Testimony from Evidence Hearings regarding their experiences and knowledge relevant to the undercover policing inquiry.
00:45:39 before you begin. Um, this afternoon's proceedings are being broadcast but by uh voice only. Those with mobile devices may use them to report what they hear in
00:45:50 may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only uh 10 minutes after what they're reporting uh has uh
00:46:05 after what they're reporting uh has uh only after 10 minutes have elapsed since what they're reporting has occurred. Um mobile devices may uh not be used for recording or photography.
00:46:21 Uh sir, there may have been a slight miscommunication in that I haven't quite finished speaking to everyone I need to speak to. What I propose to do is to pose the questions that I have established uh should be put and then
00:46:32 established uh should be put and then ask you to to adjourn very briefly while I speak to the last person I need to speak to.
00:46:35 speak to. Certainly. Um if you'd rather do it all in one go, I'll rise again. Uh, no. I think I I've I've got I've got some to be getting on with.
00:46:50 Can I start with the question of sexual relationships and uh you have said that until quite a late stage you hadn't told anybody about them because
00:47:05 anybody about them because you knew they were wrong. I just want to explore that from another angle and to establish whether or not that's really right. The inquiry has heard quite a lot
00:47:21 right. The inquiry has heard quite a lot of evidence that a number of officers in T3 were conducting deceitful sexual relationships. And the inquiry has
00:47:32 relationships. And the inquiry has received evidence that some of these at least were known about either to colleagues or to managers or to both. I want to ask you to cast your mind back.
00:47:49 back. Was it the case that you believed you were clearly in the wrong? Or was it the case
00:48:00 Or was it the case that there was such a lacks attitude within the SDS and acceptance by managers
00:48:04 managers uh that you felt you didn't need to say anything?
00:48:12 No, I think I was clear I was in the wrong.
00:48:13 wrong. I was in the wrong because of the nature of those relationships. And I don't mean the sexual bit, I mean the depth of them.
00:48:29 Can I ask now about the part of your legend that depended on a history of child sexual abuse and the explanation
00:48:43 child sexual abuse and the explanation you gave to Sara when ending the sexual dimension to that relationship? [snorts]
00:48:50 [snorts] Did your managers have any involvement in devising reliance upon child sexual abuse in any way? It would have been discussed with them as part of my legend. It was sort of evolved and tested as it went along.
00:49:05 evolved and tested as it went along. When you say that, are we talking about uh DCI Edmonson and DI Lambert?
00:49:15 uh DCI Edmonson and DI Lambert? I can't recall discussing it with either of them. it would have been unlikely to be discussed with the DCI. I think it was much more the DS level that was doing the day-to-day evolution of that legend.
00:49:21 legend. The DS's who were in the SDS when you started
00:49:37 in the SDS when you started when I was in the back office. Yeah. I think those names are all in the clear, but just to be on the safe side, could you write down uh who you uh discussed it with?
00:50:00 [clears throat]
00:50:04 Give that to us bar if you would.
00:50:12 Thank you. Yes, we can use that name. It's Detective Sergeant Web. I should say that's the only one I can remember. There were at least two, but I can't remember who the other one was at that time.
00:50:23 that time. And what was Detective Sergeant? Well, did you speak to the other one? I would imagine I would have done. Yes. What was Detective Sergeant Webb's reaction?
00:50:35 reaction? I think we just discussed it. I can't recall that reaction particularly. The other sergeant? Same. I can't recall that at all. [snorts]
00:50:48 [snorts] Had you decided when that part of your cover story would be deployed? No,
00:51:00 went through the fact that Sar's recollection is that you asked her to keep it secret. Can you help us with why you asked her to keep it secret?
00:51:20 Not really. I would imagine so that it seemed more real. It would be something that would be intensely personal.
00:51:27 And we went through the fact that Ellie's recollection is that you boasted about sleeping with the school nurse.
00:51:38 sleeping with the school nurse. How do you square boasting about sleeping with the school nurse self a form of child sexual abuse with asking Sara to keep it quiet?
00:51:50 Sara to keep it quiet? I can't square that.
00:51:57 Well, could you help us then to explain why you did both of those things? I don't recall doing the second one. Um I can't remember the context, the conversation or why it would have come
00:52:11 conversation or why it would have come up. Were you deploying your cover story as you saw fit to advantage your cover as you went along? Yes. I don't think I'd used that part of my legend until that point, Mis. Actually,
00:52:29 Actually, in so far as there are is any written evidence about the cont content of your legend, it doesn't make any mention of child abuse. Are you sure that was part of your pre-planned legend? Yes.
00:52:48 You gave an answer something to the effect of you thought it was going to help you to infiltrate your target.
00:53:02 your target. Can you help us with how you thought it was going to infiltrate your target? I think the thinking was there needed to be a rationale between someone who spoke like me
00:53:13 between someone who spoke like me and why they would be so disaffected, anti- athoritarian, and so on.
00:53:24 Now, we've heard some evidence from Wendy to the effect that the way she presents now was different to the way
00:53:36 presents now was different to the way that she presented as a young woman when you were conducting your deployment and that she like you came from a middleclass background. Is that right? Yes, probably.
00:53:49 Yes, probably. We've had the benefit of seeing L3 who similarly appears to be at least in demeanor middle class. Is that fair? Yes.
00:54:06 Yes. I think you answered one of my questions to the effect that you thought they were in fact middle class people in the group.
00:54:15 Can you explain in those circumstances why you thought you needed that part of your cover legend? Exactly, Alison. I think there needed to be a rationale. I'm not sure even I thought it it was thought that there needed to be a rationale. There needed
00:54:29 needed to be a rationale. There needed to be a reason for someone to go in that direction. And if it was it was thought by whom? By those of us in that conversation? You mean your managers? I mean managers. Yes. the sergeant or
00:54:53 I mean managers. Yes. the sergeant or again I can't remember enough to specify uh those who've been following uh your evidence uh have been struck by the number of times in which you have not been able to recall matters. We accept it's quarter of a century ago. But [snorts] even so,
00:55:11 of a century ago. But [snorts] even so, important events from 25 years ago will often stick in one's mind, won't they? They could do. Yes. Have you been following in your evidence to the inquiry
00:55:25 to the inquiry a strategy of saying that you don't recall when in fact you do? No.
00:55:27 No. Have you been doing that uh to make it more difficult for proper criticisms to be made of you?
00:55:40 criticisms to be made of you? No, I don't think there's any difficulty of making proper criticisms of me. Have you done it to avoid taking full responsibility for your actions? I do take full responsibility for my actions.
00:55:53 actions. Are you pursuing the same strategy that you pursued with your managers? Namely to accept criticisms which can be proved against you but not to admit anything further.
00:56:08 anything further. I'm not pursuing a strategy. that strategy. Any strategy.
00:56:29 There are there have been a number of occasions when you've accepted that what you did was quite wrong. Yes.
00:56:35 Yes. And yet you continued with various forms of misconduct. Yes.
00:56:44 Most people who accept that something is wrong
00:56:50 will at some point stop. Yes.
00:56:57 Yes. You don't appear to have done that. No, I can only accept that. Why not?
00:57:01 Why not? I have no good answer for that.
00:57:11 say for a complete lack of morality. I would accept that.
00:57:29 Can I now pick up on a couple of matters in the documents? Can we have from
00:57:31 from 7 MPS07
00:57:33 7 MPS07 treble 282?
00:57:42 [clears throat] This is your post operational debrief document that you wrote. Page three,
00:57:54 right at the bottom of that page, page one
00:58:01 says, I'll let you get the context, but it's the last sentence on that page.
00:58:30 Thank you. You see at the bottom it says, "I've consulted with several other ex- field officers, some still serving, others retired, all bitter to achieve some breadth of perspective in this area. As
00:58:41 breadth of perspective in this area. As a field officer of DS rank, I believe it is beholden on me to at least attempt to minimize such problems for subsequent field officers."
00:58:57 field officers." Were you by pointing out that there were other bitter officers trying to communicate to your managers? Uh that
00:59:10 communicate to your managers? Uh that they might have a problem and they might have people who would spill the beans about the SDS if incited to do so. I was certainly trying to point out they might have a problem. And what what sort of problem?
00:59:22 a problem with
00:59:29 SDS deployments, how they come to an end,
00:59:32 end, welfare issues around them, that sort of thing.
00:59:36 thing. Can I link that now with a much later document, NPSO748497?
00:59:43 This is from April 2005.
00:59:59 [snorts] And this if we go to the paragraph which has got the cipher HN53 in it please.
01:00:12 I'd like you to I'll give you a moment to read that to see the context. It's a third line that I'm interested in.
01:00:24 Thank you.
01:00:37 I is it right that you told people that you were considering your legal position in relation to your feeling that HN 53
01:00:40 53 had taken against you? I can't remember ever mentioning a legal position.
01:00:55 Were you following the strategy that attack is the best form of defense? So, I can't remember having a legal position or suggesting
01:01:10 having a legal position or suggesting it. I do remember that because this came up a long time after my last dealings with HN53
01:01:12 with HN53 that I was uh angry about it. So, might you have said what is recorded there?
01:01:27 I might I can't see it, but I might. And is the reality that HN53's
01:01:38 And is the reality that HN53's only sin was discovering your misconduct and doing his best to investigate it? No.
01:01:44 No. Why do you say that? because this was sorry I forget the date you gave me but it was sometime after my deployment um where he raised the issue of me potentially being suicidal when he realized I was essentially back at work.
01:02:04 realized I was essentially back at work. This is raising concerns about your suitability to be restored to firearm status.
01:02:11 status. Yes. I mean I think it was a particular deployment that he became aware of. um abroad. Um but yes,
01:02:18 in the circumstances of your previous conduct, that was a legitimate concern to have, wasn't it? Whether you were an appropriate person to be entrusted with a firearm.
01:02:30 a firearm. It was I think it should have been earlier. It was the timing that so annoyed me. Can we take that down now, please? I asked you some questions uh about uh other UCOs and whether they'd
01:02:45 uh other UCOs and whether they'd essentially fled the country to avoid the inquiry. Could I ask you more generally, have you spoken to other undercover police officers about the inquiry? Yes.
01:03:02 Yes. Could you without naming names outline what you have discussed with them?
01:03:12 It's vary depending on the discussion. Um
01:03:19 Um what the inquiry was for certainly came up particularly in the early days. Um
01:03:25 what it meant for us all sorts of things.
01:03:32 And was there any discussion at that time of people suggesting they might take measures to avoid giving evidence? I'm sure it was suggested including by me.
01:03:48 me. Do you know if anybody again without naming names at this stage acted on those ideas? I don't.
01:03:53 I don't. [snorts]
01:03:54 [snorts] Did any of those conversations go to the line that one should take about whether or not to admit sexual misconduct?
01:04:08 misconduct? No, I don't think so. I think it was accepted that was out there. Did any of it go to what evidence should be given to the inquiry?
01:04:18 inquiry? No.
01:04:29 Sir, those are the questions so far. There is one more person I do need to speak to. Might I invite you to rise? I anticipate it will be for just a few minutes. Certainly.
01:04:41 All rise.
01:15:22 Thank you, sir. [clears throat] First of all, can I ask you, Mr. Thompson, when you attended demonstrations, so not hunt sabotage, but demonstrations,
01:15:33 but demonstrations, did any of your handlers ever come out and attend those demonstrations?
01:15:45 I can't remember where they were. They might have been in a control room or something like that. I think certainly for the big ones there was somebody on duty, somebody from the SDS. Yeah.
01:15:57 Yeah. And if it wasn't a handler, might it have been the controller? Possibly. Yeah. Depending on the nature of the demonstration or it was available, I suppose. Was that standard procedure?
01:16:11 Was that standard procedure? I don't know. I remember it as a sort of case byase type thing.
01:16:26 Jim Boiling. How well known to you was Jim Boiling? Very well known. Um,
01:16:28 Um, how did you get on with him? Well,
01:16:38 did there come a time when it became known [snorts] that a woman was trying to who was an activist was trying to get in touch with him?
01:17:02 I certainly know of that happening. I'm not sure when I became aware of it. Was there talk within the SDS about that? Yes.
01:17:12 Using the name Rosa is the name that we're using for the woman in this inquiry.
01:17:16 inquiry. Can you help us with what was said within the SDS about this issue? Again, I can't remember when it happened
01:17:28 Again, I can't remember when it happened and so whether I was only aware after it had happened, but there was something to do with the phone call. So I think and again I only think at this stage I think there was a phone
01:17:40 this stage I think there was a phone call to the office or something like that.
01:17:46 And what was the reaction to that phone call?
01:17:53 was just taken as a security issue. I presume the number was changed and so on. I can't really remember what else happened around it. I can't remember if it was a mobile or a landline.
01:18:04 it was a mobile or a landline. A phone call seeking to get in touch with
01:18:16 with Yes, that's my that's my understanding with the threat that the relationship would be finished if he didn't. I can't remember any threat or I don't think I knew what the conversation was, but it caused a stir within the SDS. Yes.
01:18:26 Yes. Can you recall anything further about why it caused a stir?
01:18:35 No, I think primarily because Rosa had managed to ring that number.
01:18:46 Was it common knowledge within the SDS that Boiling had been having a sexual relationship with a woman we are calling Rosa?
01:18:52 Rosa? I don't believe so.
01:18:58 I asked you earlier about the revelations starting to come out uh first of all about Mark Kennedy, but by early 2011 allegations which turned out to be true
01:19:11 allegations which turned out to be true about Jim Boing were being made, weren't they?
01:19:13 they? Yeah. I can't remember the date, but certainly. Did that give you any further pause for thought about your continuing your contact with Ellie and Wendy?
01:19:25 contact with Ellie and Wendy? I don't remember that it did.
01:19:35 So, thank you. Those are all my questions. Um, I understand there is no re-examination.
01:19:46 I'm afraid I do have a few questions and it they're about operation lime and we'll need one or two documents to assist. Could please um MPS O004762
01:19:54 be put on the screen.
01:20:05 [clears throat]
01:20:09 This is a document I think you've seen before and I hope you're familiar with it, but please take time to read it if you want.
01:20:15 you want. Thank you. Right.
01:20:25 Right. Uh it's right, I take it that uh you did spend time on the 30th of November 2000 um
01:20:32 um with L3 at his home address. Endorse it. Yes.
01:20:41 And you did there discuss uh the forthcoming trip to France which ultimately became the trip to Marseilles. Yes.
01:20:54 This note records uh what you uh told uh your handlers back in the office. Agreed.
01:20:55 Agreed. Yes.
01:20:57 Yes. The overall impression given by uh L3 was that he sees the trip as a bit of a holiday built around their purchase of the goods. That's a reference to the weaponry.
01:21:08 weaponry. Yeah.
01:21:11 Yeah. To this end, he suggested going via Bordeaux to sample the wines and then leisurely traveling to Marseilles prior to exploring some of the delights of Provence. L3 has also somewhat
01:21:25 Provence. L3 has also somewhat sheepishly requested that his girlfriend P and her friend accompany them on the trip to give good cover. The um plan which you were reporting to
01:21:37 The um plan which you were reporting to your handlers then was that uh you would go to Bordeaux first. Yes.
01:21:39 Yes. And then to Marseilles. Yep.
01:21:49 Can we look now please at MPS O4794
01:22:12 the second of the two entries. ignore the first Friday the 1st of December. On Monday 4 December, you was further debriefed in the office concerning arrangements for the trip to France in January. Uh he confirmed the
01:22:23 January. Uh he confirmed the arrangements as per previous note. He
01:22:34 arrangements as per previous note. He said that whilst L3 stated the two girls would be ideal cover, it was suggested in a sheepish way indicating that he felt slightly guilty about inviting them. So the trip then was as you described it Porto first then Marseilles I presume so yes
01:22:51 you not really presume that is what you told them at the time is it not? Yes. I assume this is just a note passing up the chain from that same meeting.
01:23:01 meeting. Quite but it's an accurate summary of what you told them. Yes.
01:23:04 Yes. Uh then please um MPS O004942
01:23:21 page four.
01:23:28 This is an undated application for participation of a covert human intelligence source you uh in uh an activity and the activity is described
01:23:49 activity and the activity is described uh under paragraph H. The last paragraph under paragraph H beginning their plan at present is to travel to France via the Dova Cali route drive down to Bordeaux and then drive to Marseilles before returning to the UK.
01:24:02 before returning to the UK. At this stage a trip of about 5 days is envisaged. Magenta triangle U will be the driver of the vehicle, although unlikely to meet the French national will assist in the secretion of the ordinance in the car.
01:24:18 ordinance in the car. Again, that's an accurate summary of what you told your handlers at that stage before the trip took place. Yes.
01:24:25 Then please MPS one uh MPS O4942.
01:24:38 So sorry that's what we've just been looking at. I do apologize.
01:24:48 The plan then was to go to Bordeaux first.
01:24:55 first. to spend uh as I understand it a couple of days in Bordeaux and then on to Marseilles. Yes.
01:24:58 Yes. Uh and that is I think spelt out with um
01:25:14 clarity uh in in the subsequent document.
01:25:15 document. Um
01:25:23 Um Sarah was going to be uh invited to join you in Bordeaux, was she not? Yes.
01:25:24 Yes. And was invited? Yes.
01:25:28 Yes. And uh a airflight was booked for her to go to Bordeaux airport. I don't know when we booked it. Before you left for the trip? Not that I can remember.
01:25:43 Not that I can remember. Well, think about it if you would. um you're making a trip uh which is going to begin
01:25:45 to begin uh in Bordeaux. It's going to begin in Calala and then drive down to Bordeaux. So perhaps a a night on the way, but no more than that. You were going to arrive in Bordeaux um
01:26:00 in Bordeaux um within a day and a bit of arriving in Calala.
01:26:01 Calala. Yes.
01:26:06 Yes. And Sara was going to join you. Yes.
01:26:08 Yes. And how long were you going to spend in Bordeaux?
01:26:15 I don't know at that point. I think my understanding was we were waiting to know when we could go to MA. Y I think there were dates penciled in there were some between dates was what we anticipated. Yes.
01:26:29 we anticipated. Yes. Uh you were going to travel uh to Calala on the 8th. Yes.
01:26:36 Yes. And then from Calala down towards Bordeaux on the 8th. Yes.
01:26:37 Yes. uh arriving on the 9th
01:26:50 or the 10th. 9th or 10th. Very well. It doesn't matter which. But um arrangements would have had to have been made, would they not, for Sara to join you there? Yes. I don't think we had that certainty. Oh. When uh was Sar's airflight booked? I don't know.
01:27:02 I don't know. Who booked it? I presume she did, but I can't remember and paid for it again. I presume she did. I can't remember.
01:27:22 Was it arranged before you left England that she would join you in Bordeaux? Certainly in principle. Yes.
01:27:30 According
01:27:43 to your account, when you get into France,
01:27:45 France, uh you are told by L3 uh that the initial destination is to change. Yes.
01:27:53 Yes. When did he tell you that? in France on the motorway. I think in fact it must been before that because you have to choose a motorway as we're starting to drive. Yeah.
01:28:14 Which route did you take? Down the eastern side.
01:28:23 So that would eventually bring you to the uh auto route that went by or past Leyon,
01:28:25 Leyon, I presume. So yeah. Was
01:28:36 it before or after you reached the Leyon area that he told you? Oh, before that. It had to be. It had to be. Yeah.
01:28:47 It had to be. Yeah. So, it would have had to have been very soon after you landed in Calali. Yes.
01:28:52 Yes. Because at Calali is when you make the choice, is it not as to which auto route to take.
01:28:53 to take. Yeah.
01:28:55 Yeah. So
01:28:57 So within
01:29:00 a very short time of arrival in Calala
01:29:11 uh you knew that the uh original plan was altered. Yes.
01:29:21 What did you do to um tell those who needed to know that the plan had been altered?
01:29:30 altered? I can't remember exactly. We had a series of agreed code words for different scenarios.
01:29:36 I certainly tried to transmit some of those
01:29:45 by mobile telephone. By text. Yes. By text.
01:29:48 By text. Your own mobile telephone or your the one I was carrying. Your work's mobile telephone.
01:29:56 When did you do that? Probably first stop. I can't remember. But well, you mean leaving Cali, you would stop for a rest and perhaps to pick up fuel?
01:30:06 fuel? Something like that. Yes. Yes. So that would be I don't know what time you arrived in Calala. Do you remember?
01:30:13 remember? No.
01:30:24 Midm morning at the latest. I would presume so. Yes. Yes.
01:30:27 Yes. I presume it came from London. So crossed.
01:30:34 crossed. You would have stopped for a break. I would have assumed sometime around lunchtime. Certainly no later. Perfectly reasonable. Yeah. And you texted then? I presume so. Yes.
01:30:45 I presume so. Yes. Well, I'm asking for your memory. I don't have a memory of it particularly. Was there any reason why you shouldn't have texted then? No.
01:30:58 So if things had um worked out as you have described them, uh you would have learned very soon after arrival in Calala that the route and plan had
01:31:11 Calala that the route and plan had changed and you would have conveyed that message to the office by lunchtime at the latest on that day on the 8th. Yes.
01:31:16 Sarah,
01:31:22 I can't remember. We must have spoke to her.
01:31:23 her. Yeah.
01:31:38 the um evidence uh that uh exists uh the contemporaneous evidence which exists um suggests that you telephoned your
01:31:52 um suggests that you telephoned your handler and I can name him uh if uh his name is not um secret it's greeny you telephoned him uh on the 9th not the 8th
01:32:03 not the 8th not the day of arrival but the day after to say you could not say where you were
01:32:09 but the destination had changed
01:32:16 okay that's a telephone call a telephone call okay I don't remember that you have any reason to challenge his no whatsoever
01:32:34 no whatsoever note and recollection and then at 5:07 p.m. On the 9th, you sent a text saying that the goods have been loaded. Yes.
01:32:37 Yes. From Marles. Yeah.
01:32:50 Uh, is there any reason why you were not able to tell those who needed to know, principally the office, uh, that the change of plan had occurred earlier than 5:07 p.m. on the 9th?
01:33:08 earlier than 5:07 p.m. on the 9th? I think I tried to tell them that. Well, you've told us that you were in uh text contact with them. Had you told them that, I know of no reason why they wouldn't have noted that. No.
01:33:18 No. And do you? No. I mean, they were already in Mar.
01:33:38 My understanding is that um uh they were in or went to or any rate um HN58 the detective chief inspector went to Bordeaux.
01:33:40 Bordeaux. Yes.
01:33:42 Yes. And did so on the 9th. There would appear to be no good reason
01:33:54 There would appear to be no good reason for him to go to Bordeaux on the 9th if you had already told the office on the 8th that the plan had changed. My recollection is I sent a coded message that includ
01:53:48 You knew him well? I knew him reasonably. Did you know that he was in a sexual relationship with the woman we're calling Allison? No.
01:54:04 No. Did there come a time uh when it became known in the SDS office that somebody was trying to find him? No, I wasn't aware of that.
01:54:17 No, I wasn't aware of that. Was there any sort of concern that you were aware of about Mark Jenner's operational security? No, I can't remember any particular issue with that.
01:54:33 issue with that. Uh, you said in response to some of my earlier questions that you had spoken to some of your colleagues about the inquiry.
01:54:36 inquiry. Could you write down the names of those you have spoken to, please?
01:55:21 Thank you.
01:55:37 Thanks.
01:55:58 Thank you. There's one more questions. Do you have any re-examination arising out of the questions that have been asked? No. No. Thank you. Then that concludes today's evidence. Does it not? It does. Although I think um I can make clear to those listening some of the
01:56:14 clear to those listening some of the names on this list. So I I should do so. Jim Boiling, HN26, and Bob Lambert. Your evidence is now complete. Um I'm afraid that you will not be hearing uh about the uh conclusions until the
01:56:32 about the uh conclusions until the report is published uh which will not be for well over a year. Understood.
01:56:41 That concludes today's proceedings. Um because uh evidence has taken slightly less time than was anticipated, there will not be a public hearing tomorrow. We will resume at 10 on Wednesday.
01:56:53 All right.