Morning session of Day 9 hearings, likely continuing examination of senior SDS managers or officers about their roles, decision-making, and knowledge of undercover officer activities during the critical period of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
00:28:38 Good morning everybody. Uh this is the first of four days of evidence by uh a witness uh James Thompson. Uh the evidence will be broadcast by voice only after 10 minutes have elapsed. Those
00:28:50 after 10 minutes have elapsed. Those with recording devices may use them to transmit what they have heard uh in the hearing room, but only after 10 minutes have elapsed. Uh since the event that
00:29:10 have elapsed. Uh since the event that they're reporting about, uh they may not be used for photography or recording. May the witness be sworn, please. I do solemnly I do solemnly sincerely and truly sincerely and truly declare and declare and confirm that the evidence The evidence I shall give shall be the truth.
00:29:22 shall be the truth. shall be the truth. The whole truth. The whole truth. And nothing. And nothing but the truth. Yes.
00:29:30 Yes. Mr. Thompson, I understand you have a back problem which may require you to stand up from time to time or to move around in your seat. Please don't hesitate to do so. And if at any stage
00:29:41 hesitate to do so. And if at any stage during the course of your evidence you feel the need for a break, say so and there will be one. Could
00:29:49 Could you tell us your full name, please? James Thompson. Uh, you've provided a witness statement to the inquiry. Um, in fact, a series of witness statements. Uh, I'm referring to the last and the longest of those
00:30:03 the last and the longest of those witness statements. Uh, are the contents of that witness statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? They are.
00:30:10 They are. Could I start by asking you some questions about your recruitment into the SDS?
00:30:17 the SDS? I'd just like first of all to clarify your marital status. Were you divorced or separated? Divorced.
00:30:31 Divorced. Were you cohabiting with a new partner? No.
00:30:36 No. But you did have a new partner if I've understood your witness statement correctly. Yeah.
00:30:38 Yeah. To what extent did SDS managers at the recruitment
00:30:50 did SDS managers at the recruitment stage explore with you the stability of that new relationship?
00:30:56 Um to some extent certainly um but a fairly limited extent I think. Did they explore it likely permanence?
00:31:21 I would say probably not. Um my my memory is of a fairly sort of quick pass over that. Did they explain to you why they were interested in the stability of your new relationship?
00:31:35 relationship? I think to the extent that a stable background is preferred.
00:31:49 Did they say why it was preferred? No, not really. Just it was preferred. Did that relationship outlast your deployment or not? Yes. Off and on. But yes. When you say off and on,
00:32:03 When you say off and on, does that mean that you broke up and then got back together again? Yes.
00:32:14 Yes. When you broke up, albeit temporarily, did you report that to your managers? No.
00:32:18 No. Was there any expectation that you should do so? Yes.
00:32:25 Yes. Why did you not uh report it to your managers then? Probably because I thought they would want me to be in a stable relationship. It would be a problem and probably because I thought it was private.
00:32:44 Uh were you concerned that they might uh withdraw you from your deployment? Yes.
00:32:46 Yes. And can I take it that continuing with your deployment was something that you very much wanted to do? No.
00:32:58 No. Uh the back office now uh whilst you're in the back office
00:33:09 in the back office uh you were encouraged I understand to speak to current and former SDS undercover police officers. Yes.
00:33:11 Yes. Did you speak to HN1?
00:33:26 I think I know that one. And the answer is yes. But let me just make absolutely sure.
00:33:58 Sorry, I can't see it in here, but I'm fairly sure I know who that is. In which case, the answer is yes. User cover name Matt Raina. Yes.
00:34:07 Yes. And was we understand your mentor? Yeah.
00:34:13 Yeah. When discussing with HN1 your forthcoming deployment, did he say anything about the prospect
00:34:26 did he say anything about the prospect of sexual activity with members of the public in your undercover identity? No.
00:34:36 Did he say anything about whether he had got involved in sexual activity whilst undercover? No. Did he say anything about sexual temptation whilst undercover? Not that I can remember.
00:34:54 Did he give you general guidance about infiltrating the world of animal rights activism?
00:34:55 activism? Yes.
00:35:02 Yes. In broad terms, what did he tell you? [snorts and clears throat] Um he described them and their world quite accurately described sort of
00:35:15 described sort of say the type of people but that's a little generic. Um
00:35:26 little generic. Um but what was acceptable, what wasn't. um talked a lot about the sort of process of being brought along by them as opposed to arriving as a fullyfledged animal rights person wants. Um
00:35:41 yeah, it was all fairly rounded, fairly extensive.
00:35:48 Did you speak to Andrew Cole before deploying? Not that I can remember. Is it likely that you did? It is likely that I did. Yes.
00:36:00 It is likely that I did. Yes. Did you speak to Trevor Morris?
00:36:12 Don't think I did. No. Did you speak to the then detective inspector Bob Lambert? Yes.
00:36:19 Yes. Did he mention anything to do with sex whilst undercover? No.
00:36:23 No. Are you sure about that? Yeah.
00:36:27 Yeah. Did he give you advice about infiltrating animal rights groups? Yes. and he was the DI as you said, so sort of more general advice as well. Um,
00:36:41 sort of more general advice as well. Um, a lot more on the process about how slow to take it and so on. But yeah,
00:36:52 to take it and so on. But yeah, did he give you any advice on how to ensure that your operational security was maintained? Yes.
00:37:00 Yes. In broad terms, what did he say? Um,
00:37:05 Um, lots of stuff about cover employment. Um,
00:37:18 Um, backstory, so what bits of legend work and don't work. Um, what that should look like. Um, the whole the whole thing.
00:37:29 Any advice about how close to get to the activists you were seeking to report on? I think as close as you could.
00:37:38 Did you take that to be a euphemism? I didn't. No. I'm being asked if you could possibly speak up a little bit. Sorry. Yeah. Maybe if you come slightly closer to the microphones that would help.
00:37:56 microphones that would help. Did you speak to Jim Boiling? I would imagine so. Yes. Can you recall whether Jim Boiling mentioned anything about sexual activity in your undercover identity?
00:38:07 in your undercover identity? No. Sorry. No, he didn't.
00:38:17 Did you speak to Mark Jenner? Not that I can remember. Did you speak to Peter Francis? Uh, yes, at least once. Did Peter Francis say anything to you
00:38:31 Did Peter Francis say anything to you about sexual activity in your undercover identity?
00:38:32 identity? No.
00:38:36 No. Anything about sexual temptations or risks?
00:38:37 risks? Nothing.
00:38:46 Can I move now to your role in the production of SDS intelligence reports whilst you were in the back office? Yep. Am
00:38:58 Yep. Am I right to understand that by the time you joined the SDS, the unit was computerized?
00:39:06 We certainly had a computer. Yes,
00:39:18 [clears throat] you have described in your witness statement typing up reports from handlers.
00:39:20 handlers. Yes.
00:39:22 Yes. Why would you need to type up a report from a handler as
00:39:34 type up a report from a handler as opposed to typing up a report from an officer?
00:39:37 officer? Because I wasn't at the meeting between the officer and the handler. So that handler would make notes or write whatever he wanted to say and then I would type it up.
00:39:51 I would type it up. Are you sure that's what you did? as far as I can remember. Yes.
00:40:01 In your I'm going to move now to what you say that you did when you were deployed so far as the production of reports
00:40:08 reports is uh concerned. Before I bring up your witness
00:40:21 Before I bring up your witness statement, can I ask you did you ever see the finished product of your own reporting? Did you see the final intelligence report?
00:40:33 intelligence report? I can't remember ever seeing one. It's not impossible that I did, but I can't remember ever seeing one. If we could have up from your witness statement which is uh UCPI50353
00:40:40 page 19
00:40:58 paragraph 38.5 at the uh top of that paragraph [snorts] you've written my personal practice of how I provided my intelligence developed quite early on in my deployment. I would write notes either as bullet points for
00:41:09 write notes either as bullet points for discussion or as things I felt should be reported and needed to remember. For example, car registration numbers. I would write this on a computer and save onto a floppy disc which I would then put in an envelope with a doctor's name
00:41:26 put in an envelope with a doctor's name on it to disguise it and carry it to the twice weekly meeting. The handler would then put the disc in a computer at the office and go through the items with me. The handler would pull out details and discuss this with me which helped me provide more information and make notes of this discussion.
00:41:43 Was that system common to your colleagues? I don't think so. No.
00:41:56 It made sense as an efficient way to pass on your intelligence, didn't it? Yes.
00:42:03 Yes. What I'm interested in is why you seem to have a rele a recollection of typing up handlers reports in the back office
00:42:17 handlers reports in the back office when your own evidence is when you came to do it yourself. It was all done by computer
00:42:19 computer and amended by the handler in the office. Can you explain the difference?
00:42:32 the difference? Um, partly it's a system that I developed and was comfortable with. I actually had a computer. Um, a lot wouldn't have done. Um, it was very early days for them at the time. Um, it was just something that worked for me. I
00:42:44 was just something that worked for me. I was more comfortable with that than bits of paper.
00:42:49 of paper. You go on in this witness statement, a couple of lines below, to say, "My understanding was that the handler would subsequently assess what was relevant and worthy of reporting. They would then compile a formal intelligence report
00:43:08 compile a formal intelligence report that obscured the original source as far as possible by adding in more general information from sources I would not have known about."
00:43:14 You start that sentence. My understanding was do you ha did you have actual knowledge that that was what they were doing?
00:43:25 were doing? No. I had discussions about who was this known to and therefore could it only have come from that number of people. So how does it get into the system?
00:43:36 system? That covers the need to sanitize the source of the intelligence doesn't it? In terms of the addition of information to reporting from other sources,
00:43:52 to reporting from other sources, is that speculation on your part? Yes, I suppose so.
00:44:04 Can we take that down now, please? The trade craft manual. You've told us in your witness statement that it was regularly discussed by SDS managers and other field officers.
00:44:20 other field officers. Could I invite you to expand upon that? What aspects of the trade craft manual were regularly discussed?
00:44:30 um access I my memory is you sort of looked through it before going to those meetings with people who are currently deployed or have been deployed so that you had an agenda effectively what do
00:44:42 you had an agenda effectively what do you need to ask about so it was a sort of springboard for that
00:44:52 you are familiar with what that document says about sexual relationships aren't you and the passage about I
00:44:57 I fleeting and disastrous relationships. In the course of these discussions arising from the tradecraftraft manual, was that passage ever discussed?
00:45:11 was that passage ever discussed? I didn't discuss it with anyone. No. Did you hear anybody else raise it? No.
00:45:12 No. Are you sure about that? As sure as I can be this many years later.
00:45:19 later. It's quite a striking passage, isn't it? It is. Yes.
00:45:25 And the permission it effectively grants to have sex with somebody in your undercover identity. Quite arresting, isn't it?
00:45:34 isn't it? Not sure what you mean by arresting. Um, striking.
00:45:34 striking. It's It's striking. Yes. Is it really never discussed or mentioned? I never discussed it.
00:45:48 I never discussed it. And your evidence, as I've understand it, is nobody else discussed it either in your presence. Is that right? It's it's as as good as I can remember it. Yes, I think I would have remembered a conversation along those lines. I do remember the passage. As you say, it's striking.
00:46:05 Can I move now to your cover identity, James Straven? Were you specifically told not to use a deceased child's identity? Yes.
00:46:16 Yes. Who told you that? You may need to use a cipher.
00:46:34 [snorts]
00:46:52 Um, it would have been HN216
00:46:57 and
00:47:25 If you've already referred to the name, I take it I can di Bob Lambert. So DCI Edmonson and Di Lambert. Yeah.
00:47:37 Yeah. Were you positively advised to use a fictional identity? Yes.
00:47:50 As far as you are aware, once you deployed, did anyone ever research or test your cover identity?
00:47:56 Uh, I don't know.
00:48:06 When you were deployed, uh, we've had evidence from a number of witnesses that you had
00:48:09 you had two nicknames. One was posh Sab and the other was James Blonde.
00:48:24 Were you ever called Posh Sab in your presence?
00:48:27 presence? Not that I'm aware of. No. James Blonde? Not that I can ever remember. Might that have happened? It might have done. I think given the context I'd have noted it.
00:48:42 context I'd have noted it. James Blonde is quite a striking name, isn't it? It is.
00:48:47 It is. And it summons up connotations of secret agent, doesn't it? It would have concerned me. Yes. I take it from that answer that you think you would have remembered if it had been used. I do.
00:48:59 I do. Are you really sure it wasn't? No, I just don't think it was. I think I would have noticed. I think I would have been very concerned.
00:49:09 Your targeting strategy.
00:49:17 What were you told about participation in crime by Detective Inspector Lambert?
00:49:26 I can't remember exactly. I I think we certainly discussed the inevitability of it within that group. Um
00:49:36 Um we certainly discussed the reporting of it. Um how that was managed on information. Um we discussed some sort of bits on spontaneous violence and how you deal with them. Um
00:49:55 yeah, it's I mean we talked about it certainly. Did you discuss the gravity of [snorts] that you might become involved in
00:50:11 that you might become involved in certainly as a relative thing i.e. you're there to prevent and mitigate harm. So that's what you do. Um, in terms of is there an absolute limit?
00:50:22 terms of is there an absolute limit? No, I think that was always part of the context. Were you told that you needed to get advanced authority to participate in crime?
00:50:31 in crime? I was certainly aware of that where possible. Yes. And where not possible. Then you prevent harm report later.
00:50:45 Did Mr. [snorts] Lambert give you any examples?
00:50:56 I can't remember any specific ones. I think we discussed scenarios rather than examples.
00:50:59 examples. What kind of scenarios? What would you do if the group you're with see someone and decide to attack
00:51:13 with see someone and decide to attack them, for example? What would you do if they suddenly decide they're going to commit an arson, etc.?
00:51:22 Did he say anything about arson? I can't remember it specifically.
00:51:28 We know from the paperwork that there's only one matter which we'll come to later in your evidence in which we see a paper trail for a specific authority and that relates to the operation where you go to Marseilles.
00:51:49 Were you told that there was a particular threshold at which it needed to be dealt with formally via a paper trail?
00:51:53 trail? No, I don't think so. I think I would always expected it starts with a conversation with the person who's handling you and then they'll then decide what sort of level
00:52:05 decide what sort of level authority it might need because they would then sort of think about what could happen as well as what's intended to happen I think.
00:52:17 And how big a part of the conversations you had about preparing to deploy and targeting were these discussions about participation in crime? Sorry, how big a part of the
00:52:34 Sorry, how big a part of the the overall conversations that you had with Detective Inspector Lambert? Um,
00:52:44 Um, a significant part I think. I mean a lot more was the sort of practicalities of infiltration and so on, but they were certainly a significant part of it. Would it be a fair description or would it be putting it too high to say that the Home Office guidelines on
00:53:02 the Home Office guidelines on participation in crime were the basis for all your discussions with DI Lambert?
00:53:04 Lambert? I'm sure they were. I'm sure they were. I I'm not that familiar with them. I can't remember ever actually looking at that at the time.
00:53:16 time. Can we move to the twice weekly meetings? You deploy and you attend uh twice weekly meetings.
00:53:28 Can you help us? How much of the time was spent in a plenary session and how much of the time was spent in smaller groups?
00:53:43 was spent in smaller groups? that varied quite substantially over the period of my deployment. Um when I started
00:53:45 started as I remember it one meeting of the two would be a full everyone had
00:53:57 of the two would be a full everyone had to be there at a particular time and was a plinary session. So all the different fields in the same room. Um and then after that people were broken off to talk about particular
00:54:09 broken off to talk about particular things and individual issues and so on. And then the second meeting was more sort of field orientated but still plenary but more limited. That's as I remember it but I say and it did change over time. [snorts]
00:54:23 [snorts] In the sessions when you're all together, uh please don't give any specific examples, but in general terms, what level of granularity did people go into about what they had been doing?
00:54:36 been doing? Um
00:54:37 Um I think it varied according to the person apart from anything else. Some were very detailed. um
00:54:47 um others sort of more or less skipped across it to get on to something else. So it did vary some needed questions
00:54:58 So it did vary some needed questions from the the two sort of senior managers that were there to sort of pull stuff out a little bit which they would have done if they thought it was relevant to other people.
00:55:11 other people. And what sort again without giving any specifics what sort of things would be relevant for other people to know? um security problems particularly. So if something had happened or
00:55:25 something had happened or someone had found a a gap in the system or any worries like that. Um
00:55:37 yeah probably participation in crime that you were asking about what does this do? I think that was more of a
00:55:50 this do? I think that was more of a everyone talking so what are the options what might go wrong sort of thing. Um but yes it could be if there was an intelligence requirement that might apply to or might be serviced by more than one undercover police
00:56:01 by more than one undercover police officer. Would that be raised in this sort of session? Uh it could be. Yes. Um if something was happening in one person certainly larger demonstrations where several fields
00:56:12 demonstrations where several fields might be involved they would be a a topic like that where different inputs would become valuable and then provide a hole in the end.
00:56:26 Uh you talked about people some people being brief some people being less so where would you describe on the scale uh Mr. Francis falling.
00:56:37 falling. Not the brief end.
00:56:43 How close to the other end of the spectrum?
00:56:44 spectrum? Quite close.
00:56:50 And what level of granularity did he go into?
00:56:55 into? He was very chronological. Um, so one meeting was at the beginning of the week. Um, and he'd essentially talk you through every part of that weekend
00:57:07 as a chronology.
00:57:16 In the smaller group meetings, what was the difference? What did you talk about in those meetings
00:57:24 meetings that wasn't covered in the pleenary meetings?
00:57:26 meetings? It would have been some of the same stuff, but some of it would be much more forward-looking. What's happening, what's developing, that sort of thing. Within your field. Within that field. Yeah.
00:57:44 You've emphasized that it the pattern changed over time. Mhm. Could you give us an idea of the way in which the format of the meetings changed over time during your deployment?
00:58:01 Yeah, I think it had to do with what buildings were available to us. Um,
00:58:12 buildings were available to us. Um, but my memory is they became much sort of plenary everyone together disappeared. um
00:58:16 um as did the sort of everyone on a threeline whip get together for um social events once or twice a year. Um the field stuff remained
00:58:29 the field stuff remained and they became an sort of individual element as well. So there was much more just you um dealing with your particular operation.
00:58:41 operation. Was that peculiar to you or did that apply to all of your colleagues as well? The end of the sort of full plenary sessions would have applied to everybody. Um
00:58:56 everybody. Um how different fields operated beyond that? I'm not sure.
00:59:11 Can I move to the topic of racism? Mhm. Need you to cast your mind back to 1996 when you joined the SDS and those years that immediately followed whilst you were in the SDS. Uh you've told us uh in your witness statement that you'd had no
00:59:22 your witness statement that you'd had no training on race discrimination. Is that right?
00:59:26 right? Certainly within SDS and I think SP. Yes.
00:59:32 Yes. Can I take it from that that you think you'd had some training elsewhere in the MPS?
00:59:37 MPS? I'm not sure. training covers it, but there were certainly things put out, things you were required to read. I can't remember particularly, but it it was an issue certainly.
00:59:51 was an issue certainly. How well equipped were you to detect racism [clears throat] when you were serving in the SDS?
00:59:59 Not sure it's something one is equipped to deal with. I think it's even allowing for the time. I think it would have been self-evident if [clears throat] it was there.
01:00:10 [clears throat] it was there. Well, what I'm driving at is overt racism
01:00:19 racism easy to recognize. But did you have a developed understanding of things like subconscious racism?
01:00:29 I don't know. I certainly can't say that I did. I've obviously become aware of that sort of thing, but when that happened, whether it was even something one could be aware of then
01:00:49 of then or it was a a known thing, I don't know. Did you have an understanding of the difference between direct and indirect race discrimination? No.
01:00:57 How alert were you to the issue at the time?
01:00:59 time? I suspect not very. Another way of putting that question, um, it might be how important was it on the SDS's agenda at the time?
01:01:12 the SDS's agenda at the time? I can't remember it being particularly important at all.
01:01:20 So, how likely are you to have remembered racism if it occurred whilst you were serving in the SDS?
01:01:33 serving in the SDS? I think I have to go back to my earlier answer. If it was overt racism, I'd have noticed it. It was
01:01:41 I mean, obviously, I've come from a uniform background. There was more of that. I don't really recall it as a thing in the branch, but I am talking about what I would have perceived as racism.
01:01:55 Do you recall any overtracism within the SDS during your time? I take it you mean within the SDS, not in terms of operations and things that were going on on the street sort of thing. But no, no, I don't.
01:02:20 Were you ever aware that DCS Potter had behaved in a racist manner? No.
01:02:23 Did you know HN86?
01:02:39 No. Sorry. I mean, I had met him in the branch, but not relative to SDS, and I haven't worked with him or anything. No.
01:02:55 haven't worked with him or anything. No. In any of your dealings with HN86, uh, did he ever display any overt racism?
01:03:03 racism? No, but my dealings were very limited. Did he have a reputation for overt racism? I don't know what his reputation was.
01:03:17 Can I move now to the question of supervision whilst you were deployed in general terms? As I understand it, you had to routinely telephone the office. Was it twice a day? I think that's right. Yes.
01:03:29 I think that's right. Yes. To what extent did you comply with that requirement?
01:03:34 as far as I can remember to the extent that I could, which was mostly.
01:03:42 Did you tell your supervisors where you would be spending the night?
01:03:47 Mostly.
01:03:55 When you were sleeping with Sara, did you tell them
01:04:06 you tell them when you were sleeping with Ellie? presumably deliberate decisions because you knew it was wrong. Yes.
01:04:15 Were you asked by your supervisors where you will be spending the night?
01:04:19 No, I don't think so.
01:04:26 I think I would have been expected to tell them
01:04:30 tell them when I was sort of spending the night with
01:04:37 with activists prior to an early morning or a nighttime event. Um, which I would have done, but that was
01:04:48 You deploy initially, if I've understood your evidence, into the Brixton Hunt saboturs.
01:04:50 saboturs. Yes.
01:04:55 Yes. Can we turn up please from volume 3 tab C2 sir MPS 40168.
01:05:20 This is uh the first report recovered in time that has been attributed to you stated Saturday the 22nd of February 1997.
01:05:32 22nd of February 1997. And I will give you a moment just to look at at the text and the three components to that report.
01:05:52 How did you get that intelligence? I can't remember it specifically. By association with members of the Brixton Hunt saboturs.
01:06:04 I would suspect it's more likely to be from the Cudden Hunt saboturs.
01:06:12 was there much crossover between the two?
01:06:14 two? Yes. Um
01:06:25 but the the organizational end was the CO bit. Um by that time
01:06:32 Brixton Hunt has sort of turned up
01:06:43 Would it be fair then in the light of that answer to say that you deployed into both Brixton and Cuden hunt saboturs from the outset or was there a progression from Brixton to Cuden? I can't remember the exact order um
01:07:02 but it certainly it was close. Um they would they would certainly been doing the same hunts, the same sort of stuff, the same demonstrations in London.
01:07:13 the same demonstrations in London. Was the intelligence recorded in this report publicly available?
01:07:22 I don't know. Obviously, um a demonstration in Kent probably would have been sort of thing you would publicize to get numbers.
01:07:31 numbers. Um,
01:07:33 Um, the second paragraph probably not.
01:07:42 And I would suspect the third one probably not. I suspect that would have been catching people from par one to get them to the event in par 3, but I don't know. Sticking with the middle paragraph, hunt saboturs from Surrey,
01:08:01 paragraph, hunt saboturs from Surrey, Sussex, and South London intend to hit a hunt in Kent. That suggests quite a lot of people. Yep.
01:08:09 Yep. So presum presumably there has to be some mechanism for recruiting all those people to the endeavor.
01:08:20 people to the endeavor. Um yes. And how was that normally done by the South London unsabotur groups you were infiltrating? Um, phones, a phone tree essentially, although I'm sure it wasn't called anything that formal. Um but so word of mouth
01:08:35 mouth phones usually to one thing and then word of mouth from then on in.
01:08:46 How far had you invagled your way into the Brixton Hunt saboturs by this stage? End of February 97.
01:08:57 Sorry, what was the date of my deployment? just to give me a time, but we understand this would be pretty early on. It looks as if you deployed in January.
01:09:13 January. Okay. Um, so yes, it would have been I'd have turned up at a couple of SABs or something like that. for that member specifically. But so can I take it from that that you you only need a relatively superficial level of infiltration in order to be able to
01:09:35 of infiltration in order to be able to join the telephone tree or to hear about um an afterparty at the Tumbridge Wales Hunt ball. Yes. you wouldn't get the the hunt ball bit.
01:09:49 bit. You'd be asked to go to Sabbing and then be told about that later if you were just down the bottom of a telephone tree.
01:09:50 tree. Well,
01:09:50 Well, I would suggest by the 22nd of February, you were able to report uh on uh the plan to disrupt the Hunt ball. Yeah.
01:10:00 Yeah. So presumably you could obtain such information with a relatively shallow level of infiltration.
01:10:11 infiltration. I can't remember how I got it but clearly. Yeah. Could we now go take that down please and could we go in volume 3 tab C4 MPS 40303.
01:10:33 This is a much longer report a little bit further down the line. The date the
01:10:44 bit further down the line. The date the information was obtained was the 12th of April 1997. And this is about a much larger demonstration, the March for Social Justice. Um, I will let you just read the first paragraph to start with, please.
01:11:04 Yeah, this is an expose facto report. Did you attend the March for Social Justice with your target groups? I assume so.
01:11:19 I assume so. And you've used the phrase supporters of the Brixton and Cudden Hunt saboturs groups. Does that uh reinforce what you said earlier to the effect that the there was a degree of overlap between the two groups? Yeah.
01:11:32 Yeah. Uh,
01:11:34 Uh, do you recall this march? Not specifically. No. If we could go a little bit further down, please to the uh third paragraph.
01:11:50 Give you a moment to read that.
01:12:14 Yep. This is describing some quite serious public disorder, isn't it? Yes.
01:12:19 Yes. Were you anywhere near that public disorder?
01:12:20 disorder? I assume so.
01:12:25 What do you recall of it?
01:12:34 I can't recall anything specific. There were a lot of these at that time. Not necessarily labeled Marsh for social justice, but serious public disorder in central London.
01:12:46 central London. This is fairly early on in your deployment and this is quite serious public disorder. Are you sure you were there? Yes. Well, no. I'm not sure. I assume I was.
01:12:58 was. Well, [snorts] if you weren't there, how would you have been able to report this level of detail? That's why I assume I was.
01:13:11 Were any of the people who you were attending this demonstration with violent?
01:13:12 violent? Yes.
01:13:14 Yes. On this occasion? I don't know about this occasion. Are you able to help us with whether any of them broke the law on this occasion?
01:13:26 of them broke the law on this occasion? No, not specific to this occasion. I couldn't say that. If they had broken the law on this occasion, is that something you would have reported? Yes.
01:13:42 Yes. Well, I'd have reported their actions. There is nothing in this report which specifically attributes any break of the law to any individual member of your target groups. Okay.
01:13:58 Okay. Can we take it from that then that you weren't aware of any lawb breaking by them on this occasion? Yes.
01:14:01 Yes. Were you
01:14:06 Were you disorderly in any way on this occasion? I don't know about this occasion.
01:14:20 Given that this was a very significant demonstration with major disorder early in your deployment, can you assist us with why you wouldn't remember that?
01:14:31 with why you wouldn't remember that? Because I can't remember this particular occasion. I mean, I can say if there was disorder, I would have been amongst it and early in my deployment, I'd have probably been nearer the front in order to impress
01:14:43 As a matter of generality, how disorderly were you at this sort of event?
01:14:53 Um, I was certainly active. I think I mean I kind of knew obviously I'd been the
01:15:02 kind of knew obviously I'd been the other side of the shields sort of thing. So I knew that you could go and kick a shield for as long as you like and it didn't do any harm. So that sort of thing. I would certainly have done that. Um
01:15:12 Um yeah, I suppose I just work within those sort of limits. And in order to demonstrate your activist credentials, uh how forward were you in this activity?
01:15:29 I'd have been in and amongst Would you be the first to kick the shield?
01:15:32 shield? No, I don't think I'd ever been the first.
01:15:34 first. Amongst the first. Amongst the first is probably fair. Was that a deliberate decision or simply lack of opportunity?
01:15:47 lack of opportunity? No, that would have been a deliberate decision. I certainly would have started violence that wasn't already underway.
01:16:05 You've told told us you would have kicked a police shield. Would you have used any more force than that on a police officer? No.
01:16:07 No. Did you at time at any time?
01:16:16 No. I was involved in a more serious thing that's in my rule nine presumably or want to talk about. Yeah. Um but no, aside from that,
01:16:34 were you asked to identify offenders, suspected offenders from photographs after this march? I can't remember this particular march whether that happened. It certainly at one point was a practice.
01:16:48 Can we infer from that answer that it is likely you would have been asked to identify suspects from photographs after this march if it was the practice at that time? Yes.
01:17:08 Yes. Can you recall whether on this occasion or any other you were able successfully to identify a suspected offender involved in public disorder?
01:17:13 I can't um
01:17:28 I suspect I probably was um but not to any useful degree. We tended to all wear balaclavas and so on anyway. Um so I'd have known where my group was and who was amongst it and would have managed to point that out, but that would probably be it.
01:17:40 Can I reasonably infer from that answer that so far as identifying offenders in the midst of public order is concerned, your deployment was of limited value? It's not for me to judge that.
01:17:56 Can we take that report down, please? Can we go to uh tab B27, sir? MPS0247080
01:18:07 volume sir.
01:18:23 This uh is a file note written, it appears by Bob Lambert on the 6th of May 1997
01:18:25 1997 and it
01:18:33 and it again deals with the March for Social Justice.
01:18:37 Justice. Then it goes on in the second paragraph to deal with another violent confrontation the week later uh during what he describes as an ALF
01:18:51 uh during what he describes as an ALF demo at Consort Beagles outside Rosson Y at which you are said to have sustained minor bruising to your lower back during clashes with riot police. Can you recall this occasion?
01:19:12 Now I can't recall Ross on why.
01:19:21 Can you recall being in sustaining injuries to the lower back in clashes with riot police? Um if if they were minor.
01:19:36 No, I can't recall it particularly. Can I draw your attention to the description an ALF demo?
01:19:47 What is in terms of the use of terminology? What is the difference between an animal rights demo and an ALF demo?
01:20:04 I don't know. I don't know that there is one. Um, I suspect ALF is a bit of a shortand.
01:20:15 shortand. Would it be accurate to describe an ALF action as being the use of nonviolent direct
01:20:20 direct action to advance the cause of animal rights,
01:20:30 rights, quintessentially liberating animals, but it might also involve taking action against people regarded as animal abusers.
01:20:35 abusers. Sorry, I lost a little bit of the front end of that description. Can you would it would it be fair to describe an ALF action
01:20:46 ALF action as one which involved nonviolent direct action
01:20:48 action in the cause of animal rights, for example, liberating animals or taking action against someone perceived to be an animal abuser.
01:21:01 an animal abuser. Now, I suppose going back to your earlier question, that to my mind would be more animal rights. Nonviolent
01:21:13 be more animal rights. Nonviolent doesn't fit with what I would put an alpha label on. And I'd caveat that anyway, but nonviolent being nonviolent to the person that that might encompass violence to property. Same would apply, I think.
01:21:27 So, is it likely then uh that this was
01:21:40 better described as an animal rights demonstration rather than an ALF action? Um,
01:21:43 Um, no. Because there's obviously violence there, but I don't know how that violence occurred, what started it, and so on. So, I don't know is the short answer.
01:21:58 Next paragraph says, "Prior to both these two high-profile events, he had successfully engineered acceptance by the regular Brixton Hunt SAB group and taken part in a handful of SABs in Surrey, Sussex, and Kent. Again, the
01:22:11 Surrey, Sussex, and Kent. Again, the activist seemed to have been impressed by his ability to handle himself and face up to violent threats from hunt supporters and the like. So this is
01:22:23 So this is no more than 4 months into your deployment. Can you help us? Uh first of all, is that an accurate record of what had happened?
01:22:41 had happened? I can't remember that specific incident. It sounds likely inaccurate to me. Or do you just mean paragraph three? So paragraph three.
01:22:48 Yeah, I think that's fair. What tactics were Brixton hunt saboturs using in Surrey Sussex and Kent in this period?
01:22:59 period? Um
01:23:05 Bric probably there's a slight difference between Cin and Brixton there. Brixton would sort of kind of turn up for the ruck. So they would tend to go towards hunt supporters and the people running the hunt and the hunt
01:23:23 people running the hunt and the hunt itself. Um whereas Cudden were probably more inclined to follow the trail, try and disrupt the scent and so on.
01:23:38 When you say that Brixton were more likely to go, as I take it, for the man rather than the beast,
01:23:55 what did they do when they approached the hunt organizers and hunt supporters? Insult them, spit at them, try and get people off horses. um
01:24:06 try and get people off horses. um try and basically start a confrontation um just encourage and then join in a fight.
01:24:11 fight. How would they try and get people off their horses? No, just pulling them and so on. Um if they tried to swing a crop, obviously that gave an opportunity to grab that and pull and so on.
01:24:27 What offenses did you witness being committed by hunt sabotars?
01:24:38 a range I suppose minor criminal damage certainly
01:24:40 certainly um assaults give you across the run of my deployment as opposed to I'm asking at the moment in these early months of your deployment
01:24:56 months of your deployment well in which case that's that's still fine yeah minor criminal damage minor assaults
01:24:58 assaults um that sort of thing when you say a minor assault
01:25:09 Do you mean one involves physical contact or just trying to intimidate somebody? Oh, physical contact. Yeah. Did you witness violence? Yes.
01:25:16 Yes. You started it.
01:25:24 Both sides were quite capable of starting it. Um, did you actually witness instances of both sides starting it? Oh, yeah.
01:25:32 Oh, yeah. starting. It could be the insults to force a confrontation and it could be the actual physical bit itself. Both sides were more than capable of that.
01:25:45 that. Did you see Hunt Sabeta throwing the first punch?
01:25:53 I'm not sure. I can't remember a specific incident of that. I'm getting the impression that they were trying to go a reaction from the hunt supporters.
01:26:06 hunt supporters. Certainly have been lots of that. Yes. And then if there was a reaction, even if it was a push, you're fine. I mean, I I don't know that that was necessarily a tactic. It's just kind of the way it was done. And it was lots of
01:26:25 the way it was done. And it was lots of adrenaline, lots of in-your-face type of stuff and then eventually leading to violence. Not always.
01:26:36 violence. Not always. Widening the question to the generality of your deployment, was the picture much the same or did it change? Um,
01:26:46 Um, I would say it got more violent as time went on for various reasons. In terms of who
01:26:54 who first committed a violent act as opposed to goating, did one side more than the other tend to initiate the actual violence?
01:27:07 I wouldn't like to say I think I'm probably biased um because I would say the hunt were more likely to but and I was on the other side.
01:27:22 Bottom paragraph of this report on Monday the 5th of May he received his first in-depth grilling from his new associates. He appears to have handled this well but now is clearly a good time to sit down with him and review his
01:27:34 to sit down with him and review his progress to date. Can you help us with what your first in-depth grilling
01:27:42 amounted to? Um,
01:27:44 Um, if I'm right, this is the incident I'm thinking about. Um, it was a back room in a pub in South London
01:27:57 London and
01:27:58 and just lots and lots of questions.
01:28:07 And would it be fair to say that you came from or appeared to come from a different socioeconomic background and educational background to many of those people you were mixing with?
01:28:26 people you were mixing with? Um, no, not really. There were a number of very middle class people in both groups.
01:28:30 groups. Can you help us with uh what you were being questioned about? Um my interest um vegetarianism, veganism,
01:28:39 veganism, um
01:28:44 um little bit about where I'd been, why I had been on SABS before, that sort of thing. I should say it was questions. It says grilling there. It was questions. Uh, as to the demeanor, were these
01:29:00 Uh, as to the demeanor, were these threatening questions or were they just gentle inquisition? Um,
01:29:07 Um, they vary depending on who was asking it. Um,
01:29:12 it. Um, I felt slightly under pressure as far as I can recall. Um, I didn't feel physically at risk. Wasn't looking at the windows or anything that I can
01:29:27 the windows or anything that I can remember. Again, assuming I'm thinking of the right incident, you plainly satisfied your questioners. If you had not satisfied your questioners, what do you think would have happened?
01:29:42 have happened? I think it depends what they thought they were looking at. If they merely thought I wasn't committed, then that would have been that. Um if they'd have thought I what I was then
01:29:59 if they'd have thought I what I was then that would not have been that um whether it would have happened there I don't know
01:30:06 know when you say would have happened you would have been persona nong grata can we take that for granted you can take that from the first instance now if if they'd have known I was a UCO then it would have been much worse than that
01:30:20 worse than that what basis do you have for [snorts] saying that it would have been much worse than that the degree to which they hated the police.
01:30:33 You can hate someone and not be violent towards them, can't you? You can.
01:30:38 You can. Was your feeling that you would have been under any physical threat? Yes, they were naturally violent or some of them to be fair. Some of them were naturally violent.
01:30:49 naturally violent. When you say some of them, I don't want you to use any names at the moment. Are we talking Brixton, Kryen, or both?
01:31:03 we talking Brixton, Kryen, or both? Both, but Brixton would be different in that they
01:31:05 that they didn't have the self-control. If I was worried about Cudden, I would expect to be ambushed somewhere in a
01:31:16 expect to be ambushed somewhere in a woods. If it was Brixton, they'd just go there and then. No thoughts, consequences. was my impression.
01:31:30 Might that have been a subjective fear rather than one with an objective basis? Absolutely.
01:31:44 Can we take this document down now and go in volume one to tab B30, sir? O2 MPS 0247206.
01:32:00 This is a very short report dated the uh well memorandum dated the 8th of August 1997. It records that you received an injury on duty on the 10th of July 97 treated for a fractured collarbone and
01:32:17 treated for a fractured collarbone and jaw in hospital. discharged on the 11th, self-certified sick for six days before resuming
01:32:19 resuming light duties. Can you recall the circumstances in which you received these injuries?
01:32:38 Uh yes, because of the broken jaw. What was the event at which you sustained these injuries? It was
01:32:45 can't remember how countryside alliance that's what it was called. So it was a large march.
01:32:57 large march. I can't remember if a ban on hunting was going towards parliament or there was something. Um but anyway a very big march.
01:33:02 march. And uh how did the violence start? I can't remember.
01:33:13 And how did you come to sustain injury? Um, I can't remember. I have been told since.
01:33:20 since. Uh, is the reason you can't remember on this occasion because of the traumatic injuries you sustained rather than the fact it was 28 years ago?
01:33:31 fact it was 28 years ago? Yes, it was a concussion. I lost all memory of even going to the march for quite a long time after it.
01:33:39 How do you rate your manager's treatment of you in the light of these injuries in particular? Did you feel
01:33:50 injuries in particular? Did you feel rushed back to duty or do you think they were reasonably sympathetic? I think they were sympathetic. Um I mean I went back to duty within a few days.
01:34:01 I went back to duty within a few days. Well, technically, I suppose I was still on it because it had happened within my cover identity anyway. And so I was in the hospital in my cover identity [clears throat]
01:34:15 identity [clears throat] with them and came back out to them. So, and there wasn't really a choice about that. There's not like yes, you signed off sick, but it wasn't an option.
01:34:33 Can we take that down now and go volume three, sir? Tab C10. This is MPS 40483, please.
01:34:42 Uh this is uh a report with [clears throat] intelligence obtained on the 4th of August uh 1997.
01:34:50 uh 1997. It's attributed to you under the title Southern England Hunt Saboturs uh group. Uh can we look at the third paragraph please?
01:35:08 Let you read that uh for a moment yourself.
01:35:40 if you need to see anything above that paragraph to refresh your memory, just ask.
01:35:48 ask. Um, I've read that paragraph certainly. Uh it says the groups wish to capitalize on their hard reputations.
01:35:57 Did uh the Southern England hunt saboturs groups have hard reputations?
01:36:08 Yes. Um certainly a number of them did. So that's southern England with small sort of thing. It's that's not a group proper.
01:36:21 proper. Um so it's the groups within that which is Brixham Cudon and and there were a couple of others that certainly had that.
01:36:26 that. Uh intimidating the opposition. Could you help us with what tactics were used to intimidate the opposition by the groups with hard reputations?
01:36:42 Again, can't remember this particular incident, but it would have been the same sort of tactics, but obviously with a lot more people, that's a lot more easy to do. So, hunt supporters, people
01:36:53 easy to do. So, hunt supporters, people who sort of line roadways and so on that are in much smaller numbers than we would have been on something like that, charging up to them, insulting them, maybe pushing them, damaging their cars
01:37:07 maybe pushing them, damaging their cars potentially, whatever it was. Same with the hunt. Once it starts getting stretched out a little bit, if you can access it and catch up. In terms of numbers,
01:37:26 who was was there an imbalance in numbers one way or the other between the sabotars
01:37:28 sabotars and the hunters on this particular occasion? Or can can we start in in general terms because I I appreciate there will have been a
01:37:40 I I appreciate there will have been a different scale of events on an ordinary if I call it that hunt sabotage. Yes. Yeah. There would have been far more pro- hunt if you like than hunt saboturs. But sorry just to be clear
01:37:51 saboturs. But sorry just to be clear that doesn't mean you end up with sort of both groups in the same place at the same time as a whole.
01:38:04 same time as a whole. So would there have been occasions where the hunt saboturs would be in contact with a smaller group of hunts? Yes. Yeah. People.
01:38:06 People. Yeah.
01:38:15 And presumably varying degrees of militancy on both sides amongst the Yeah, that's fair. The groups. Mass hits. What was the dynamic like numerically on mass hits?
01:38:31 probably near even. I mean, it depends how many came out on the day. Um, Cington were pretty reliable. Brixton weren't. Um,
01:38:45 it may not, I'm conscious, it may not be entirely a numbers game. In terms of atmosphere on a mass hit, can you help us with what the atmosphere uh would have been like?
01:38:56 have been like? Um,
01:39:04 Um, more tense, more exciting, um, more energy and buzz, I suppose, than a normal weekend. More or less violence? Likely more. There'd also be more police, I would suggest.
01:39:21 suggest. any change in who would [laughter] throw the first punch if I use that metaphorically? No, not necessarily. The report goes on to say saboturs are being asked to wear similar black clothing to make identification enough to hunt rest more difficult. Not gone
01:39:39 to hunt rest more difficult. Not gone down well with the Brighton group who have a somewhat garish dress sense. Uh,
01:39:42 Uh, was the use of similar black clothing used to avoid fair arrests or unfair arrests? Yes.
01:39:54 Yes. Which?
01:39:55 Which? Both.
01:40:00 And [snorts] from your perspective on the sabotair's side of the fence, it's right then there were unfair arrests.
01:40:05 arrests. Yes, I think so. How common were they? Um
01:40:16 Um they were common if the police got there. Um a lot of them were just arrests.
01:40:18 arrests. So they didn't go anywhere. They just sort of the equivalent of a breach of the peace type thing. I don't know what powers they were using. Um you'd be sort of stuck somewhere and quite likely
01:40:30 of stuck somewhere and quite likely released once the hunt had finished all them.
01:40:42 Did you have a role in identifying saboturs dressed in this fashion who had committed or were suspected of committing criminal offenses? No. Outside of the um larger demonstration type stuff we talked about earlier. I think that's the only time. Why was that?
01:40:57 Um I don't think it was anything that was ever asked. I think most sabs um
01:41:08 was ever asked. I think most sabs um sabbing things sort of it happened there and then or that was it. It went that was it. Um but in terms of bringing an offender to justice for a violent act during the court of a during the course of a sabotage, would it be right to assume
01:41:20 sabotage, would it be right to assume the reason that you weren't asked for intelligence about this was because it would have blown your cover? Yeah, I mean certainly I was there for intelligence, not evidence.
01:41:40 Could we take that down, please? And in volume three, go to tab C11. That's MPS 40614.
01:42:00 This is an intelligence report sourced 27th of October 1997. Privacy surname unknown. That's what SNU stands for, isn't it? Yes.
01:42:09 Yes. Possib possible privacy. a full-time Brixham SAB and part-time concubine to privacy has now moved to the Birmingham area following an unhappy
01:42:27 the Birmingham area following an unhappy romance with a Brightonbased anarchistic crusty type NFD. What does NFD stand for? No further details, I'm guessing. I don't know.
01:42:42 Why did you use the word concubine in this report?
01:42:50 I don't know that I did, but I could have done. Um, no good reason. Would you accept it's a sexist term in this context? Yes.
01:43:01 Yes. Why did you use the phrase part-time?
01:43:11 I assume, again, I can't remember this particular report um because of the other romance.
01:43:26 Given that you did not know the surname of the person concerned, what was the purpose of submitting this information?
01:43:44 Firstly, I submitted any information I came across. I didn't really think about
01:43:45 about nor should I have thought about the purposes for it. um because it may have
01:43:56 purposes for it. um because it may have meant something to someone else down the line and it may have been useful to someone else down the line. Why would you report the earlier
01:44:11 Why would you report the earlier relationship if uh a it was over and b you didn't know who the partner had been?
01:44:21 So I'm not sure where your There's no move to Birmingham area following an unhappy romance with a Brightonbased anarchistic crusty type. So that's a past relationship with someone you can't identify.
01:44:32 someone you can't identify. I take what's the point in reporting that?
01:44:33 that? Um
01:44:38 Um I don't know there is. It's just it's a scene setter really. Was there a degree of purans in SDS reporting like this?
01:44:50 Don't know that I'd use the word purience. Um there's
01:45:05 no I I don't think so. I I mean it was of its time. It was this was the '9s. Um idioms and social norms were different. They were different for us as well as different for them. Um
01:45:15 sexist. exist.
01:45:19 exist. Uh can I take it from your expression that agreement? I would certainly accept that. Can we take that down now please and go uh to the next document tab C12. It's MPS 40615.
01:45:43 Again another short report same date. Privacy has postponed his African sour until January next year. This follows the advice of his optimistic but
01:45:54 the advice of his optimistic but ungifted solicitor who believes privacy will be acquitted at court when he stands trial for assaulting a BTP officer.
01:45:58 officer. Can you recall how you obtain this information? No.
01:46:01 No. No. Sorry.
01:46:12 This is recording the advice given by a solicitor who you plainly considered to be ungifted about the prospects of a quiddle in a criminal prosecution. Is that right?
01:46:23 that right? Yes. I don't know that I actually met or knew the solicitor. I think that would have been what I was told, but I don't know.
01:46:29 know. Presumably, this information was confidential in the sense that the defendant would not have wanted the whole world to know uh what his
01:46:50 whole world to know uh what his solicitor had said, even if he didn't mind fellow activist knowing. That would be true.
01:46:53 Why did you report this?
01:47:00 As I said, the same answer as the last one. I reported every all the information that came across. Had you at this stage had any training that would enable you to identify
01:47:11 that would enable you to identify material that was legally professionally privileged?
01:47:22 privileged? I don't think I'd had any training. No. Did you know about the concept? I'd been a police officer, albeit some time past, so I presume so. Yes. Had you had any advice or guidance as to whether or not it was appropriate in
01:47:34 whether or not it was appropriate in 1997 to report legally, professionally privileged information? Not in the SDS context. No, in other contexts. again. I mean, I knew from when I was a
01:47:46 again. I mean, I knew from when I was a police officer that when the solicitor's talking to the suspect, that's private.
01:48:03 Any management reaction to this report? Not that I can remember or I'm aware of. Can we take uh that down now? I want to ask you about an event, a mass hit on the Hersley and Hamilton hunt next. And there are two reports. one prospective and one after the event. Can we look at
01:48:16 and one after the event. Can we look at the prospective one first, sir? It's at tab C14
01:48:22 tab C14 volume 3. It's MPS 40 733.
01:48:36 Now this is the 11th of December 1997 about um
01:48:41 about um what was to happen on the 13th of December 1997 about a mass sab of an unspecified uh hunt. It goes on to explain who's
01:48:55 uh hunt. It goes on to explain who's likely to attend likely numbers. You put 100 SABs
01:49:02 100 SABs and a rendevous Petersfield Hampshire 10:30
01:49:05 10:30 am
01:49:10 am and then some further information about
01:49:11 about uh essentially
01:49:17 fine-tuning the target on the day. Is that fair?
01:49:34 Yeah, this is very specific information, isn't it? Yes, fairly. And
01:49:38 And how did you obtain it without giving any names, please? Just by association.
01:49:50 To what extent would the information in this report have been publicly available?
01:50:03 I would presume from that first sentence in paragraph 4 this would not be the case. So obviously getting that many people together
01:50:12 together would have required certain amount of publicity albeit within a sort of large closed group. Um but this would not be the case but would not be.
01:50:25 the case but would not be. What would you have expected S squad or army to do with this intelligence?
01:50:39 I don't know. Share it somehow. Can we take that down now? and go to the next tab C15. It's 40 MPS 40736.
01:50:59 Um this is a report from information provided on the 15th about events on the 13th of December 1997
01:51:04 1997 which records that approximately 110 Hunt saboters met up at Petersfield British Rail Station to take part in a mass
01:51:13 mass SAB.
01:51:15 SAB. Were you there? I assume so. [snorts]
01:51:23 [snorts] It's quite a long report. I'll give you a moment uh just to have a look over that first page once you've refreshed your memory. Uh if you ask and we'll show you the next page.
01:51:55 see the next page. Yep.
01:51:57 Yep. Thank you.
01:53:06 [snorts] and next page. Yep.
01:53:11 Yep. And once you've read that, I'd like to go back to the page we've just looked at.
01:53:27 Okay, thank you. So in short, despite the fact that you had produced some very specific intelligence about this event, it didn't prevent a nasty episode of criminal
01:53:40 prevent a nasty episode of criminal damage and physical violence, did it? No. Uh and that's because the hunt saboturs essentially
01:53:56 saboturs essentially uh were able to avoid the police and get to the hunt supporters cars. Yeah.
01:54:07 Yeah. Could you help us? Were you at the car park when the damage was done to the cars and the violence to people occurred?
01:54:08 occurred? I believe so. Yes. Can you help us a little bit with the scene? In particular, I would like to know approximately how many hunt
01:54:21 know approximately how many hunt supporters were there in the car park and approximately how many saboturs
01:54:34 numbers. I'd be reluctant to give you my mental image is actually the windows. That's why I think I was there as I got a mental image of the the breaking of windows, car windows. Um,
01:54:47 windows, car windows. Um, and after that I'm sort of in it and wouldn't be able to sort of look up. So, but a number, it was a large number of SABs, much more than usual.
01:54:59 usual. Did the Sabs outnumber the hunt supporters in the car park?
01:55:10 I think by type, certainly. Again, I'm basing that on a foggy memory. So, a lot of Hunt supporters would not be combatants, if I can put it like that. [snorts]
01:55:27 [snorts] When you say words to the effect you had your head down after the window, first window was smashed or words to that effect. Was that because you were participating in this fray?
01:55:28 fray? I was there. Were you participating in any of the violence against property? Not that I can remember. No, I don't believe so. Any of the violence against the person? No.
01:55:40 No. What
01:55:42 What What did you see your Sorry, can I caveat that? If I'd have needed to act in self-defense, I would have done. Did you?
01:55:51 Did you? Not that I can remember on that occasion. No. At an event like this, what did you see your role as being?
01:56:09 To the extent I had a role, a useful role at all by that stage, just mitigate harm to the extent I could. Who threw the first punch or which side threw the first punch? Don't know.
01:56:23 Don't know. Did you see it as any part of your role to try and identify offenders? No,
01:56:30 sorry. No, evidentially I mean reporting wise. Yes. Well, you've seen the report. It's a long report, but it doesn't identify any individuals, does it? No.
01:56:47 Can you recall whether or not you did intervene to mitigate the criminality that was ongoing? I can't.
01:56:58 the source comment at the end that you have read
01:57:01 have read feared that um the season was going to continue in the same vein presumably the source comment is your opinion. Yeah.
01:57:11 Yeah. Did the rest of the season continue in the same vein? I presume so. Do you have any recollection?
01:57:24 So what was the original date on all this?
01:57:24 this? Uh 27th of sorry 13th of December 1997. So we're going into 98 then. Yes. Yeah. It just got worse.
01:57:38 So would now be a convenient time to take the morning break? Yes, it would. We'll break until a Quarter two
02:14:46 Thank you, sir. Mr. Thompson, we're now moving into 1998 and uh I'd like to ask you about the document which sir you will find at tab B31 in volume 1, MPSO247069.
02:15:03 This is a file note about a strategy meeting which is dated the 30th of January. The meeting is said to have occurred on the 29th. Um
02:15:22 it's got the initials RJ at the end. Was that a a pseudonym that Bob Lambert used?
02:15:24 used? I don't know. Robert Johnson. It could be based on the Robert, but it's not what I remember. Can you remember whether you held a targeting strategy meeting with Mr.
02:15:36 targeting strategy meeting with Mr. Lambert on the on the 29th of January 1998?
02:15:41 1998? I can't remember a thing framed in those sort of formal terms, but it's quite likely
02:15:46 likely uh to explore an out of London tasking specifically going down to Hastings to mix with animal rights activists there. Yes. Okay. [snorts] Uh
02:16:06 [snorts] Uh can you help me first of all with was there any boundary drawn between the Metropolitan Police District and [snorts]
02:16:10 [snorts] outof area activities from the point of view of your deployment? Not that I can ever remember. No. Was it a a matter this matter of geography ever raised by your managers with you?
02:16:20 with you? No.
02:16:27 No. And what uh liaison did you understand that uh the SDS had with Arie?
02:16:40 that uh the SDS had with Arie? Sorry, can I go back one when you say the matter of geography? I think we're at the very end of my deployment that was raised but not at this point. Not at this point.
02:16:50 Thank you. Uh we've now got the the document up. Uh second paragraph, first two lines record that Hastings has emerged as an emerging center of ALF activity.
02:16:57 activity. [snorts]
02:17:02 Is that right? Yep.
02:17:03 Yep. And uh it says second par third paragraph up from the bottom, magenta triangle knows one of the key players currently resident in
02:17:14 the key players currently resident in Hastings, L1, who [snorts] is a former Brixton Hunt Sab. Uh can you help us with how well you knew uh L1 by this stage?
02:17:29 Well, and
02:17:31 and what was your knowledge about his behavior as an animal rights activist? [snorts]
02:17:48 [snorts] Um, very active, very committed. Law abiding or not? Not.
02:17:49 Not. To what extent?
02:17:56 I think his commitment to the cause superseded everything. Uh, what was the most or did you see L1 ever commit a criminal offense? I must have done that. At what level of gravity?
02:18:14 Um, certainly criminal damage. Um,
02:18:18 that sort of thing.
02:18:27 The question I was asking you was about Arie and the relationship between SDS and ARIE.
02:18:33 and ARIE. Could you help us with the extent to which Arie was an SDS customer at the time?
02:18:37 time? I'm afraid I couldn't. Um I haven't had any dealings with this side of special branch work before I was an SDS and then only
02:18:47 only said through my handler. So I don't know after that.
02:18:55 And is it right that you then began to spend more of your time down on the south coast? Yeah.
02:19:05 Yeah. Uh roughly what proportion of your time are you spending in um the reg in the region of Hastings? Um
02:19:13 Um can't remember. It certainly would have varied depending on what was going on. Um
02:19:16 but yeah, a fair bit.
02:19:26 Can we now take that document down and go, sir, in volume three to tab C19. That's MPS 40843.
02:19:37 This is a short report dated 9th of February 1998. If we look at the substantive text, it says, "Privacy SNU, until recently a junior member of the Cuden Sabs has
02:19:48 junior member of the Cuden Sabs has recently been arrested for making bomb hoax calls to poor old farmer Brown of Hillgrove
02:19:54 Hillgrove fame. PE's carefully thought out plan resulted in the premises being evacuated and searched by police. However, the minor flaw in her scheme came to light
02:20:06 minor flaw in her scheme came to light when police dialed 1471 and spoke to the crestfallen urban warrior at her home. So, that in itself is a matter that the police already knew
02:20:32 police already knew all about. Next paragraph. Miss SNU 17 years recently commenced a career in the modeling field specializing in tasteful poses for gentlemen's magazines. Why did you report that? That probably is pur sexist
02:20:40 sexist and sexist. And you didn't know the surname of this individual?
02:20:52 individual? either didn't or didn't report it a child at the time. Yes.
02:21:01 Could we take that document uh down please? And could we have up sir from volume 3 tab C23 MPS uh 40959.
02:21:19 This is a report from 23rd of March 1998 and the sabotage of the Alsbury hunt. Um, if you need to take a moment before answering this question,
02:21:31 moment before answering this question, please do to read the document. But my first question is, were you there?
02:21:52 I would assume so. Again, do you have any recollection of it now? Not specifically, but it's looks difficult. If we look uh at the paragraph, the third up from the bottom, the background being the sabotage at Starks. uh hunt
02:22:10 being the sabotage at Starks. uh hunt master calls in I think they're referred to as the boys and then the substantive paragraph below that one the beginning on arrival describes what happens. The boys charge up the hill, come off second
02:22:23 boys charge up the hill, come off second best, go down to the hill, hide with the police, but are still attacked. Is that a fair summary?
02:22:29 Yep. So did you witness
02:22:39 hunt saboturs attacking physically attacking boys in the presence of police?
02:22:46 Yeah, I seem so but no recollection of that now. Not as that as a specific incident though.
02:22:53 though. Wouldn't that have been quite a striking and memorable incident? No, I don't think so.
02:23:05 Uh but one which certainly as depicted here is violence perpetrated by hunt saboturs that goes well beyond lawful self-defense.
02:23:15 Yeah.
02:23:21 Did this happen or is there any possibility you have exaggerated? If I've reported it then it happened.
02:23:34 Could we take that down uh now please and go sir same volume C24 MPS 0247
02:23:37 MPS 0247 620
02:23:47 we're going to the Netherlands now to Leiden.
02:23:52 Leiden. This is a report dated the 23rd of April 1998.
02:23:55 1998. This is a report from by HN26
02:24:00 code name road bridge.
02:24:07 Give you a moment if you need to in so far as you need it to refresh your memory. But my first question is going to be did you attend this European animal rights gathering? Yes.
02:24:21 Yes. was held between the 9th and the 16th of April according to the document and involved people squatting in a school
02:24:33 involved people squatting in a school called Euro DNY or at an address Euro DNY.
02:24:36 DNY. Did you stay in a squat? Yeah.
02:24:38 Yeah. Did HN26?
02:24:46 I presume so. Um,
02:24:48 Um, did Thomas Frampton? I would presume so. Were they in an intimate relationship? I don't know.
02:25:02 I don't know. Did they appear to be um interacting a lot together?
02:25:09 they would have been in their group which is a separate savvy group altogether and I don't think I knew them in the field at all.
02:25:22 in the field at all. Were they behaving in a manner such that they might have been in an intimate relationship? I don't think I can remember seeing them particularly at all.
02:25:34 particularly at all. Did you come across HN26 on other occasions during your deployment? Uh, several. Yeah. Did you ever see any sign at any point during your deployment that Thomas Frampton and HN26
02:25:51 Frampton and HN26 were or might have been in a sexually intimate relationship? No.
02:25:59 Do you mean by that answer that we should take it that you can't help us on this issue or that you can help us positively one way or the other as to whether there was? I can't help you on that issue. We kept very separate for obvious reasons.
02:26:14 very separate for obvious reasons. Did you ever hear anything to suggest at any point during your deployment that there might be an intimate relationship between HN26 and Thomas Frampton? Not during my deployment. No.
02:26:32 during my deployment. No. When did you first hear about an intimate relationship between HN26 and Thomas Frampton? I can't remember. some years later. I think
02:26:39 think [snorts]
02:26:45 [snorts] another of a number of other witnesses to the inquiry have given evidence to the effect that there was a sexual relationship subsisting uh during the course of HN26 deployment with Thomas Frampton. Might they be right about that?
02:26:57 they be right about that? They might be. I don't know.
02:27:06 Can we um take that down? And whilst we're on the subject of HN26, can we go sir to volume 3 tab B152 MPS09494.
02:27:32 Taking this one out of chronological sequence. It's 3rd of November 2000. A file note
02:27:34 file note about HN at 26. Give you a moment to look at that. But I'm going to be particularly interested
02:27:45 I'm going to be particularly interested in what it says at the bottom about you.
02:28:00 [clears throat]
02:28:07 Yeah. Uh, so
02:28:13 Uh, so this is after HN26's deployment, isn't it?
02:28:14 it? Yes, I assume so. And uh it appears that she's been out of
02:28:26 And uh it appears that she's been out of the country, come back into the country, but only briefly because she's going to leave the country again.
02:28:36 And you have received a telephone call from her on the 3rd of Friday the 3rd of November.
02:28:37 November. Yep.
02:28:40 Yep. Can you help us with were there any concerns within the SDS about HN26 at this time?
02:28:52 Um, there were certainly concerns. Yes. What were those concerns?
02:28:59 I think as I recall it, the fact they'd essentially lost touch with her. Uh, pretty unusual thing for a serving police officer. Um,
02:29:11 Um, yes, perhaps slightly less in the SDS context, but certainly otherwise. Yeah. And had you been enlisted to try and help or
02:29:21 help or did she call you out of the blue? I can't remember the sequence of that. Could have been either. What did she tell you?
02:29:35 I can't remember particularly what she said. Um,
02:29:41 pretty much that I think a big part of pretty much that I think. Did she tell you why she'd gone out of the country? I think in a very general way perhaps. And what did she said?
02:29:55 And what did she said? Just wanted to get her head straight, that sort of thing. Did she tell you anything about the state of her marriage? No.
02:30:07 No. Did you know anything about the state of her marriage at this time? No.
02:30:12 No. Did she say anything about Frampton? No.
02:30:16 No. Did she say anything about having fallen for an activist? No.
02:30:22 No. Are you sure about that? Yes.
02:30:25 Yes. How can you be so sure when your earlier answers to me have been to the effect that you don't have a particularly good recollection of this? because I think I would have recollected that given my own circumstances.
02:30:39 Can we take that document down now please? And I want to move to the 3rd of
02:30:50 please? And I want to move to the 3rd of July 1998 and a visit to the SDS by ACSO David Vanesse. Uh you've told us in your witness statement that you do recall the visit and we've got some documents to show
02:31:03 and we've got some documents to show that or to at least suggest you would have been there and that a 90minute
02:31:17 have been there and that a 90minute visit was planned with chats between the ACSO and groups of approximately three members of the SDS each for 15 to 20 minutes.
02:31:22 minutes. Can you help us with your recollection of that visit? Um, I do reconnect him coming out. It was a an event.
02:31:36 was a an event. I think it was a sort of general address and then sort of by field I think we spoke to him. And do you have any reason to doubt that the duration was of the order of an hour and a half?
02:31:51 and a half? No, I don't know. Something like that. And [snorts] what was your role during this visit? Speak to him and answer questions.
02:32:02 Speak to him and answer questions. What sort of depth of conversation did you get into in the 15 to 20 minutes for your group? Very top level.
02:32:17 Could you help us by what you mean? Um general trends. um
02:32:20 um what they were interested in. Um
02:32:29 yeah, nothing sort of specific to particular actions. I think quite a lot on the the sort of larger demonstrations in London for obvious reasons would have come up. But
02:32:40 come up. But I I'm understanding you to be saying there was discussion about intelligence requirements
02:32:51 requirements and the int type of intelligence that was being provided by the SDS. Yes, that's fair. And the sorts of topics and the sorts of groups that were being infiltrated. Yeah. I mean to me my field but yes
02:33:06 uh any conversation about the welfare of undercover officers? Not that I can remember. About the stresses and strains of the job.
02:33:14 job. Again not that I can remember. Any discussion of how you went about securing the intelligence?
02:33:30 securing the intelligence? No. I think that was known and a given. Can't remember anything particularly like that.
02:33:43 Any discussion serious or humorous about sexual relationships between undercover police officers and members of the public?
02:33:43 public? No. None whatsoever.
02:33:49 You seem quite certain about that. Is that right? I would be pretty certain about that. Yeah.
02:33:52 Yeah. Why? Why is that? um because of who he is anyway. Um so I can't remember the date but
02:34:06 I assume this overlaps with my own relationships. So that being so it would have obviously struck a cord
02:34:16 but also because that would be a confession of very obvious wrongdoing if I'd have said something to me. Well if anybody had said I suppose so. Yes. Yeah.
02:34:36 Were you given any advice or feedback? I think a general he's very pleased type thing that was.
02:34:45 Could we now go to the 1998 1999 hunt sabotage season and starting with
02:35:00 hunt sabotage season and starting with the documents uh volume 3 tab C33 MPS0 12 73.
02:35:03 12 73. This is a report about the old Burto Hunt's first cubbing meeting of that uh season.
02:35:16 season. The first two paragraphs summarize events
02:35:17 events on the day. My first question to you is, were you present?
02:35:35 I presume so. Yeah.
02:35:45 Uh it refers specifically to the Cuden hunt and not to the Brixton hunt.
02:35:56 Were you in this season 989 more aligned with the Cudon group than the Brixton group?
02:36:04 Yes, I think so. There's still some overlap, but Cubbing would always only have been the Cudon group.
02:36:10 Uh if we go further uh down uh [clears throat] the report, I'm looking for the first reference to Wendy.
02:36:24 have to go to
02:36:39 that maybe sorry that's over the page at tab 34 247 867 Please.
02:36:55 This is a report shortly afterwards, 22nd of August 1998. It's referring back to that inaugural
02:37:06 It's referring back to that inaugural event. Uh but in the second paragraph it says amongst the saboturs were L4 privacy Wendy and Privacy from Cudden. Also present were Young Privacy SNU and Privacy from Liverpool L1 and L2.
02:37:22 Privacy from Liverpool L1 and L2. How well did you know these individuals by this time?
02:37:30 Um, well,
02:37:35 well, how well did you how well did you know Wendy by this time? I was just about to say I can't really remember when she came on the scene. Are you able to help us with why this is the first mention of Wendy?
02:37:55 Uh, if we look at the first paragraph which describes events And I'm interested in the parag the penultimate sentence. A standoff of several hours followed during which
02:38:12 several hours followed during which local scum were brought in and some of the saboturs and their vehicles were videoed.
02:38:16 videoed. Am I right to understand that the people you are referring to as the local scum are people who were supporting the hunt?
02:38:30 are people who were supporting the hunt? Yes, that is how they were known. Uh that's not a very professional way to refer to people, is it? No, I agree. It shouldn't have got into a report.
02:38:43 a report. Were you by this stage becoming aligned to the world view of your target group? Yes.
02:38:54 Can we go to the third paragraph? Privacy was in Peekom, Southeast London on Friday and Saturday, staying with a girlfriend, first name Privacy. But then all the girls in Peekom are called Privacy. Prior to flying out to Denmark via Heathrow for one week to visit another girlfriend, the phrase, "But
02:39:08 another girlfriend, the phrase, "But then all the girls in Peekom are called privacy presumably in fact referring to women."
02:39:17 women." Y
02:39:21 Y and again not very professional. agreed sexist
02:39:28 being asked again if you could speak up please
02:39:29 please make a pun Mr. Thompson. Any reaction from managers to this unprofessional language? Not that I can remember.
02:39:47 If we can take that down now, please. Uh, the next event I want to ask you about is your arrest on the 29th of August 1998 for obstructing police uh, as a result of sitting down on the
02:39:58 uh, as a result of sitting down on the A1 near Huntington Life Scient Sciences. Do you recall that event? Yeah. And you were bailed but ultimately not required to attend the police station. Is that right? That's correct. [snorts] Uh
02:40:15 [snorts] Uh what name did you give when you were arrested on the 29th of August 1998? James Straven. Are you able to help us with what name fellow activists uh who were arrested
02:40:28 fellow activists uh who were arrested gave and in particular whether they gave their real names or fabricated names? No, I don't know.
02:40:38 Can we uh go now to volume three tap C39 MPS 3015
02:40:42 MPS 3015 41.
02:40:55 Now this is a report which doesn't bear a date but we think we've located it using um the metadata. I'll give you a moment to read the short report.
02:41:22 Thank you. It [snorts] refers at the start to Cuden Hunt a so is it a reasonable assumption that this will have come from you? Yeah.
02:41:25 Yeah. and it uh
02:41:27 and it uh refers to
02:41:30 refers to a potential attack on a fascist using a particular public house. Yes.
02:41:40 Yes. Can you help us with how you obtain that intelligence just by association with Cud and Hunts? Did anything come of this? I can't remember.
02:41:52 I can't remember. If something had have come of it, in particular if a man had been attacked, would you have remembered? Um,
02:42:01 Um, yes. I mean, attacks in that area did happen, especially after drink, but they tended to be spontaneous ones. Um, if it had been a pre-planned one, then yes, I think so.
02:42:13 then yes, I think so. And would you have reported it? Yes.
02:42:21 What's unusual about this report is it's not about animal rights, is it? It's about an alleged plot by Cudden Hunt saboturs physically to attack a man for
02:42:34 saboturs physically to attack a man for his far or perceived far-right political views.
02:42:35 views. Yeah.
02:42:39 Yeah. Did that actually happen? Yes.
02:42:48 Why would the Cudon hunt saboturs, an animal rights group, plan an attack on a fascist? They were very, you know, anarchctic or anything else. Um, the right-wing were the enemy.
02:43:04 Your evidence is that applied not just to Brixton, but also to Cryon. I think that would be apply across sabbing and animal rights generally.
02:43:21 Can we take that down now please? And can we go to sir volume one tab B37 that's MPS 301577.
02:43:35 Now, this is a file note uh 21st of November 1998. I'll give you a moment to uh read it,
02:43:46 I'll give you a moment to uh read it, but it's about um serious injuries which you appear to have received.
02:44:12 Yep. If I'm understanding this correctly, you were with hunt saboturs in Kent sabotaging a hunt. Is that right?
02:44:23 right? I would think so. Yeah. How did
02:44:30 How did the saboters seek to sabotage this hunt on that day?
02:44:38 I can't remember what particular tactics we were using, whether it was scent lines or pulling helms away or whatever normal. How did the violence start?
02:44:58 I think they found us. They being um the hunt, the voids in this. Um, when you say they found you, who used violence first?
02:45:12 used violence first? I can't remember. Could you help us as best you can recall what happened to you?
02:45:28 Um, I think it wasn't just me. I think there was a number of us. So, it was a fight with a bunch of us. Lots of swinging of in this case unusually a golf club is more memorable. Um
02:45:38 Um I took some damage. I suspect we ran away.
02:45:46 Was Wendy present when this attack took place?
02:45:48 place? I can't remember.
02:45:53 Is the
03:08:04 alluding before we had to stop to an assertion that you suffered from dissociative identity disorder. That was something it was called. Yeah.
03:08:18 Were you ever formally diagnosed with that psychiatric condition? That came from a meeting with a psychiatrist some years after my
03:08:29 psychiatrist some years after my deployment and one meeting. It was something he suggested. Sorry,
03:08:35 Sorry, it was something he suggested as likely. Well, suggested is precisely the word you use in your witness statement. Okay. That falls some way short of diagnosed, doesn't it? Yep.
03:08:48 Yep. So, is the answer to my question that you have never been formally diagnosed? Yes.
03:08:59 You were seen by occupational health doctors for the MPS on at least two occasions, weren't you? Post deployment. Yes.
03:09:09 Yes. I can remember one. You've said that you were seen by the chief medical officer for the MPS and then by a specialist who dealt with special forces issues.
03:09:26 special forces issues. Yes. So, two psychiatrists, one was occupational health and the other was a referral of some sort. And neither prevented you continuing to serve in the Metropolitan Police Service?
03:09:35 Service? No.
03:09:41 We'll come to the detail later in your evidence,
03:09:42 evidence, but there was a time after your
03:09:53 but there was a time after your deployment when your vetting status was reduced from developed vetting to security cleared, wasn't it? Yes.
03:09:55 Yes. And then restored. Correct.
03:09:58 Correct. And
03:10:03 And part [snorts] of the assessment for developed vetting includes your mental health, doesn't it? Mhm.
03:10:11 I don't want to go into the details, but presumably there was no medical issue to stop you continuing to serve not only in the Metropolitan Police Service, but in
03:10:26 the Metropolitan Police Service, but in Metropolitan Police special branch at a very high level of security clearance when I was TV. That's correct. Yeah. And the reason you were downgraded was because of your conduct, wasn't it? Yes.
03:10:45 Isn't another problem with the explanation you're advancing quite apart from the lack of a
03:10:52 lack of a formal diagnosis? The very protracted
03:11:07 The very protracted contact that you indulged in with both Wendy and Ellie after your deployment all the way up to 2018.
03:11:18 Not sure if that's a problem with it or a symptom of it, but I can't can't answer that. You must have known what you were doing. Yes.
03:11:31 And isn't another problem that I'm giving you the opportunity to deal with
03:11:36 that on your account
03:11:47 of the plot to take revenge on L5 that you were acting as a police officer doing very dangerous work preventing a probable murder.
03:12:03 I'm not following the argument. Not the actions of a man who doesn't know who he is.
03:12:14 No, I I think you're misrepresenting it again. I mean, it's province for a psychiatrist, not me. I can't rationalize my own irrationality, but I could exist in different ways.
03:12:29 different ways. We'll be coming to that instant in much more detail. Yeah, appreciate that. But if the contrary account is true, then it's a consciously spun deception
03:12:45 consciously spun deception for selfserving purposes to impress your bosses, pay for a holiday, to remain undercover. Yeah.
03:12:49 Yeah. All very calculated indeed.
03:12:58 Can we go back now to your relationship with Sara? Is it right, as Sarah has described,
03:13:12 Is it right, as Sarah has described, that you told her that your exartner had duped you into having your first child? I can't remember saying that, but it's possible.
03:13:29 Was it a ruse designed to reduce the risk of her becoming pregnant? No, I don't think so.
03:13:40 Why did you say that then? I can't remember saying it. It's more likely it was to do with the age of my children.
03:13:50 What's being duped into having a child got to do with the child's age? Because I would have had them very young.
03:14:01 So, you suggesting it was for the purposes of your cover? I'm suggesting that's probably why I said that. I don't recall saying it. Did you give any thought to the impact that might have
03:14:17 that might have on a very caring woman? No.
03:14:20 No. You accept that you should have done? Yes.
03:14:30 Yes. Is it right that although you did not cohabit uh you often stayed at her address?
03:14:31 address? Yes.
03:14:36 She formed the impression that despite the connection between you, you were holding back. You were, weren't you? Yes.
03:14:45 Yes. That was because you knew what you were doing was wrong. I presume so. And that it couldn't last. Mhm.
03:14:57 And that it couldn't last. Mhm. To move now to the topic of Goa. Yeah.
03:15:00 Yeah. First of all, and the dates may be important here. We have documents in the bundle to the effect that you traveled to Goa
03:15:14 effect that you traveled to Goa between the 21st of January and the 4th of February 1999. Is that right? I can't remember the dates. I think they're in my room. Let's look them up. It's volume one. It's tab B38
03:15:25 It's tab B38 527
03:15:27 527 635.
03:15:45 And if we go once we've got that document to page 11, please
03:16:00 see dates late January to early February.
03:16:04 There's no reporting
03:16:08 from that [snorts] trip to Goa.
03:16:20 Why not? I don't know. They would have been reporting or at least a report at length.
03:16:24 length. Is it right that Sara was not with you on this trip? I don't recall her being with me now. where L1 and L2
03:17:07 L1 certainly I think L2 but I can't be sure. Did either L1 or L2 commit any criminal act in Goa?
03:17:21 act in Goa? Certainly not that I'm aware of. Did either L1 or L2
03:17:32 Did either L1 or L2 conspire to commit any criminal offense in the United Kingdom whilst in Goa in early 1999? No, I can remember.
03:17:43 Without naming any names, what intelligence did you report? I can't remember what I reported
03:17:54 I can't remember what I reported is the absence of intelligence because there wasn't in fact any useful intelligence to be gleaned in Goa.
03:18:06 I don't think that necessarily follows but I think a large part of it was credibility in burnishing animal rights credibility.
03:18:24 Can we go now please um before we go back to Goa to volume 4 sir tab C56
03:18:26 tab C56 MPS0
03:18:29 MPS0 1 923
03:18:39 this is March 1999
03:18:45 I have chosen this report because it's the first mention that I've been able to find of Sara in an intelligence report.
03:18:59 It says the Cudden Hunt saboturs are forging close ties with the privacy animal sanctuary in location. Wendy, the girlfriend of privacy, has just started
03:19:10 girlfriend of privacy, has just started working at the sanctuary as a full-time fundraiser, while Sara is also engaged there as a part-time nurse. In the near future, the entire SAG group will be intending attending the sanctuary to
03:19:22 intending attending the sanctuary to assist in the construction of a duck pond.
03:19:30 pond. The phrase, "The Cuden hunt saboturs are forging close ties with the animals sanctuary."
03:19:41 sanctuary." that appears on the face of the report to be based on the fact that as as is asserted here, Wendy and Sara are working there. I'm sure that was the link. Yes, that's not really close ties between the group and the sanctuary, is it? It's
03:19:52 group and the sanctuary, is it? It's more the fact that two animal lovers are both hunt saboturs and work at an animal sanctuary. No, but it was a link across to the hunt saboturs.
03:20:10 Sara didn't work there, did she? No.
03:20:12 No. So, this information is wrong. I don't know what she did, what becoming a part-time nurse was. She certainly wasn't employed there.
03:20:29 Did you
03:20:39 report that she was engaged there as a part-time nurse as a deliberate exaggeration? No.
03:20:48 No. Were you trying to place Sara at the sanctuary
03:20:52 sanctuary connecting making the connection with Cudon Hunt saboturs to justify reporting on Sara uh and
03:21:03 to justify reporting on Sara uh and spending time at the animal sanctuary? No.
03:21:09 No. Doesn't the phrase entire SAP group will be attending the sanctuary overstate the position? It would be such members of the subgroup who wish to volunteer to come and assist with the DEP pond.
03:21:20 DEP pond. Yes, I'd agree with that.
03:21:33 Can we take that down now, please? Sara's evidence is that over the over the Christmas period of 1999, she couldn't contact you. That would be right, wouldn't it? I would assume so. Yeah. Was that because you were with your family?
03:21:41 family? I would assume so. Well, if you weren't with your family, where would you have been? So, I don't know. As say I assume I was.
03:21:57 Sarah challenged you about your unavailability over Christmas, didn't she?
03:22:00 she? I don't actually remember that, but yes, I accept it. You went to see her with a letter, didn't you? I accept that as well. A letter which you
03:22:18 A letter which you let her read on her own and then you spoke to her about. Is that right? I accept that. Yeah. And in that letter, you asserted that you struggle to maintain long-term relationships and you blame that
03:22:37 and you blame that on your and a close friend's experience of sexual abuse whilst at school. That's correct.
03:22:42 Why did you do that?
03:22:51 Why I spoke to her at all is probably because I was starting to realize it was serious and out of control. Why I used that that was in my legend anyway.
03:22:58 anyway. I just used it. What was in your legend anyway? The abuse and so on. Why was the abuse in your legend?
03:23:13 Why was the abuse in your legend? As I recall, it was to give someone who spoke like me a reason for being a sab and an anarchist. a reason to avoid sexual relationships as well. Perhaps it wasn't there originally for that. I used it for that. That's on me.
03:23:30 used it for that. That's on me. Well, you didn't use it for that to prevent a sexual relationship. You used it to bring it to an end. Correct.
03:23:32 Correct. Was
03:23:38 Was there any talk when you were discussing your legend uh with your managers of
03:23:49 your legend uh with your managers of inserting something into your legend in order to enable you to avoid sexual relationships?
03:24:00 Why did you choose this moment in time to decide
03:24:09 to decide that from your point of view it was time to bring the sexual relationship to an end?
03:24:12 end? I don't know why that time. It might have been the Christmas thing but I don't know. Did you give any thought to the impact that this account might have
03:24:32 on the very caring Sara? No proper thought. No. What thought did you give it? Not enough. Did you give it any thought? Not that I can remember.
03:24:46 Not that I can remember. I'd like to think I would have done, but I can't remember any. Her
03:24:51 recollection is she challenged you about why you had started a sexual relationship in those circumstances. Is that right? I don't dispute that.
03:25:03 I don't dispute that. And ended up being filled with empathy for you
03:25:07 for you and comforting you. Is that what happened?
03:25:10 happened? I can't remember it particularly, but I don't dispute any of it. So from your point of view, it achieved exactly what you wanted.
03:25:27 Yeah. I think I'm not quite sure what I wanted, but yes, it achieved what I set out to do. End to the sexual relationship. Yes.
03:25:32 Yes. For the time being. Yes.
03:25:39 Yes. But maintaining a good friendly relationship with Sara. Yes.
03:25:45 Highly manipulative, wasn't it? I didn't see it like that. Well, if it wasn't highly manipulative, what was it? I'm not disputing that it wasn't. I just didn't see it like that.
03:25:59 didn't see it like that. I saw it as a continuation of a genuine friendship.
03:26:15 How could it be a genuine friendship when it was so deceitful from your side? I say that was my perspective. I fully accept it can't have been and yet I believed it was an extremely selfish way to behave. Certainly
03:26:29 Certainly utterly reckless as to the emotional impact on Sara. Agreed.
03:26:38 You asked her not to tell anyone about the abuse. I assume so. Did you consider what impact that had upon her?
03:26:49 upon her? No.
03:26:59 That had she done what you'd asked, you would have had no one to share this highly emotive information with.
03:27:15 And I'm not sure I'm following the train there. She would have to, if she'd done what you had asked, she would have had to deal dealt with it all on her own without sharing with her friends. Yes.
03:27:22 [snorts] Her evidence is that she's very angry with the way in which she was manipulated. That's entirely understandable anger, isn't it? Entirely understandable.
03:27:38 Did [snorts] you later tell Ellie that you had had sex with the school nurse? I don't remember that. Might you have done so? It's possible. In terms which uh indicated that you were proud of having done so,
03:27:52 were proud of having done so, except if if I said it, then that might have been the case. Why would you have said that? I have no idea.
03:28:03 There must have been some reason. I can't think of one now.
03:28:16 Is that because you often spoke about sex and sexualized your conversations with the women you were mixing with? I don't believe so.
03:28:27 Back to Sara. The nonsexual relationship continued, didn't it? Yes.
03:28:39 Yes. Her evidence is that she because of the way it was left continually hoped that it would redevelop into an intimate relationship. Was that apparent to you? No.
03:28:52 No. If you had addressed your mind to how she might have been feeling and how she was behaving, would that have been apparent to you? I think that would have been apparent to any reasonable person. Yes.
03:29:05 And can I infer from that answer that the reality was you were so self-centered that you just didn't address your mind to that?
03:29:12 to that? I certainly didn't address my mind to that.
03:29:22 From your perspective, did you keep the friendship going to keep open the possibility of further sex? Not from my perspective. No. Well, why did you do it then?
03:29:33 Well, why did you do it then? Cuz she was a friend. I enjoyed her company. I cared about her and wanted to know what happened to her. You cared about her, but you didn't think about her feelings. Those are hard things to reconcile.
03:29:46 Those are hard things to reconcile. There is a dichotomy there. I know. Yet, that is the case.
03:29:54 Back to Goa. Sara's recollection is that you joined her there at the animal sanctuary in Goa on a trip in early 2000. So not long after Christmas 99 to see animal loving
03:30:12 after Christmas 99 to see animal loving friends who had set up the center there. Did you do that? I can't remember. So this is a separate Goa trip.
03:30:18 Goa trip. A second trip to Goa. I can't remember it. I don't dispute it might have happened. Assuming it happened. Unauthorized.
03:30:30 Unauthorized. I presume so.
03:30:38 Sarah's recollection is you stayed in the same room, but there was no sexual activity between you. Okay, I accept that.
03:30:47 There's no reporting, but that presumably would because be if it wasn't authorized, there certainly wouldn't be. Any plotting while you were there? Second time?
03:30:56 time? Not that I can remember.
03:31:04 Second trip to Goa. Pages torn out of your passport. Possible. I don't know. Say possible. You would have concealed it from your managers, wouldn't you? If it wasn't authorized, I certainly would have. Yes.
03:31:20 Sarah's evidence is that she was devastated when you told her that you were going to move to the United States. Why did you tell her that?
03:31:37 Certainly it was a plan when was this sorry relatively early on quite a lot a long time before you did okay
03:31:43 okay actually withdraw early early mooting as I understand it yeah don't know
03:32:05 Sarah's recollection ction is that you told her
03:32:12 told her that you wouldn't like it if she started a relationship with someone else. Did you say that? Certainly no recollection of ever saying that. No.
03:32:16 that. No. Might you have said that? I can't absolutely deny it. I certainly don't remember it. She would like to know why you said that to her.
03:32:25 to her. I can't remember of saying it.
03:32:33 Were you keeping alive the possibility of rekindling a sexual relationship with her?
03:32:39 her? No.
03:32:41 No. By saying that? No.
03:32:50 Keeping a sexual freon in the air. Again, I don't think that was the case.
03:33:09 No details, please, as to where Sara went,
03:33:13 went, but you were supportive of her decision to move abroad, weren't you? We certainly talked about it. Yes.
03:33:26 Why? She seemed very happy about it. very energized.
03:33:34 Was it because you had identified Ellie as the next person in your target group that you wanted to make sexual advances towards?
03:33:41 towards? No.
03:33:51 Did you give any thought to how you were influencing Sara's important life choices?
03:33:54 No, I don't think so.
03:34:08 So, I'm some distance from finishing this topic. So, might I ask that we rise now?
03:34:09 now? Yes, we'll um [clears throat] make up a little bit of time by starting at 5 2 rather than 10 2.