Intensive cross-examination of undercover police officer HN16 (cover names James Straven and Kevin Crossland, real name James Thomson) regarding his deployment within animal rights activist circles. The session covers flippant reporting about activists, provision of night vision equipment to facilitate sabotage activities, participation in criminal damage, a controversial alleged firearms plot involving travel to France, and questions about the reality versus reporting of violent intentions. Key themes include the officer's role in facilitating crime, discrepancies in operational reporting, and the questionable nature of an alleged weapons procurement conspiracy.
00:26:32 Good morning everybody. Uh today we continue with um open evidence. It is being transmitted by voice only. Those with mobile devices may transmit what they hear in the hearing room uh but
00:26:49 they hear in the hearing room uh but only after 10 minutes have elapsed since the event that they are describing. uh they may not be used for recording or photography. Mr. Bar,
00:27:01 Mr. Bar, thank you Mr. Thompson. Uh just a few questions arising from matters we covered yesterday. First of all, could we go to file four sir C102
00:27:09 sir C102 MPS03413?
00:27:20 I asked you some questions yesterday about the circum circumstances in which you came involved speaking to Wendy about her decision to split up with her
00:27:33 about her decision to split up with her then partner. This is a report dated the 26th of May 2000 where we see some of your reporting on this issue and on other activists. So if we look first of all at the second paragraph of text.
00:27:53 Give you a moment to read that.
00:28:03 Yep. And then if you look at the bottom page of text please, the bottom paragraph.
00:28:21 First of all, there would be quite a contrast between the way you were behaving towards these people undercover and the terms in which you were writing about them. Certainly.
00:28:35 Certainly. uh such that it might come as something of a shock for Wendy to have uh read this report given how you behave towards her.
00:28:42 her. Absolutely. Uh secondly, the tone is uh flippant and disrespectful, isn't it? I'd agree with that.
00:29:01 I'd agree with that. Um and so far as the activist sexuality is concerned, what relevance did that have to policing?
00:29:14 have to policing? I don't know. I say I reported anything. Uh had you addressed your mind to the tone in which you were reporting and the content before you did so? I would assume not. Should you have done so?
00:29:26 Should you have done so? Absolutely. And if you had done so, uh, would you have written up these reports differently? Yes, they'd be a lot drier. Why didn't you?
00:29:37 I don't know.
00:29:46 Can you help us at all? No. No, I mean I've described the process by which reports came to be written. Um, which was sort of notes, conversation and then the actual writing. Um, they were obviously always always intended
00:30:03 were obviously always always intended for the very small audience anyway and certainly not for the subject to ever read it. So I can only apologize for that bit. Um, but no beyond that. Can I take it from that answer that the the
00:30:14 take it from that answer that the the nature of the audience influenced how you wrote? Yes, I guess so. Uh, and was there generally a culture of being disparaging about activists? Yes, I suppose that's fair.
00:30:34 Yes, I suppose that's fair. Can we take that document down now, please, and go in file 3 tab B82, sir? Uh, 1 1970. That's a UCPI number.
00:30:58 Except sorry 19 701.
00:31:00 701. Forgive me.
00:31:04 [snorts] Right.
00:31:14 Third time lucky. Sorry. It is MPS 0719701.
00:32:32 It's M MPS 0719701.
00:32:34 0719701. One.
00:32:54 This is a document entitled magenta triangle extraction chronology and timetable. We understand from the metadata it dates from the 19th of October 2001. Could we go to page two please?
00:33:14 Under paragraph C, we see a paragraph about Wendy. Wendy recently moved into an address in address which he has bought following the death of her mother. Attempts to
00:33:30 the death of her mother. Attempts to disrupt this purchase having failed. It is impossible to predict how long she might remain here. Wendy was a long-term living girlfriend of privacy and is a
00:33:45 living girlfriend of privacy and is a committed hunt sabotur and AR activist in her own right. She remains an integral part of the group that comprises MT's operation and must also be regarded as a remaining threat. Now, I explored with you yesterday
00:33:59 I explored with you yesterday the issue of threat. What I'm interested in now is the address.
00:34:11 The address that Wendy had moved into was an address not far from your ex-wife and children. Is that right? Yes.
00:34:24 Yes. And that was a source of concern to you and your managers from a security point of view.
00:34:25 of view. Yes.
00:34:30 Yes. because she might recognize you in your real life identity. The address she had moved from was her mother's house. Is that right? I think so. Yes.
00:34:46 I think so. Yes. Uh which she had inherited but had to sell.
00:34:49 sell. I believe so. So, the transaction was buying a new house not far from your ex-wife and circumstances
00:35:05 and circumstances where she was moving out of the family home.
00:35:06 home. Yes.
00:35:17 What conversations did you have with your managers about the fact that Wendy was thinking of moving to a home close to your ex-wife and children?
00:35:30 I don't recall any specific conversations. We heard yesterday um that you went to a
00:35:42 went to a house viewing with her. Did you go to one or more house viewings with her? I can't remember that, but I accept that it happened.
00:35:52 You certainly knew she was going to move, didn't you? Yes.
00:35:57 Yes. And that she was looking in the area close to your ex-wife and children. Certainly. You must have spoken to your managers about that, mustn't you? I can't remember a specific conversation. I suspect I did, yes, but I can't remember it.
00:36:12 And it would have been a matter of operational concern to them. It would have been not just from the point of view of looking after your safety in
00:36:25 looking after your safety in the sense that you might be compromised but also
00:36:30 but also keeping the SDS secret. Yes.
00:36:45 Did they suggest to you any ways of trying to persuade Wendy to move somewhere else? I can't remember if they suggested anything particular. Did they suggest anything in general?
00:36:59 Did they suggest anything in general? Again, I can't remember talking to them about it. Did you have any ideas um along the lines of how can we prevent Wendy moving so close to my ex-wife?
00:37:13 Wendy moving so close to my ex-wife? I'm sure I tried to put her off I'm sure I tried to put her off the area or something. That's I can't elaborate on that. Uh and such efforts as you might have made plainly failed. Yeah, they do.
00:37:29 Yeah, they do. So when we arrive at the point at which Wendy is
00:37:37 attempting to purchase the house close to your exwife's what was done then? Nothing as far as I'm aware.
00:37:51 Was the question of attempting to disrupt the purchase discussed with your managers? Not beyond the extent that I've just said. That's the only thing I can remember about that.
00:38:07 remember about that. Did you or your managers seek in any way to thwart that purchase?
00:38:19 to thwart that purchase? Not beyond the extent to which I just said. I would have said it's not a nice area or something.
00:38:31 area or something. Was there any contact between you and the estate agent with a view to trying to undermine the purchase? No.
00:38:36 No. Was there any contact between you and the solicitors to try and undermine the purchase?
00:38:45 purchase? Was there any contact between you and any other official body with a view to undermine the purchase? No.
00:38:53 To the best of your knowledge, was there any such contact in relation to any of those three questions I've just asked you between your managers and people who might have been in a position to undermine the purchase? No, not aware of any.
00:39:05 No, not aware of any. How then can we explain the words on the page, attempts to
00:39:20 the words on the page, attempts to disrupt this purchase having failed? Exactly as I said, me trying to say this isn't as nice area as that or something.
00:39:29 Can I now move if we could take that document down now? Can I now move to some evidence that L3 gave? He said that you provided
00:39:42 you provided uh L1, two, and three with some night vision equipment. Did you provide some night vision equipment
00:39:49 equipment to hunt saboturs? Can't remember providing it. I think I had some at one point. Do you mean you lent it?
00:40:00 Do you mean you lent it? I don't think I lent it. I think we used it, but I had it. So you would agree to the extent there was a night vision device which belonged to you or the police? To me
00:40:14 To me to you used for the purposes of watching wildlife.
00:40:15 wildlife. Yep.
00:40:15 Yep. And facilitating hunt sabotage. Uh not so much hunt sabotage but sort of reconnaissance and that sort of thing. Yes.
00:40:26 Yes. Reconnaissance for sabotage or reconnaissance for home visits? Both.
00:40:30 Both. And for any other activist purpose? Any other? Yeah.
00:40:34 Why did you do that?
00:40:42 To facilitate that function to prove our ability to wreck it. And on your evidence, at least some of this activity would have been unlawful. Yes.
00:40:55 Yes. So you were facilitating crime. Accept that. Did you tell your managers you were doing this? I can't remember. Would you have done so? Yes, I think so.
00:41:08 Yes, I think so. Can you recall any reaction? No.
00:41:11 No. Why did you do it? As I just said, to facilitate the undertaking we were on. Improve my credibility. Be useful.
00:41:27 And presumably that would have enhanced your image as someone who had access to rather more money than many of them did.
00:41:33 them did. I certainly had more money than they did. Yeah. Uh L3 also described destroying badger traps
00:41:45 traps with you. Did you participate in that activity?
00:41:45 activity? I did.
00:41:47 I did. Criminal damage. Absolutely. Are you able to assist us with the value of a badger trap? No.
00:41:59 How often did you um participate in this sort of activity?
00:42:08 I think there was a period with badger traps particularly there was a campaign um
00:42:17 they were trapping in particular areas over several periods of time whenever it was so
00:42:20 was so fairly regularly through that time. Can you give us an estimate of how many battery traps you assisted in destroying? [clears throat] No.
00:42:32 No. Uh, one or two, 10 or 20, hundreds. Definitely not hundreds. You had to find them. Um,
00:42:43 them. Um, somewhere between one and two or 10, I suppose. I I don't really know.
00:42:50 Were your managers aware that you were doing this? Yes.
00:42:54 Yes. And was the intelligence used in any way, to your knowledge, to disrupt this criminality? I don't know how it was used.
00:43:06 how it was used. Were you aware of any efforts to disrupt uh the criminality? Not directly. No.
00:43:22 Not directly. No. Can I take it then that um your managers were content for you to be participating in this level of criminal damage? Yes.
00:43:37 Can we move back now to where we ended yesterday, which was the alleged plot uh to obtain a firearm in France. Uh we'd got to the stage in the
00:43:49 Uh we'd got to the stage in the chronology uh where what is reported as a dry run, okay,
00:43:59 okay, was going to take place. Could we have up please from volume 2 tab B57 treble0
00:44:00 treble0 94
00:44:02 94 84.
00:44:17 This is a file note um recording a meeting uh between you
00:44:28 uh between you uh and Bernie Greeny and the author of the report and if we go over the page we'll see that null war sergeant war if we go back to the first page we see the The meeting occurs on the
00:44:55 we see the The meeting occurs on the 10th of November and it is about events on the day before the 9th of November. Do you recall this meeting? Not particularly. Does that mean you've got some sort of recol recollection of it? I recall having meetings with BG.
00:45:06 BG. I have um quite often. Why did you meet your
00:45:15 your handler
00:45:17 handler at your private home?
00:45:24 We did periodically and I went to his periodically. That wasn't my question. My question was why did you do that? I don't know. It was practice. When you say it was practiced just for
00:45:38 When you say it was practiced just for you or was it common practice within the SDS?
00:45:38 SDS? No, it's common practice within the SDS.
00:45:46 Did this give rise to an air of informality?
00:45:57 Um, I'm not sure it was substantially different. It was fairly informal, I suppose, but And did he give rise to a security risk? No, I don't think so.
00:46:09 No, I don't think so. Uh, can we look at the seventh line, please?
00:46:13 See?
00:46:23 Okay.
00:46:30 Did you obtain
00:46:36 But I think I may I may have been restacted since I drafted my question.
00:46:48 restacted since I drafted my question. So I'll have to uh pass over that. Can I ask you first of all uh then uh where
00:46:54 where where was this decision to go to Calala taken?
00:47:00 I can't remember.
00:47:19 You went, is it right that you went with L1 and his girlfriend? Yes.
00:47:26 And you were stopped by British customs on the way out.
00:47:39 Yeah, I think that's right. Yeah. Just like to explore the state of mind of L1 and his girlfriend at this stage.
00:47:48 Is it your evidence that L1 regarded this trip as a dry run for an excursion to obtain an an illegal firearm?
00:48:03 Certainly to obtain something illegal. Yes.
00:48:06 Yes. Well, there's quite a big difference between
00:48:11 between I appreciate that which is why I can't say specific. I can't remember him saying
00:48:15 saying that which is why I was a bit unsure yesterday. To what extent did you as the driver discuss with L1 the purpose of the trip?
00:48:33 To some extent we certainly would have done before this. What did he say to you about the purpose of the trip?
00:48:47 I think to have a look at what security was in place at customs.
00:48:58 He said that to you. I believe so. I mean, it would have been reported if we've got that report. That would be helpful. In the context of what?
00:49:08 in the context of why did he want you to look at security at the port
00:49:13 because we wanted to know that we could get back
00:49:16 get back from France with what? From France with a weapon and black powder as it transpired. When you told me a moment ago you weren't sure that L1 knew that this was about a firearm.
00:49:28 about a firearm. Yeah.
00:49:28 Yeah. What is your evidence? Did he or didn't he? I don't know with complete certainty and therefore I can't say with complete certainty that he did.
00:49:48 And if he didn't know it was about a firearm, what did he think it was about? Something else. I mean, there's other bits of contraband one can get. I think he did, but I cannot remember a specific conversation where that was
00:50:01 specific conversation where that was said. And what was the state of mind of L1's girlfriend? I can't remember that. Did she know that you were going to reconoit customs? I doubt it very much.
00:50:17 Did she know anything about a plot to obtain a firearm? I doubt it very much. I don't actually know who we're talking about at that stage.
00:50:33 Now you cross the channel using the Euro tunnel
00:50:34 tunnel and you say that the consequence of being stopped and searched is that L1 was rattled. Could you
00:50:49 Could you explain to us in what way L1 was rattled?
00:50:53 rattled? I don't think I can elaborate on what I've written there.
00:50:58 How did he show it?
00:51:04 I can't remember. There was an impression at the time whilst you're traveling through customs and across the channel.
00:51:15 through customs and across the channel. I think probably on the train as we were going outbound. Yes. But I can't remember it.
00:51:29 And what was girlfriend's reaction? I can't remember her at all. I don't think there was one. You then you are then recorded as pointing out the random nature of the
00:51:44 pointing out the random nature of the stop and working to reassure the group or
00:51:49 or promising to work to reassure the group over the next few days. Is that an accurate record? That must be if that's what Bernie wrote.
00:52:03 wrote. Did you work to reassure the group over the next few days? Yes.
00:52:07 Yes. How did you do that? I presume exactly as it says there. It was random. It was on the outbound
00:52:21 and then discussing the return. And who would you have reassured?
00:52:33 I presume L1, L2, L3 with a view to continuing. So, if I'm understanding your evidence correctly, you are a serving undercover police officer
00:52:48 police officer trying to encourage L1, L2, and L3 to continue with a plot to obtain an illegal firearm with the intent to kill or seriously harm another human being.
00:53:03 or seriously harm another human being. Yes, we're trying to continue with that plot.
00:53:08 In terms of
00:53:15 participation in crime, isn't seeking to reassure your fellow conspirators to continue with the plot at a moment of uncertainty the wrong thing to do?
00:53:29 thing to do? No, I don't think so. I think we're talking about a plot with which we had some familiarity and even control versus a plot we may never even know about.
00:53:44 a plot we may never even know about. You're going beyond showing enthusiasm. You are actively working to keep it going.
00:53:52 I would have to accept that. Is that really what you did? Yes.
00:54:02 Shouldn't you have been working to dissuade them? All too risky.
00:54:12 I presume from the time I don't think I could have done. What do you mean you don't think you could have done? I don't think they would have been dissuaded. I think I would have been removed from
00:54:25 removed from the conspiracy if I wasn't properly enthusiastic. Well, there's a difference between properly enthusiastic and actually promoting it, isn't there?
00:54:41 promoting it, isn't there? There is. I not don't think I really crossed that line there. I would accept that you judge that you could have simply remained neutral.
00:54:54 I think that is fairly neutral. I think it's this is what we saw on that dry run.
00:54:58 run. Can we go to the second paragraph please?
00:55:09 says towards the bottom of that paragraph, MT has obtained a vegan guide book for France and has identified a couple of restaurants and hotels in the Marseilles
00:55:24 restaurants and hotels in the Marseilles area which he will try and use which can be researched by us on the wrecky.
00:55:38 be researched by us on the wrecky. Can you help us with when you obtained the vegan guide book for France? No.
00:55:46 No. Can you help us with where you bought it from? No.
00:55:52 No. Can you help us with why you bought it? No, I'm not sure.
00:56:00 It's clear from the top of the paragraph that by this stage you are telling your managers that you are going to be traveling to Marseilles. Yeah.
00:56:18 And you are trying to control this excursion, aren't you? Yes.
00:56:26 Did you buy the vegan guide book before the dry run? I don't know.
00:56:37 I don't know. And was the purpose so that you could involve yourself in the planning and influence the choice of where you stayed and where you ate.
00:56:52 That would certainly be why I was doing there. It was a I mean there's not that many vegan restaurants and hotels available. So this was like a lonely planet for vegans type thing.
00:57:06 Can we take it therefore that you were not only in the driving seat of the vehicle but also in the driving seat of decisions as to where you stopped and where you ate? Yep.
00:57:18 Yep. Was there a reason for doing that?
00:57:28 No, I think we'd have just I mean obviously from my point of view the control but we would have wanted to find vegan restaurants as a matter of course
00:57:56 when you uh learned about Marles. say as the pickup point. Can you help us with who told you that?
00:58:09 I believe L2, but I would have reported it if there's a report there or a note that would be useful.
00:58:18 Well, as we discussed yesterday, this was a remarkable death of intelligence reports.
00:58:26 Can you recall where you were when you told that the target would be Marseilles? No.
00:58:36 No. Can you ret recall the circumstances in which you were told it would be Marseilles? I can't.
01:30:52 Mr. Thompson, you had just told me that you did go to Marseilles on this reconnaissance trip. Uh, but you did not go to Bordeaux. Um,
01:31:03 Um, did you go to Avenue or somewhere near Avenue
01:31:18 Avenue or somewhere near Avenue to Recono where members of the SDS management team might stay? Can't remember.
01:31:26 In Marseilles, did you reckon a suitable hotel to stay at for them? for you. Uh, we looked at whatever was in the guide. Certainly. Yeah.
01:31:41 guide. Certainly. Yeah. Sorry, I'm talking about hotels now. Did you scout out an appropriate place to spend the night in Marseilles? I think we probably looked at several, but I can't remember. Did you reckon appropriate restaurants in Marseilles? Again, same would apply
01:31:56 in terms of a potential
01:32:05 potential places to stop elsewhere in France. Did you reckon it somewhere
01:32:16 France. Did you reckon it somewhere somewhere in or in the vicinity of Leon? No, I don't think so. Did you reckoner any potential places to stop on your trip with L3 overnight?
01:32:27 overnight? No, except Mar
01:32:44 like to just locate this uh trip in time. If we could go to tab B100, sir, that's MPS 0745392.
01:32:59 This is a later document when you were being investigated uh by the SDS. But my interest in this
01:33:11 uh by the SDS. But my interest in this document is for the second of the arrows second indent from the bottom it says since a new document and that's referring to a passport was issued MT has traveled on authorized SDS operations to the second indent says Marseilles from the 14th of November
01:33:23 Marseilles from the 14th of November 2000 to the 16th of November 2000. Is that the reconnaissance trip uh that we have been discussing?
01:33:34 have been discussing? I would presume so. Yes.
01:33:44 It was always going to take a long time to drive from Calala to uh
01:33:58 to drive from Calala to uh Marseilles. Are you sure there was no reconnaissance of anywhere to stop overnight
01:34:00 overnight on that journey?
01:34:06 I'm not completely sure, but as far as I can remember, the only wrecking we did was Marseilles and the auto routes and toll boots around that.
01:34:29 Can we take that document down now? Um, you traveled well there was a plan to travel to Istanbul with L4
01:34:38 with L4 to recover some of his possessions in November 2000. Do you recall that?
01:34:52 I recall a trip to Turkey. I can't tell you when it was, but it wasn't that I can remember particularly about possessions. Okay, let it may assist us then if we turn up tab B58, sir. MPS0527650.
01:35:17 And if we go to page uh that's the first page of text. Um
01:35:28 Um I'm interested in if we could expand the first two or first yes first two paragraphs to start with.
01:35:39 It's talking about a trip to Istanbul. It says probable intelligence dividend to be gained from L4 about long-term intentions. More particularly, however, cementing of the relationship between Magenta Triangle and the most
01:35:51 Magenta Triangle and the most high-profile animal rights martyr will greatly enhance his credibility. It says then you are due to travel to Istanbul with L4 on the 20th of
01:36:03 Istanbul with L4 on the 20th of November, returning the following Monday the 27th.
01:36:08 the 27th. uh you are then uh granted that authority.
01:36:20 Why do you describe L4 as a martyr? Is it simply because he had been very seriously injured?
01:36:33 seriously injured? I don't think I wrote this document. Is that a term that you would have shared with uh HN53 who wrote this document?
01:36:37 document? No, I don't think so. Mighty be
01:36:42 Mighty be regarded though as an important animal rights activist because he'd played a very unfortunate but significant role. Yeah, I mean he was certainly a very prominent victim.
01:37:02 Did you go to Istanbul? I certainly went to Istanbul. Yes. And what happened in Istanbul?
01:37:14 The trip I'm thinking of started outside Istanbul
01:37:22 where L4 was working and then went to Istanbul.
01:37:32 And so far as L4 was concerned, the purpose of the trip was to go and recover some of his possessions. Is that right?
01:37:42 right? As Yeah, I don't recall completely. And your purpose for the trip? See how he was, see what he was thinking, how he felt. And what was he thinking and feeling?
01:37:56 I can't remember it particularly. Um,
01:38:07 I thought he was fairly happy in Turkey. I remember that. Um, so I don't know why he was leaving. Whether it was a contract ending or whatever, I don't know.
01:38:15 know. Because this is not very long after he'd been injured, is isn't it? He was injured at the start of September, given the gravity of the injuries, presumably was not yet fully recovered. Oh, he certainly wasn't fully recovered. No.
01:38:35 What did L4 tell you of intelligence value whilst you were in Turkey? I can't remember particularly. I would have reported it at the time.
01:38:49 have reported it at the time. Did he tell you anything about the longerterm intentions of either L1 or L2 or L3?
01:38:51 or L3? I can't remember too.
01:39:02 Can you help us with why if the fourth person might have been involved in the plot, there's no reference to four individuals in the document which we've got up on the screen. The fourth one being the one I wrote down on a bit of paper.
01:39:16 down on a bit of paper. I I think when I was talking about him, I was talking about the anger and the wish for reprisals, not this particular plot.
01:39:37 By this stage, was the fourth person involved in the plot or not? I think not.
01:39:47 There is no reporting of the trip to Istanbul. Why is that? I don't know. That would have been
01:39:56 Could we take that down, please?
01:40:05 Sara, when was it decided that Sara [clears throat] would be joining this trip?
01:40:17 That she might at the period we spoke about yesterday, I think. Um, I can't remember how she did the ticket,
01:40:28 I can't remember how she did the ticket, but I think it was very last minute that she actually did that and was definitely coming.
01:40:38 And when you mean last minute, days, weeks? I think the actual ticket purchase was when we were there.
01:40:50 And in terms of an intention to join you then yeah maybe weeks I can't really remember but
01:41:04 we had something up yesterday that referred to it I think. And
01:41:05 And is it right or how did it come about that she came to think that she might join you?
01:41:18 join you? He was invited. She was invited. Who by
01:41:19 Who by I would think me.
01:41:26 Why did you invite Sara to come with you?
01:41:30 you? Following the conversation that we discussed yesterday, I think.
01:41:41 Can you help me with why you would want Sara to come on a trip which was to procure a firearm? I think the ostensible reason was
01:41:54 was going back through she would have provided good cover. To me that didn't matter because I knew that wasn't going to happen. So I was perfectly happy with it and liked company.
01:42:13 She came out to meet you in the event in Bordeaux.
01:42:14 Bordeaux. Yeah.
01:42:20 When was it decided that she would join you in Bordeaux? I saying that's go back to my earlier answer.
01:42:44 You went you in the results spent between the 8th and the 15th in France, didn't you of January? I can't remember, but if that's what it is,
01:42:50 is, that's what the paperwork suggests. Mhm.
01:43:00 When did you decide that it would be a good idea
01:43:06 for her to join you on the return journey?
01:43:14 I can't add anything to the answer I've already given. We may need may help if we go to a a document. Can we go to file 2 tab B61
01:43:25 trip04762.
01:43:31 We looked at this document a moment ago in the context of a reconnaissance. Uh it's an office note. It says that you spent the previous day, the 30th of
01:43:43 spent the previous day, the 30th of November, with L3 at L3's home address in Dorset where you discussed the trip
01:44:01 in Dorset where you discussed the trip to France and you agreed the following points. You were going to go to cross the channel to Calala on the 8th of January. You were going to go to Bordeaux
01:44:03 Bordeaux on the 9th. You were going to go from Bordeaux to Marseilles between the 9th and the 12th and you were going to go
01:44:15 and the 12th and you were going to go from Marseilles to Calala between the 12th and the 14th. Now that is a change from the original plan to go to Marseilles and back, isn't it?
01:44:27 and back, isn't it? Um
01:44:28 Um because it involves adding Bordeaux uh and it involves adding Bordeaux to the return trip. Is that right?
01:44:48 Sorry. Bordeaux. Bordeaux to the outward trip. To the outward trip. Yeah. So my question is, when you were talking to Sara about the possibility of her coming out to meet you,
01:45:03 were you intending she was going to come out to Bordeaux to meet you before you went to Marseilles?
01:45:12 Yes.
01:45:24 And when were you intending that she should leave?
01:45:30 I can't remember what we discussed about that.
01:45:33 that. Was there a planned exit date?
01:45:39 There must have been. Why must there have been if the final planning wasn't cemented until the very last minute?
01:45:52 I'm not with you. I mean, clearly we had to come back. You Yes, but you told us that she didn't actually buy the tickets until you were already in France.
01:46:00 France. That's my belief. Yeah. So what I'm driving at is if by the end of November the plan is to go to Bordeaux and then Marseilles
01:46:17 Bordeaux and then Marseilles are is the plan that Sara is going to come out and meet you in Bordeaux and then travel down to Marseilles with you and then back from Marseilles to Cali.
01:46:24 Cali. Oh, I see. Yes, I presume so. Yeah.
01:46:32 Sorry, your hand was over your mouth. Sorry. Yes, I presume so.
01:46:41 So she would have been in your vehicle on the way down to Marseilles from Bordeaux and in your vehicle from Marseilles to Calali and in your vehicle when on your evidence. Uh it would
01:46:54 when on your evidence. Uh it would contain an unlawful firearm purchased unlawfully from an unknown supplier in Marseilles. That would have been that plan. Yes. Clearly, I didn't expect that to happen.
01:47:11 Clearly, I didn't expect that to happen. When you say you didn't expect that to happen, you were expecting there to be a firearm in the car cuz you were planning on the transaction taking place.
01:47:20 place. Yeah.
01:47:23 Yeah. On your evidence and the weapon being in the vehicle. Mhm. So, as I am understanding your evidence, you are planning to have L3 and Sara in your car with an unlawful firearm.
01:47:34 firearm. Yep.
01:47:56 this meeting on the 30th of November 2000.
01:48:02 2000. If we uh take the first paragraph underneath the timetable, L3 is seeing the trip as a bit of a holiday
01:48:09 holiday and he's suggested you go to Bordeaux
01:48:24 and he's suggested you go to Bordeaux and you say he has sheepishly requested uh that his girlfriend and another friend
01:48:26 friend join the trip. L3 denies asking for anyone to join the trip and has given evidence that he was
01:48:38 trip and has given evidence that he was going through a difficult time with his then girlfriend. How sure are you that L3 asked for others to join the trip?
01:48:53 I reported it then. I must have been sure then.
01:49:00 And I think it is common ground that L3 likes wine. Yes.
01:49:06 Yes. And that Bordeaux is obviously a wine lover's paradise. Yep.
01:49:19 Yep. And so on a trip to France to take the opportunity to visit Bordeaux in good company is an attractive one. Certainly. But if one is in the business of purchasing an unlawful firearm with the intention to kill or seriously injure another human being, uh then a
01:49:36 another human being, uh then a digression to Bordeaux and bringing along non-conspirators in the vehicle uh would be a surprising thing to want to do, isn't it? [clears throat] I don't think so particularly. No.
01:49:55 One would have to be remarkably relaxed about the operation of obtaining an illegal firearm uh to be planning it uh in these rather casual terms, wouldn't one?
01:50:05 one? Confident? Certainly.
01:50:19 Is it your evidence that L3 had any previous experience in obtaining unlawfully firearms? I have no idea.
01:50:28 Or obtaining illicit goods from France and smuggling them unlawfully across the channel. I have no idea.
01:50:40 Same questions in relation to L1 and L2 and same answer. No idea.
01:50:49 Did it strike you as odd that L3 was seeking to add this diversion and add these passengers
01:51:03 and add these passengers to a serious criminal endeavor? No.
01:51:04 No. Why not?
01:51:07 Why not? I
01:51:08 I think because if you're going, you've got to be seen to be doing something anyway. And the cover thing made sense to me.
01:51:32 And if these passengers had joined the trip, how was it going to be explained to them uh that you and L3 had some business?
01:51:34 business? I can't remember.
01:51:44 Was there any cover
01:51:49 cover purpose for this visit discussed between you and L3?
01:51:57 between for the Bordeaux bit you mean? No, for the Marseilles bit for the trip. Uh, yes.
01:52:01 Uh, yes. Ultimate purpose of the trip. Conversations about that. What was that? I think I had some scripts with me. Very general.
01:52:08 general. Um,
01:52:18 can't remember much more than that. When you say scripts, are you suggesting that you talked about saying the cover purpose of the trip was something to do with your cover employment in the film industry?
01:52:26 industry? Yeah.
01:52:30 Yeah. More count than Marseilles. Really? Not my side of it.
01:52:41 Not my side of it. L3's evidence is that you told him that the purpose of the trip was a business proposition involving golf carts? Yes. I' have no idea about that.
01:52:56 Yes. I' have no idea about that. When you say you've no idea about that, are you saying it didn't happen or might it have happened? It certainly didn't happen in this context.
01:53:04 And I can't imagine why there would have been a conversation about golf carts.
01:53:13 Could we go to the following uh passage in the document?
01:53:18 The next paragraph.
01:53:37 The possibility of a return journey via Sherborg to Pool was raised by MT but did not get a warm reception. Uh
01:53:42 Uh if you could answer this question precisely please.
01:53:56 Had you reconited the possibility of a return journey via Sherborg to Pool?
01:53:57 to Pool? No.
01:54:07 Was again could you be precise? Yes. No. Was there a specific reason
01:54:19 Was there a specific reason why you wanted to steer the return journey to one that would be via Sherborg to Pool? No knowledge. No knowledge or no memory? No memory.
01:54:35 Could we go to the next paragraph, please?
01:54:45 Overall, MT was quite happy with the outcome of the talks. L3's relaxed attitude is undoubtedly an advantage, as may ultimately be the presence of the two girls. The possibility of subtifuge in terms of the pickup being in Bordeaux
01:55:05 in terms of the pickup being in Bordeaux cannot be dismissed, but MT's impression was that L3's desire to turn the trip into a jolly was the overriding consideration at this time.
01:55:21 at this time. Uh can you help us first of all with the two women uh who you say L3 had asked you to join the journey? My understanding of your evidence from your statement is they did not in fact come on the journey. Is that right?
01:55:32 on the journey. Is that right? Unless one of them is Sara. Yeah. And you
01:55:37 And you our understanding again on L3's evidence is the answer to that is no.
01:55:49 My question to you is why did those two girls as they are described in this document
01:55:51 document not come with you? I don't know. Is it because you said no? Not that I can remember.
01:56:10 when did it become apparent that the two young women were not going to be coming with you?
01:56:12 with you? No, I can't remember.
01:56:23 You are described as quite happy with the turn of events uh arising from the planning meeting at the end of November. Does that accurately describe your state of mind?
01:56:35 of mind? I suppose so. Yeah, I can't really remember it, but
01:56:49 And why were you happy about a significant change to the itinerary uh that you had reconited with your managers?
01:56:52 managers? The only bit we'd reckoned was Marseilles.
01:56:58 Could we
01:57:03 now turn to the question of the supplier?
01:57:06 supplier? Had there been, to your knowledge, any further conversations between you or any of your co-conspirators
01:57:21 any of your co-conspirators with the person who was going to arrange for the supply of the firearm, ammunition, and black powder?
01:57:27 only the ones that would have reported and certainly not with me.
01:57:38 I see. And can you recall because we have no reports.
01:57:48 reports. Can you recall what you were told about the position of the supplier at this time?
01:58:01 You mean the geographical position? No, the position in terms of whatever they were communicating to you about the availability of the firearm.
01:58:13 No, I remember. Was there any communication? Yes, I wasn't part of it. And can you help us at all with what the import of it was?
01:58:26 the import of it was? The import of it was that we could go ahead.
01:58:35 Now I have asked you those questions because in the face of the report in front of us uh you have uh had a conversation with L3 who has suggested a diversion to Bordeaux.
01:58:48 diversion to Bordeaux. There is absolutely no mention here of the availability of the supplier of the firearm, is there? Not on this piece of
01:59:00 Not on this piece of And if you were in fact going to pick up a firearm, one would have thought a central question to the itinerary and the timing is when that weapon was going to be available to you.
01:59:17 to be available to you. Yes. and uh to sit down with L3 at his home and come up with a an itinerary
01:59:30 home and come up with a an itinerary would need to revolve around when the weapon would be available presumably. And yet there is no mention of that in this note or in any intelligence reporting.
01:59:42 reporting. I'm sure there is. I mean, not in this note, but I'm sure there is reporting on that and it would have been presumably between those dates.
01:59:54 dates. Is the reality that this trip was exactly what L3 said it was, namely, from his point of view, a bit of a holiday?
02:00:03 holiday? No.
02:00:09 No. Accompanying you uh on a phony business proposition uh connected to golf carts? No.
02:00:23 There is no mention in this note of Sara.
02:00:25 Sara. No.
02:00:27 No. Why not?
02:00:29 Why not? I don't know.
02:00:47 Is it because you were seeking to hire to hide the prospect of her joining you from your managers or for some other reason?
02:00:49 reason? Could be either.
02:01:00 Disrupting a plot to procure a firearm with which to murder or seriously injure another human being is quite a significant event, isn't it?
02:01:09 isn't it? It's fairly significant. Yes. Can you help us with why your recollection of events is so hazy for such an important matter?
02:01:22 such an important matter? It's 25 years later and an awful lot of other things have happened.
02:01:38 going to ask that that document is uh taken down now uh please and I want to turn to the trip itself.
02:01:53 turn to the trip itself. Uh could we have up please? So tab B71 in volume two sir MPS triple052 57.
02:02:11 Uh this document is entitled operation uh lime. If we look on the the first paragraph, on Saturday the 6th of January 2001, detective sergeants War and Greeny traveled to Marseilles and rented a jeet in the Avenueon
02:02:24 and rented a jeet in the Avenueon area. Were you aware that Detective Sergeant War and Greeny had set out ahead of you
02:02:37 ahead of you and traveled to the south of France? I must have been.
02:02:52 And that was and again if you could give me a yes no answer to this to await their further part
02:03:00 part in uh the plan to disrupt the purchase and supply of the weapon. Yes.
02:03:11 And at that stage on the 6th of January uh when they set off when were they expecting uh the uh transfer to occur?
02:03:24 I don't know. Would it have been the date uh that we were looking at a moment ago and the itinerary agreed on the 30th of November uh that you would be in Marseilles between the 9th and the
02:03:44 Marseilles between the 9th and the 11th 12th of sorry you would be in Mar you'd be in Marseilles Bordeaux to Marseilles 9th to the 11th 12th Marseilles to Calala 12th to the 14th which suggests you would be in Marseilles on the 11th and 12th of
02:03:56 Marseilles on the 11th and 12th of January. Would that have been their understanding at the time? Quite likely, but they'd have been working on large prison between dates.
02:04:13 And then the next paragraph, on Monday the 8th of January, you and L3 travel via DOA to Calala. And then th this says drove you drove
02:04:25 And then th this says drove you drove towards Bordeaux. My first question is it's right isn't it? You did cross do Calala.
02:04:27 Calala. Um yeah,
02:04:32 Um yeah, but you did not then drive to Bordeaux, did you?
02:04:33 did you? No, I don't think so. Then goes on to say, the following, we'll pick that up in a moment. The following day, DCIHN58
02:04:47 following day, DCIHN58 traveled to Bordeaux, arriving at 4:30 p.m. So that's Tuesday the 9th.
02:05:00 Okay. During the course of this journey, MT had contacted DS Greeny and indicated that he was okay, but due to security was unable to say where he was located. Is that true? Yes.
02:05:22 Is the reason that HN58 traveled to Bordeaux because as far as he was aware the original itinerary which would involve you driving from Cali to Bordeaux and arriving in
02:05:34 Cali to Bordeaux and arriving in Bordeaux on the 9th uh was what was happening. I presume so
02:05:49 happening. I presume so then says a text message was received from you at 5:07 p.m. indicating where the vehicle was parked up and that it was loaded in Marles.
02:05:57 You sent a text message to that effect at that time, didn't you? I presume so. Yes. The vehicle was located in Marseilles and at 5:30 p.m.
02:06:09 located in Marseilles and at 5:30 p.m. HN58 traveled to Marseilles arriving at 11:50
02:06:15 11:50 p.m. Do you have any reason to doubt that HN58
02:06:17 that HN58 so traveled? No.
02:06:28 In other words, uh, contrary to his expectation, at the very last minute, he heard that he in fact needed to be not in Bordeaux, but in Marseilles and had to hot foot it from Bordeaux to Marseilles. Yes.
02:06:59 Now rewinding to what happened when you and L3 uh cross uh the channel [snorts] you in fact headed straight towards Marseilles, didn't you? Yep.
02:07:05 And could you help us with why the change in plan?
02:07:13 I think because we got told we could do the pickup presume two days later.
02:07:23 And how did you come about that knowledge? Via L3.
02:07:31 Via L3. And how at L3 got it via a phone.
02:07:38 your witness, your well, there is a documentary record later which said that he used a pay as you go phone with a new SIM card.
02:07:47 SIM card. Okay.
02:07:51 Okay. Or a phone with a new SIM card. Did you see L3 change the SIM card in his phone? I can't remember if I saw that particularly.
02:08:06 [snorts]
02:08:19 Why did you not inform your SDS handlers on the 8th of January that you were in fact heading straight to Marseilles? I informed them when I could. I did also assume I was under French control anyway.
02:08:37 Why were you sending a text to your managers
02:08:39 managers if you are now trying to say that you were under that you were not required to?
02:08:48 to? I was required to I was talking to my managers.
02:08:50 managers. [snorts]
02:08:50 [snorts] So come back to my question. Why did you not tell your handlers if you
02:08:58 you were in communication with them on the 9th? Why didn't you tell them on the 8th that you were heading towards Marseilles?
02:09:08 I told him what I could when I could.
02:09:31 You contacted Detective Sergeant Greeny on the 9th of January to say you were okay, but not where you were.
02:09:52 First of all, why did it take you a day to contact them at all? I can't remember.
02:09:59 And why when you did contact them did you not tell them you were uh either in Marseilles or on your way there?
02:10:10 there? I can't remember what I did tell them.
02:10:20 The records we have are to the fact that as we saw earlier that you contacted Greeny on the 9th of January to say you're okay but not where you were.
02:10:27 Yeah.
02:10:37 You were traveling with L3 in his close company. Yeah. Uh, you were using a mobile telephone to keep in touch with your managers, weren't you? Yes, I think so.
02:10:51 Yes, I think so. Well, we saw the record that you texted them at 507 on the 9th. Um,
02:11:00 even traveling in close company with somebody, if you want to send them a text message, it's easy to do so without them seeing what is on the screen, isn't it?
02:11:14 it? At that time, certainly. Yeah. And if you uh needed more privacy, you could also always make an excuse to get away from them for a few minutes, for example, to go to the toilet. I presume so. Yes.
02:11:34 I presume so. Yes. There was in truth no reason whatsoever, was there, why you could not have told your managers on Monday the 8th of January
02:11:40 January that you were in fact heading straight to the south of France? I can only disagree with that. I think there was a reason.
02:12:02 Was the reason uh that it was in fact your plan all along to go straight to Marseilles? No.
02:12:14 No. And was it because you did not you were trying to make it as difficult as possible for your managers to
02:12:18 to follow what you were doing whilst you were in Marseilles. No. And again it wasn't with them at the time.
02:12:25 time. You could have told Greeny by phone, by text message or voice message on both the 8th and the
02:12:40 voice message on both the 8th and the 9th that the plan had changed and you were going to Maray. I accept that's your opinion. It's not my opinion. It's a fact, isn't it?
02:12:50 it? I disagree. I think I would have done if I could.
02:13:00 And you didn't tell them anything until you absolutely had to. And that was at 7 minutes past 5 on the 9th when you had to tell them that the vehicle was essentially ready for their collection.
02:13:14 for their collection. That's certainly when I sent a message up.
02:13:26 And by so delaying, you made it as difficult as possible for your managers to keep tabs on what you were actually doing, didn't you? Again, I can only disagree.
02:13:42 Is it right that you stopped overnight on the way to Marseilles? Yes. somewhere in the vicinity of Leon. So I believe I can't remember.
02:14:00 So I believe I can't remember. L3 recalls stopping and buying some wine and stopping at an air and eating food and having some of the wine. Is that right?
02:14:03 right? I can't remember. [clears throat]
02:14:10 Can we move now to your arrival at Marseilles? You had reconoited Marseilles and you knew where you were going to stay, didn't you?
02:14:25 didn't you? Um, when we reckoned, we certainly knew several options. I don't know when we actually chose the one we chose. Presumably, you had by that stage chosen one of those options and knew which you were going to. I presume so. I don't know.
02:14:36 I presume so. I don't know. And [snorts] you would have known the way to get there,
02:14:40 perhaps.
02:14:51 [snorts] When you got to Marles,
02:14:53 Marles, where did you park your vehicle?
02:15:01 Can't remember.
02:15:04 Was it near the hotel?
02:15:14 It certainly was parked there at some point, but I can't remember what we did when we first arrived. And could you help us in your own words then with what you and L3 do once you have parked up in Marseilles?
02:15:32 Can you put the the one report you have got for this up?
02:15:39 Which report is that?
02:15:45 There's the document at um B71
02:15:55 that we've had up. There was a more detailed one.
02:16:05 If we go to page four of this document,
02:16:16 is this the document you are referring to?
02:16:26 Yes, I think so. [snorts] [clears throat] Could I ask first of all why you feel it necessary to have the document in front of you rather than telling us in your
02:16:37 of you rather than telling us in your own words from your recollection what happened?
02:16:38 happened? Because it's 25 years ago.
02:16:45 Is it your intention simply to stick to the script of of the document? My intention is to not say something that I've remembered and put into my own memory which is flawed.
02:17:05 I'd like you to stick with such memory as you have, please. What is your memory today of what you did in Marseilles
02:17:12 when you parked up?
02:17:19 Can't remember immediately. We'd obviously just had a long drive. We may well have checked into the hotel first.
02:17:27 first. I think there were some more phone calls.
02:17:33 Then after a bit of time, we carried on to the cafe. When you say a bit of phone calls, who was teleoning who? L3 was telephoning someone and then
02:17:43 and then then we go to the cafe. Can you help us with uh where the cafe was?
02:17:51 was? somewhere near the main station.
02:17:58 And what happens in the cafe? We go in,
02:18:00 We go in, we're recognized straight away. We're there for sort of two minutes,
02:18:14 We're there for sort of two minutes, which is a sort of are you? Yes, we are. Have you got this? Have you got that? Do we do it here? No, we don't. I felt uncomfortable with it. Certainly in the cafe and around it. We get back in the cars. If we just stop you there.
02:18:28 If we just stop you there. How is it you are immediately recognized when you go into the cafe? We're English and it we're the only ones there
02:18:34 there like that. And in terms of the conversation, in what language is this conversation taking place? English.
02:18:45 English. And how many people are in the cafe on the other side of this conversation? one main one and I think there were two others that seemed relevant to it.
02:19:00 And you've described an exchange to verify identity and then to agree, if I'm understanding you correctly, that they've got what you want and you've got what they want.
02:19:16 want and you've got what they want. Something to that effect. Yeah. You've got the money. They've got Y
02:19:17 Y firearm, ammunition, black powder.
02:19:30 firearm, ammunition, black powder. Did it cover all three of those items? Not expressly, I don't think. No, that was understood by then. Yeah.
02:19:36 Yeah. Were you given anything inside the cafe? No.
02:19:51 You then go from the cafe to where? Just outside it. Can you pick up in your own words what happens next?
02:20:03 happens next? There's a brief discussion about exchanging there. It includes handing money over. I don't feel comfortable with that. We say we'll go somewhere else. We get in the cars, we move away for if
02:20:16 in the cars, we move away for if we stop there. The brief exchange is that simply communicating they want the money there and then you don't want to hand it over. Is that the limit of it? Yeah, pretty much.
02:20:33 Any sign of the firearm, ammunition, and black powder at this stage?
02:20:40 There was certainly a bag. I don't know if we looked in it. Where was the bag? The principal chap was holding it.
02:20:54 The principal chap was holding it. Was he holding it when he was in the cafe or was he holding it only because he'd picked it up outside the cafe? Can't remember with absolute certainty, but I think he had it with him in the cafe.
02:21:13 You've described a car. Whose car was it? As far as you could tell, it was my car.
02:21:18 car. So, the one the vehicle you've gone to the cafe in? Yeah.
02:21:24 So, after the conversation has taken place to the effect that you're not going to hand over the money there and then, what happens next? We get in the car. We drive away. We just stop
02:21:37 just stop in your car. Yeah.
02:21:42 Yeah. You drive away in the discovery. And how many people are in the discovery at this stage?
02:21:43 stage? Three.
02:21:48 Three. Who? You. L3. L3.
02:21:49 L3. Who's the other person? The person we're doing the purchase from.
02:22:00 from. You've described three people. We're talking about the essentially the leader of this group of three people. Yeah.
02:22:04 Yeah. Did he still have a bag with him in your vehicle?
02:22:05 vehicle? Yep.
02:22:06 Yep. One bag or more than one bag? As far as I can remember, as it turned out, there was a bag inside that bag.
02:22:19 And what did you do then? Pulled over. When did you pull over?
02:22:30 When did you pull over? About 2 minutes away in a sort of housing block. Was that somewhere you chose or was that somewhere you were directed to? Chose.
02:22:38 Chose. And uh how did you choose where to stop? It was random. So you randomly drive away from a cafe that you'd not been to before and you just find somewhere to stop in Marseilles
02:22:49 Marseilles essentially. Yeah. And can you help us with uh why you decided to stop where you stopped? Precisely because it was random.
02:23:10 So it was our choice. And then what happened? Just exchanged money, got the bag, the inner bag, looked in it. When you looked in the bag, is it you looking or L3 looking?
02:23:24 looking or L3 looking? L3 looked. I think I also certainly saw something. What did you see inside the bag? The shape of a firearm. You said a moment ago that there was a bag within a bag.
02:23:35 bag within a bag. Yep.
02:23:40 Yep. If you look inside a bag and see another bag,
02:23:42 bag, did you look inside the other bag? This is when the inner bag comes out and it's in looking in the inner bag which is just a
02:23:50 just a plastic bag. Was the firearm in the outer bag or the inner bag? In the inner bag.
02:24:01 In the inner bag. Was it wrapped in anything or was it just there? I
02:24:03 I think it was just there. So, it's a plastic bag or a different type of bag? Plastic bag.
02:24:15 And uh did you see any ammunition in the bag?
02:24:23 bag? I can't remember it particularly, but I only got a glance. I can't remember particularly. I only saw quick glance. Did you see any black powder? There was something else in there. What was that something else that you saw?
02:24:37 saw? At that point, I couldn't tell you. It was bags of something.
02:24:43 As I'm understanding it, you're describing a very cursory check. Mine was fairly cursory. Certainly, one which would not have fully verified that there was in fact
02:24:57 fully verified that there was in fact not only a firearm, but also ammunition and black powder in the bag. From my point of view, yeah. When you watched L3 check the bag, how thoroughly did he check it?
02:25:14 I can remember him looking straight in it.
02:25:16 it. So he could see directly in straight in the first bag, the outer bag.
02:25:24 bag. No, no, the second bag. So that's come out of the first bag.
02:25:33 Did he do anything more than that? Not that I can remember. Well, how can he have been satisfied that the black powder was there? I presume you could see the bags.
02:25:45 I presume you could see the bags. And [snorts] how could he be satisfied that the ammunition was there? I presume you could see that as well. Well, if you couldn't when you looked because they were in bags, why couldn't he? How could he have done?
02:26:05 he? How could he have done? No, I said I couldn't see because everything was in a bag. So, I'm looking across at an angle from where I'm standing.
02:26:08 standing. And then what happens?
02:26:15 Money changes hands. The seller gets out of the car, walks away. We drive away. And are you throughout this
02:26:28 And are you throughout this account the driver of your vehicle? No. No. I think L3 drove as well. When did L3 drove drive?
02:26:42 When did L3 drove drive? He might have driven that leg. I can't remember.
02:26:42 remember. Which leg do you mean by that leg? That last leg. From the cafe to the random pullover. You say you might have, but you've just given evidence that you chose where to stop.
02:26:53 stop. Yep.
02:26:53 Yep. That you presumably were driving. You know, I think I just said, let's stop here. Do [snorts] you How firm are these memories?
02:27:06 memories? They're as firm as memories from 25 years ago can be.
02:27:17 So, where were you in the vehicle if you weren't driving? I think I was in the back seat that point.
02:27:29 And where were you afterwards? Front seat.
02:27:37 What happened next?
02:27:45 We drive away. I think probably to the hotel. I can't be completely sure. Somewhere like that.
02:27:57 You sure that L3 drove from the cafe?
02:28:04 That's my memory.
02:28:13 But you decided where to stop. Were you giving him directions to some extent? I think I mean I didn't know the area. How could you do that if you didn't know the area?
02:28:25 the area? So go this way. Try up here. That sort of thing.
02:28:36 And how active or passive was L3 in this exchange?
02:28:42 Active. Okay.
02:28:53 Is he working to your command? I think that exaggerates it. [clears throat] How would you describe the relationship if you're telling him where to stop? Or of a Why don't we try this? How about over there?
02:29:14 When you'd gone back to the hotel, what did you do?
02:29:24 Looked again and then secreted. Where did Where were you when you secreted the weapon? In the car. Where was the car? Outside the hotel already. I think
02:29:39 Outside the hotel already. I think And could you tell us more about the compartment in which the weapon was secreted?
02:29:48 It was just part of what a Land Rover Discovery had. It wasn't a different compartment. And how did one access that compartment? Folding the seats away. And then did it require unlocking or
02:30:03 And then did it require unlocking or unscrewing or was could you just open it?
02:30:03 it? No, just open it.
02:30:21 So, I appreciate we had a a stop earlier, but um perhaps now is the time to take a perhaps a commuted uh morning break.
02:30:30 break. Would you like a pause? Yes, please. How long for? 5 minutes. Yes.
02:30:39 All right.
02:46:17 Thank you sir. Could we have up at from volume 2 tab B66 MPS049591
02:46:42 This is, we understand, a photograph taken of what was in your vehicle. Um, and this is powder. Is that right? I think so. Yeah. [snorts] And when you
02:47:01 [snorts] And when you put uh the material into the compartment in your car, was the powder in this plastic bag? I've got a vague memory of a packet, but
02:47:14 now you've seen the photograph, would you accept that this is the state in which it was in or Yep. Yep. Did you put another way did you uh or L3 change the way in which the powder was stored? No, I don't think so.
02:47:34 No, I don't think so. Did you um do anything to test or verify whether or not this was actual explosive powder? [snorts] No.
02:47:36 No. No.
02:47:38 No. Did it look as if it was? I wouldn't be able to tell you.
02:47:48 Was there anything else in the plastic bag with the powder?
02:47:59 Not that I can see. Can we take that down now and have up uh tab B67, sir? Triple04963.
02:48:14 Is this the weapon? Yep.
02:48:27 You have said that you and L3 had a look at it in the bag when the exchange took place.
02:48:29 place. Did you at any time do anything further to check whether or not this was a real weapon?
02:48:40 weapon? Not that I can remember.
02:48:48 Could we take that down now, please? And could we have up B684696?
02:49:27 It's MPS triple0 4696.
02:49:52 Just a moment. I will check the records.
02:50:03 I think you'll find it's either 4969 or 4971.
02:50:05 or 4971. Yeah, 4969, please. Thank you, sir.
02:50:19 Um, again, we understand this to be a photograph of items in your vehicle in the compartment you described. And we understand this to be a photograph of uh live 45 caliber pistol ammunition. Is that right?
02:50:37 ammunition. Is that right? That's what it looks like. Certainly. Uh did you put the ammunition in the torch?
02:50:40 torch? I don't remember the torch, but I assume we must have done. And where was the ammunition when you received it from the people who gave it to you? Can't
02:50:52 people who gave it to you? Can't remember exactly, but I just presume in the bag.
02:50:57 the bag. Not in the bag with the powder. Can't remember enough. Was it in a separate bag or I can't remember enough.
02:51:14 You then presumably go eat out in Marseilles on the evening of the 9th. Yes.
02:51:20 Yes. And then we come to the morning of the 10th.
02:51:21 10th. Can you tell us from your recollection what you did on the morning of the 10th to further disruption of the plot?
02:51:35 We woke up
02:51:41 um reasonably early, I think.
02:51:46 can't remember exactly,
02:51:56 but I might well have gone on myself basically to go and see that the vehicle was no longer there. Um, but that would have been under the pretext of getting a coffee or something like that. Um, again, I can't really remember. Um,
02:52:13 again, I can't really remember. Um, but at some point came back. Can I stop you there? Were you sharing a room with L3? Yes, I think so. When you go out to check that the vehicle has gone,
02:52:29 vehicle has gone, was L3 still sleeping or was he awake? I can't remember. Did you leave a note for L3 or not?
02:52:46 or not? Not that I can remember. No. His evidence was he was asleep and you left him a note. Might that have happened? It might have done.
02:52:54 You've established the vehicle isn't there.
02:52:59 there. Do you go straight back to the hotel or do you do anything between? No, I would have gone straight back in. And what do you do when you get back to the hotel? Tell three.
02:53:11 Tell three. What did you tell L3? That the vehicle's gone. And
02:53:16 And what was L3's reaction?
02:53:24 Fairly shocked. Surprised.
02:53:30 And what did you discuss then? We discussed what to do next. Can you help us with the course of that discussion?
02:53:44 discussion? Best of my memory, there were several bits to it. There was one discussion about whether we reported it or not.
02:53:56 we reported it or not. Um, there was another discussion about we go look for it or not. Um,
02:53:59 yeah, sort of options really.
02:54:09 Did you go to look for it? Not that I can remember. No.
02:54:19 Did you What did you decide to do so far as reporting the theft to the police is concerned
02:54:22 concerned eventually? I think we decided we would report it.
02:54:31 Were you arguing for or against that course of action?
02:54:38 I think I was mostly neutral. It was something we discussed with the office before because obviously they need to discuss it with the French. Um,
02:54:48 Um, and they were comfortable either way. So I was comfortable either way.
02:55:01 So your evidence is you come to discuss whether to report it to the police and your position to L3 is neutral
02:55:02 neutral essentially. Yeah.
02:55:13 Did you give any reasons to L3? Um, there were reasons back and forth. So,
02:55:17 So, what reasons did you give to L3? I
02:55:19 I think the arguments would have turned on.
02:55:23 on. If we don't report it and it's found, that's suspicious. It'll have to be reported sooner or later because it's my vehicle and I need the insurance. Um
02:55:32 Um obviously with what was in it that was an against. Um but then in the around it came down to well it has been stolen. What's in it would probably be the
02:55:46 What's in it would probably be the property of the thief not us. So it's more suspicious again if you don't report it.
02:56:03 Had you taken any precautions when handling the ammunition and the firearm, placing them in the compartment of your vehicle or not?
02:56:12 I can't remember much handling at all. Certainly of the firearm. Well, the ammunition had been handled. [snorts] Put it in the torch, hadn't it? It had. Um, and I say I can't remember the torch, so
02:56:25 the torch, so I would presume we did. So, would there not be a concern there might be some fingerprints on the ammunition? That's why I presume we did, but I can't remember it. What was L3's position?
02:56:39 I think he just followed the argument one way and another particularly strong position. How did you come to a conclusion? We agreed it would be best to report it
02:56:54 because it had to be at some point or another.
02:57:00 another. Yeah. And the suspicions that would pertain to not reporting it if it was found.
02:57:14 If L3 was effectively just following the argument, can I take it that he didn't seem to have any particular concern about getting the weapon and the ammunition and the black powder back?
02:57:25 ammunition and the black powder back? No, it was part of the argument, but I don't think we thought that was terribly likely.
02:57:34 How did you report the theft? just Marseilles police station or a police station in Marseilles as far as I can recall.
02:57:47 can recall. Did you go alone or did you go with L3? I think at that point I was alone and how
02:57:49 and how how soon
02:57:57 how soon can you help us with your best estimate of when you would have done that? Later in the day. Can you remember whether it was morning or afternoon? It would have been late morning by then at best I think.
02:58:17 Once you had reported the theft of the police, did you report it to anybody else? Not I can remember.
02:58:27 What did you do then? Go back to the hotel. Go back to the hotel. Keep making plans. And what did you and L3 decide to do next?
02:58:40 next? To get a higher car. Um, and then to continue.
02:58:54 And we know that you did get a higher car. Uh, can we go to tab B61, sir? O MPS-0527
02:58:58 763.
02:59:10 Um, can we have page seven, please?
02:59:24 Okay. This is the rental agreement. You can see it's at Marseilles airport. How did you get to Marseilles airport?
02:59:37 I thought we got the higher car and went. Oh, sorry. Marseilles airport. Can't remember. How far outside Marles is Marseilles airport?
02:59:43 airport? Can't remember. I'm not even sure we went there. The car might have come to us. I see.
02:59:53 I see. Was this an in-person transaction or a remote transaction? As far as I can remember, I actually got
03:00:04 As far as I can remember, I actually got my cover employer to do the hiring in my name.
03:00:15 How did did you arrange that by telephone? Yeah.
03:00:32 Was it actually done on the morning? of the 10th of January or had it been previously arranged? I'd certainly spoken to my cover employer about it before that. But it was the 10th when we needed it. Yeah.
03:00:42 Yeah. But it was it was the 10th according to these dates that it was required.
03:00:53 that it was required. That it was required. Yes. But when was the when was the car when was the agreement
03:00:56 agreement Was the agreement were Avis tele contacted on the 10th or were they contacted earlier? I would hope they were contacted on the 10th
03:01:15 and you see bottom left on the screen there that your
03:01:18 that your address your address is L Street Film Studios Borumwood Hertfordshire. Yep.
03:01:33 Studios Borumwood Hertfordshire. Yep. Uh, and is the reason for that address because it was your cover employer and not you who arranged that? Yeah.
03:01:42 And if we I think you need to move down a little bit. Um, or is it Sorry, it's on the right hand side. Up a little bit, please. I'm looking at the times now.
03:01:53 looking at the times now. Agreed. Um, time out is the 10th of January 01 at 11:39 and the agreed
03:02:04 January 01 at 11:39 and the agreed time back is the 15th of January at 12:00 at Calala. And presumably that return time is fitted to
03:02:17 fitted to coincide with pre-book tickets. Don't know.
03:02:25 and the time out 11:39. Can you help us with whether that will be the time the vehicle left Marseilles airport or if it was delivered to you the time it arrived with you?
03:02:39 the time it arrived with you? I can't. No, I'd have thought it was a bit later than that, but I couldn't be sure. Anyway, and presumably you had to provide some insurance details and show driving license.
03:02:48 license. License. Yeah, if not insurance and driving license, we see L3
03:02:55 see L3 ciphered there and L, as we understand it, L3's driving license number. How did L3's driving license number and name come to be on that document?
03:03:08 come to be on that document? I assume we both produced our licenses as dual drivers.
03:03:22 Um, was that um when you receive the vehicle? I guess so. Yeah.
03:03:37 Thank you. Once you have hired, you have got the hire car,
03:03:41 hire car, what did you do then?
03:03:49 Can't remember exactly, but basically started
03:03:54 started I think more or less straight away heading west.
03:04:02 So you you essentially leave Marseilles as soon as you can. Um, no. I mean, I think the day was getting on by then. Wasn't any particular rush and I was
03:04:15 Wasn't any particular rush and I was quite happy to take as long as it took. Long as it took to do what? Just whatever we needed to do to sort ourselves out, to make a plan, all of that. I was in no hurry.
03:04:29 I asked you what you did after you got the car and you said you headed west. Yeah.
03:04:33 Yeah. What did you do between receiving the car and heading west? I I don't know. You appear, as best we can tell from the contemporary documents, to have received
03:04:46 contemporary documents, to have received the car at 11:39, or if it was delivered to you at the earliest it left the airport at 11:39.
03:04:54 Can you help us with broadly speaking when you left Marseilles? No, I mean it would have been once we got the car, but no, I can't be on that.
03:05:06 got the car, but no, I can't be on that. Was uh did you stop to do any further sightseeing in Marseilles? No, I don't think so.
03:05:16 And certainly, as I'm understanding your evidence, you didn't stay overnight. You headed straight out. Yeah.
03:05:17 Yeah. The same day. Yeah.
03:05:21 Yeah. L3's recollection was that you spent some more time in Marseilles on the 10th. Might he be right about that? I can't recall exactly when we left, but I have no recollection of it.
03:05:34 Uh, and did you drive to Bordeaux
03:05:45 the same day or did you stop overnight on route to Bordeaux? I can't actually remember. I saw L3's evidence. I don't think I need to dispute that bit, but I can't actually remember that stop.
03:06:01 Why did you go on to Bordeaux?
03:06:08 There was a possibility the vehicle might be found.
03:06:21 And you also had pre-laid plans, didn't you, with Sara? Yeah, it had been part of the original plan anyway. It seemed to make sense.
03:06:34 plan anyway. It seemed to make sense. Did L3 consider himself to be at any risk from the French police at this stage?
03:06:36 stage? Not that I'm aware of. No.
03:06:45 uh you get to Bordeaux
03:06:49 Bordeaux uh on on your evidence as I'm understanding it would have been fairly late on the 10th of January.
03:07:01 late on the 10th of January. No, I'm not sure when we got there. Um if there's a date that comes up on this, I'll happily accept that. I see 10th or if you stopped overnight the 11th.
03:07:07 the 11th. Yeah.
03:07:09 Yeah. Did you meet Sara at the airport the day you arrived in Bordeaux or the next day?
03:07:16 next day? I can't remember. You, I think everyone agrees, did meet Sara
03:07:28 Sara and the three of you essentially spend time in Bordeaux and the surrounding area as tourists. Yep.
03:07:32 Yep. For a little while. Did you look around Bordeaux together? Yep. Did you picnic on the sandunes? I can't remember.
03:07:43 I can't remember. Might you have done? Might have done. Did you have a day trip to Santilio? Yeah, I think that's right.
03:07:54 Yeah, I think that's right. There's a photograph of L3 which he says you took of him there on the 13th of January.
03:07:57 January. Okay. To be right about that. Y.
03:07:59 Y. [snorts]
03:08:01 [snorts] And did you return Sara to the airport at some point? Can't remember doing that, but yes. What is your recollection of how many nights you spent in Bordeaux? No, I can't remember.
03:08:13 No, I can't remember. How [snorts] did you make your way from Bordeaux to Cali? Drove.
03:08:20 Drove. And did you stop overnight or did you drive in one day? Can't remember. Did you stop whether overnight or otherwise in DEP? Again, can't remember.
03:08:34 Again, can't remember. And what was L3's demeanor uh during your time in Bordeaux?
03:08:43 I can't remember it particularly. As I would have expected, I think. And what can we take from that?
03:08:51 I think there's some disappointment, maybe some relief as well, but I might be imagining that back. Um, and he liked Bordeaux.
03:09:05 Did you um discuss whether you should have any further contact with the French police about your missing vehicle?
03:09:22 about your missing vehicle? I can't remember discussing it again. Did you discuss your missing vehicle with L3 at all again? Certainly. Um whilst you're in France? Yeah. And what was the gist of that conversation?
03:09:33 conversation? I'm sure we carried on talking about whether it might be found, what we would do if it was, etc. [snorts]
03:09:40 [snorts] It being the vehicle. It being the vehicle, sir. You speak about what might happen if uh what was in the compartment was found. Exactly.
03:09:53 Exactly. And what what did you say to L3 about that?
03:10:01 that? I don't think it changed from our original position. If something was found, which we thought unlikely, it would have been the thief. You blame it on the scene. Yeah.
03:10:06 Yeah. And what was L3's reaction to that plan? I think it's fairly comfortable with it. I can't recall any great objection.
03:10:21 I can't recall any great objection. We know that you returned to London uh on the 15th of January. You cross the channel
03:10:22 channel and then you um drive up to London. Did you go straight to Sara's house? I can't remember that.
03:10:38 I can't remember that. L3 says that you dropped him off at Sara's house. Might he be right about that?
03:10:38 that? He might be right. Yeah. And is that where you met him before you set out to France? No, I can't remember that. I can't remember that. Can you remember where you do you have a recollection of where you
03:10:54 where you I don't I would have thought it was the other house but I can't remember to the extent I'd challenge it. And you hire another car in England. Uh is that
03:11:04 is that anything to do with your cover employer or not?
03:11:08 or not? I can't remember. Um I presume the French one would have stayed in France so we had to cross as foot passengers or something.
03:11:28 Can you help us with why your cover employer was involved with the hire of the vehicle in France? First of all, was the discovery a vehicle owned by the Metropolitan Police or a vehicle owned by Lre Film Studios?
03:11:41 or a vehicle owned by Lre Film Studios? I was owned by the Metropolitan Police.
03:11:52 So why were they involved in booking a higher car on the 10th of January? Because I thought that would be a good way to do it and my managers agreed with me.
03:12:03 me. What business was it of your managers
03:12:14 What business was it of your managers at L Street Film Studio that your, as they would understand it, private vehicle had been stolen? I didn't have managers at El Street Film Studios. This was my cover employer. Um,
03:12:27 Studios. This was my cover employer. Um, it wouldn't have had anything to do with them, but they had reach connections, directories, whatever it was back then. they could do it. Made sense for me to be able to have that conversation in front of L3.
03:12:45 So your evidence is they were helping you as a your cover employer was helping you as a favor. Yeah. Yeah.
03:12:54 And why couldn't you have just made the arrangement yourself? I probably could have done. I thought that was better.
03:13:08 because of the because it appearance. Exactly. Yeah. To L3.
03:13:09 To L3. Yeah.
03:13:22 I took you through step by step what you did on the 9th in Marseilles and you didn't at any stage say to me that you had done anything film industry
03:13:34 film industry related?
03:13:35 related? No.
03:13:42 So, can I take it that there was no suggestion so far as your cover employer was concerned that you were in the south of France on their business? No.
03:14:00 Can we uh now go to volume 2 sir tab B72 MPS05282.
03:14:32 This is a document headed the dated the 8th of February 2001 headed operation lime and it's a report about the operation. Can I take you to the second paragraph under the heading background the one
03:14:44 under the heading background the one that begins in the immediate aftermath? that in the immediate aftermath of the incident and in the ensuing months, there have been a number of revenge attacks against members associates of the hunt. All members and supporters of
03:15:01 the hunt. All members and supporters of the hunt concerned are now considered to be at risk, although the driver of the vehicle will be a particularly attractive target. Yesterday you gave evidence about a demonstration which you did not attend in the very immediate
03:15:20 did not attend in the very immediate aftermath of L4 being run over. And we looked at a report
03:15:32 looked at a report for a demonstration to which the media were invited a few days after the report.
03:15:40 Were you aware of any other
03:15:42 other revenge activity between then and February 2001 towards members of the hunt?
03:16:01 towards members of the hunt? Yes. I mean there was a constant drum beat of that in and around SABS and at other times as well. Well, you say drum beatat of that if that is revenge attacks. What I'm asking not is whether there was tension but
03:16:16 not is whether there was tension but whether there were to your knowledge actual attacks
03:16:28 outside of demonstrations and stabs I can't remember any. If I had have known about them, they would have been reported separately. And we have no reporting in this period of any such attacks beyond the report I put to you yesterday. So
03:16:49 the report I put to you yesterday. So can I take it from that that you have no recollection now of any attack on any member of the hunt? I've got no specific knowledge beyond what I've said. And would the same apply so far as associates of the hunt are concerned?
03:17:02 associates of the hunt are concerned? Yes, if there's not a report. Can you help us with where the author of this document who was DCI HN58
03:17:17 this document who was DCI HN58 got the impression that there had been a number of revenge attacks? I presume he was reading the reporting that was coming in. [laughter] That's an assumption on your part.
03:17:30 That's an assumption on your part. It is an assumption. I don't know. Did you discuss revenge attacks with HN58?
03:17:42 revenge attacks with HN58? I can't remember with HN58 particularly. I think it was a constant theme when I was talking to my handler.
03:17:50 But [snorts] how could it be a constant theme if you hadn't personally witnessed any?
03:17:55 any? Because they're happening. There was a lot of violence. It was part of that.
03:18:08 lot of violence. It was part of that. Could we take that down now, please? Can we go to volume 4 tab C109 MPS054
03:18:12 73?
03:18:20 Uh this is an intelligence report dated the 13th of March 2001 titled L4 assault attributed to you. Uh
03:18:36 titled L4 assault attributed to you. Uh and then if we just look at the uh first two substantive paragraphs of text please.
03:18:41 Privacy. A longtime, if irregular, member of the Cudent Hunt sabs is claiming to have discovered the home address of the man accused of running down fellow sabotur L4 in August of last year. Uh, Privacy believes that the
03:18:56 year. Uh, Privacy believes that the asalent, L5, resides in the Crawley area of West Sussex. The full details of Privacy's information is now believed to be in the possession of senior members of the Cuden Sap Group. Whilst any information emanating from privacy who
03:19:10 information emanating from privacy who is perceived as an unreliable alcoholic will be treated with due caution, it will not take any great research on the part of the SABS to substantiate or disprove its authenticity. Such inquiries are likely to be undertaken
03:19:25 inquiries are likely to be undertaken sooner rather than later. Can you help us with whether privacy was acting on his own initiative in reporting at this
03:19:39 his own initiative in reporting at this home address or whether or not there was any orchestrated attempt by Cudden Hunt saboturs to find the address.
03:19:51 saboturs to find the address. Uh with respect to this report I can't particularly remember it. I'm not completely sure who Privacy is. [clears throat] Um,
03:19:56 Um, but I think it relates to ongoing attempts to find L5.
03:20:05 But it appears that this particular person was regarded as rather unreliable. That's how I read it. Yeah.
03:20:21 Were you involved in any discussions in the spring or late winter of 2001 about locating the address for L5 with any of L1, L2 or L3?
03:20:38 I can't remember a specific discussion with them in terms of the location. I don't know if that's because they already knew it or because that's what the Cudon Hunts Labur group were doing. To [snorts] the best of your knowledge, did they or did they not already know the address?
03:20:50 the address? I don't know. Presumably, they would have told you if they did.
03:20:56 they did. I would have thought so. Did the fourth person whose name you wrote down yesterday
03:21:10 discuss L5's whereabouts with you in this period? Yes.
03:21:13 Yes. And what did that person say to you? As far as I can recall, there were a number of possibilities over time. We looked at them. I certainly remember
03:21:28 looked at them. I certainly remember driving to one and having a look at it with this fourth person. Yeah.
03:21:31 Uh, and how did that come about?
03:21:39 I can't remember. My memory is being in the car looking at an address. Can you remember whether it was connected to the report we've got up on the screen or not? I can't.
03:21:51 I can't. And
03:21:53 And can you help us with what if I call it the fourth call this person the fourth person
03:22:08 said to you if anything about what would be done if the address could be established? No, I can't remember anything specific
03:22:19 in terms of inferences that can be drawn. Then might intentions of Ry have range from on one end of the spectrum an entirely lawful protest outside the house
03:22:34 protest outside the house to something beyond or the other end of the spectrum something worse. There would have been a spectrum of intentions certainly
03:22:43 certainly but nothing discussed between you at that stage. I'm sure I was in several discussions but nothing you can remember but nothing I can remember now.
03:23:00 Um, and if we uh go now, please if we can take that down to
03:23:10 Oh, sorry. 54. I can have 5473 back up, please.
03:23:15 please. Just the source comment. If we look at that,
03:23:21 if the information proves to be accurate, then it must be recognized that it now lies in the hands of people who are close friends of L4 and they have proved on many occasions that they are capable of extreme violence.
03:23:34 are capable of extreme violence. There can be no doubt, if privacy has made an accurate discovery, that the information will be used to assist in mounting a revenge attack on L5.
03:23:51 on L5. And the reference there to the hands of people who are close friends of L4. Who do you mean? Um that would have been all of them. So
03:24:03 Um that would have been all of them. So would that have included L1, L2 and L3? L1, L2, L3, the fourth person and that whole cadra. And in terms of um any particular emphasis, would there
03:24:16 any particular emphasis, would there have been any particular emphasis on any of the three ciphered individuals and the fourth person? They would turn at top of the list and that end of the spectrum we just spoke about
03:24:29 about capable of extreme violence. Mhm.
03:24:33 Mhm. Uh I asked you quite a lot of questions about them. yesterday. Is there any further evidence
03:24:48 Is there any further evidence that you have that would substantiate what is recorded here that they were people capable of extreme violence?
03:25:01 I haven't got anything specific to add. There is a lot of reporting, not just from me, about that.
03:25:07 Thank you. Can we take that [snorts] down?
03:25:14 If we have up volume 2, tab B74, MPS0748499,
03:25:18 please.
03:25:31 This is a document written by HN58 which refers to a proposed trip to Amsterdam with L 2, L3 and L4. And the suggestion is that you go with them.
03:25:46 suggestion is that you go with them. This is a request for authorization for such a trip. It suggested in the penultimate paragraph that it would allow you an opportunity to be present should any future activities be
03:26:03 present should any future activities be planned and in particular if L2 is still intent on obtaining a firearm or explosive
03:26:06 explosive substances. Why is L2
03:26:11 Why is L2 singled out in this document?
03:26:17 I don't know particularly. Um,
03:26:35 I mean it does say no nefarious activity planned, so I can't remember. [cough] And did you actually go to Amsterdam with L2, L3, and L4? I can't remember that trip. I can remember a trip to Amsterdam with a number of people,
03:26:48 number of people, but I can't remember what it was or whether it was this one.
03:26:55 Is your memory sufficiently clear to help us with whether any of L2, L3, and L4 were present with you when you did go to Amsterdam?
03:27:07 No, I can't particularly remember them. And can you recall whether it was whether or not it was in the spring of 2001 or some other time? No, I can't remember.
03:27:23 No, I can't remember. Can I take it from those answers that you won't be able to help me with what L2, L3, and L4 might have said in Amsterdam? No.
03:27:31 No. Can we take that down now, please, and go in volume two to tab B77 MPS06714.
03:27:50 Uh this is just picking up the chronology, the report which locates in time the attack
03:28:02 time the attack um on L4 and the dropping of charges and the dropping of charges. This report is dated the 10th of September
03:28:15 dated the 10th of September 2001. What I'd like to ask you about is what was the reaction of the activists that you were mixing with to the dropping of charges. Um, as I recall it, a certain amount of anger, but primarily cynicism. I don't
03:28:28 anger, but primarily cynicism. I don't think many of those close activists ever really thought anyone would be prosecuted. L3's evidence was that the reaction was one of depression, deflation, cynicism.
03:28:39 cynicism. Are all of those appropriate descriptives? I think those are all probably true. Uh [snorts]
03:28:51 Uh [snorts] he also said that revenge was not in the air or words to that effect. Is that true? No, I don't agree with that. I think it always was.
03:29:03 [snorts] Can we take that document down now please and have up from volume 2 tab B80 MPS0719
03:29:06 MPS0719 571.
03:29:15 [snorts] Uh now this is a uh report which is dated the 12th of October 2001 but it is about um a meeting that you had uh with
03:29:33 about um a meeting that you had uh with your SDS managers on the 8th of October. It says in the first line having returned from annual leave in KN that of course is not correct because you've been in Indonesia and Singapore haven't you?
03:29:44 you? Yep.
03:29:46 Yep. Uh and uh this uh report
03:29:55 asserts that originally it appears that L4 was favoring legal redress against L5. We see that at the bottom of the uh first paragraph.
03:30:07 bottom of the uh first paragraph. So presumably this is a reference to civil litigation rather than criminal litigation. Is that right? I would presume so. Yeah.
03:30:26 Uh and it also records though that shortly afterwards by the 11th of October
03:30:34 October uh he'd had advice that no legal option would provide satisfactory redress uh and that therefore L2 and L3 favored causing L5 at least the most
03:30:48 favored causing L5 at least the most severe harm. Can you help us with how you obtain that information?
03:30:55 No, I mean this is obviously a file note, not a report.
03:30:59 So I presume it's the
03:31:14 a number of reports together and a conclusion [snorts] from it and it would have just been by association as far as me obtaining that information goes. What had L2 and L3 communicated to you?
03:31:30 Would have been something to that effect and was fairly regularly. Can you recall where you were when they raised this subject with you between the 8th and the 11th of October? No.
03:31:41 No. Can you recall any of the content of any conversation with L2 and L3 in this period? No.
03:31:59 So essentially here you are communicating to your managers that despite the fact that advice is being taken on pursuing legal redress, there's another plot of foot and you
03:32:10 there's another plot of foot and you need to be out there on the ground ready to deal with it. That that's essentially what you're communicating to your managers, isn't it?
03:32:23 managers, isn't it? Yeah. I think it's too strong to say another plot's a foot, but essentially that's correct. Could be.
03:32:27 Could be. Could be. Okay. Could be coming. Uh but by this stage you are clearly pushing for your
03:32:40 pushing for your deployment to continue, aren't you? I believe so. Yes. And [snorts] there is a discussion with
03:32:51 with by this stage MD is Michael Dell isn't it?
03:32:51 it? Yep.
03:32:55 Yep. DCI Dell has taken over from HN58. Correct.
03:32:58 Correct. And uh
03:33:00 And uh he is instructing you that you will not participate in a conspiracy against L5.
03:33:15 That's the first bullet point. Okay. Yes.
03:33:31 It appears from the long paragraph uh that the reason for that at that time appears to have been DCIL's concern
03:33:40 concern about the administration of justice and avoiding any risk of you misleading a court or the MPS misleading a court. Is that fair? Uh, it's certainly part of it. Yeah.
03:33:55 Uh, it's certainly part of it. Yeah. You say part of it is your was your understanding
03:34:01 that Dell was telling you don't get involved in a conspiracy because uh we'll run into trouble uh with disclosure
03:34:12 with disclosure if you do.
03:34:29 That's I mean I haven't seen this before um but that's certainly how it reads. My abiding memory of when MD took over was an instruction not to be involved in violence at all. Can I take it from evidence that DCell's arrival heralds a wind of change in that regard?
03:34:39 regard? Certainly. Yeah.
03:34:46 And when you say don't get invol involved in violence at all that's not just participating but that's conspiring as well.
03:34:55 as well. That would be anything. I mean that certainly would be conspiring on that case.
03:35:02 Goes on to say MT will confine his activities to supplying only that information about L5's location which is available to any
03:35:17 L5's location which is available to any casual inquirer. Is that because DC Idel didn't want one of his officers to do anything that would further or facilitate a plot to commit serious harm against somebody else?
03:35:27 else? Yeah. I mean, he'll obviously want to give his own evidence, but I would assume so reading that based on exactly the points you made to me earlier. And is was that your what I can ask you about is that was that your understanding of his motivation at the time?
03:35:39 time? My understanding at the time was probably very wrong. Um,
03:35:55 I saw him as a police detective who didn't know anything about intelligence as opposed to frankly a very professional investigator.
03:36:07 I mean, I'm understanding you to be saying that essentially there's a difference of professional opinion about how you should proceed. That would be true.
03:36:20 That would be true. But there was more going on, wasn't there? You wanted this deployment to continue for your own reasons. Certainly.
03:36:33 Can we go just to one uh more last uh report and questions before lunch? Volume forcer tab C125 MPS 308258.
03:36:39 Sorry, I'm being asked to stop.
03:36:47 Oh no, false alarm. We will get the joys of triple08258 before lunch. [snorts] Thank you. Uh a report um 5th of March 2002.
03:37:05 attributed to you under the heading ALF target L5. L5, the Hunt supporter deemed responsible for driving over and seriously injuring Hunt Saboter L4 in September 2000, has been successfully housed by ALF activists to an address on
03:37:20 housed by ALF activists to an address on the outskirts of Crawley, Sussex. Housed means his home has been identified. Yep.
03:37:22 Yep. Since being identified as the person responsible for L4's injuries, L5 has become a high-profile hate figure for animal rights activists. This
03:37:35 animal rights activists. This information may now provide a focus and opportunity for extremist elements within the animal liberation front to cause serious injury to L5. There may now be a real danger of L5 being seriously harmed. It is unlikely that
03:37:48 seriously harmed. It is unlikely that further information about this matter
03:38:03 further information about this matter will be obtained. So the information you are passing back to your managers is to the effect the risk to L5 has elevated considerably because he has been located.
03:38:05 located. Yes.
03:38:10 Yes. The date of this 5th of March is not very long before the end of your deployment is it? was later that month. Okay, I'll accept that.
03:38:24 It says it is unlikely that further information about this matter will be obtained.
03:38:26 obtained. Is the imminent end of your deployment the reason why that is unlikely or was there some other reason?
03:38:42 It may well be. Um, obviously I wouldn't have written this final version of report anyway. Um, but without knowing where it originally came from, I don't know for sure.
03:38:55 came from, I don't know for sure. Without naming them out loud, who housed L5? I can't remember.
03:39:06 How did you obtain that information? Can't remember that either.
03:39:13 Was it true or was this an attempt by you to generate a reason for extending your deployment? No. If he was housed, he was housed.
03:39:30 [snorts]
03:39:40 Was L5, to the best of your knowledge, actually ever physically attacked? I don't know.
03:39:49 To the best of your knowledge, did L1, L2, L3,
03:40:00 L2, L3, and the fourth person, or any of them, ever go on to obtain a weapon from an alternative source? Not that I'm aware of.
03:40:15 If they had I want to give you the opportunity to deal with this. if they had the strength of feeling and the violent intent that you have described.
03:40:27 violent intent that you have described. And if it is true that by March of 2002 L5 had been housed, surely
03:40:33 surely L5 would have been attacked.
03:40:41 There were a number of other things happening and eventually I think I can say this L5 had a sort of bit of a fall from grace anyway within those circles when
03:40:53 when but I I can't remember when
03:40:59 when I can't remember um I say I don't know Elf
03:41:05 Elf sorry L4 had a fall from grace my mistake
03:41:16 Even if L4 had fall from grace, L5 was still a person who had in the eyes of activists at least deliberately Yes.
03:41:30 Yes. run over and almost killed one of their number.
03:41:31 number. Yep.
03:41:36 On your account, there would be every reason for violent revenge still to have taken place.
03:41:42 place. Yep.
03:41:46 Yep. As far as we're aware, it didn't. As far as we're aware. So, would that be an appropriate time to stop?
03:41:57 stop? Yes, I think so. Um, would everybody be ready to start again at 10? 10.
03:42:00 10. All
03:42:00 All right.