um as you know you are down for four days here. Would you be back in time to resume your evidence at 10 tomorrow, please? Thank you. We'll uh resume at 10 tomorrow.