HN16 James Thomson (James Straven/Kevin Crossland) gives testimony about extensive misconduct including: torn passport pages to hide unauthorized trips, four duplicate driving licenses, using deceased child Kevin Crossland's identity without authorization, registering Kevin on electoral roll, obtaining utilities and council tax in dead child's name, and spending cover employment earnings. Thomson admits wanting to continue living as James Straven after deployment, describes it as 'liberated' life he 'liked'. Reveals sloppy tradecraft with contaminated spending and phone calls.
00:12:48 The evidential hearing will continue. The evidence will be broadcast after a 10-minute delay, but by voice only. Those with mobile devices may use them to report what they hear, but only 10 minutes after the event that they're
00:13:01 minutes after the event that they're describing has elapsed. Such devices may not be used for recording or photography. Mr. B. Thank you, sir. Uh before we move on from
00:13:12 from France, there's just one further matter I want to put to you. Let's return to the rental agreement, please. That's at MPS-0527763,
00:13:25 page 7.
00:13:38 You told us that uh this was arranged by your employer and I just wanted to see if it can shed any more light on it. The form itself
00:13:50 any more light on it. The form itself is in English. It's an English form with English text. So, for example, at the bottom, the blurb under the signature box is
00:13:57 box is in English. Yep.
00:14:01 Yep. Do you know where although the car was obviously coming from the Avis depot at the Marseilles airport?
00:14:13 airport? Um, do you know where this transaction took place?
00:14:17 No.
00:14:24 Thank you. If we could take that down now, please.
00:14:35 now, please. Uh, could we have up next the document? It's a tab B53, sir, in volume 2, MPS 0746307.
00:14:48 Um, if we could have the text at the top expanded. This is a document dated the 26th of September 2000. And we're back to the topic of HN26.
00:15:06 It says TN 21 temporary nominal that is rang this afternoon to say that he had had a conversation with road bridge that's HM26
00:15:19 HM26 earlier today regarding expenses arising from her enforced move. So we've moved on in to stage where she's been moved. TN21 said that during the course of speaking to RB, he had mentioned that HN58 was intending to
00:15:31 mentioned that HN58 was intending to visit her in the near future to ensure that all was well. RB replied that she saw no reason for such a visit to take place and indeed wanted as little
00:15:43 place and indeed wanted as little contact as possible with the SDS office in particular and NPS in general. She told 21 that she wanted to distance herself from the organization and put the whole thing behind her. She asks
00:15:55 the whole thing behind her. She asks that 21 pass this message on to 58. The call was otherwise cordial and TN21 is happy that the practical aspects of her move are proceeding well. If you could have a look at the manuscript note underneath. Now
00:16:15 spoke to TN21 ray above on the 29th of I think it's September 2000. She confirmed that HN He confirmed that HN26 didn't want to see me.
00:16:27 want to see me. He
00:16:33 He something gave the impression that she wanted to leave the UK as soon as possible. HN TN21 had all necessary financial arrangements. We both came to the conclusion that HN26
00:16:50 conclusion that HN26 and we've redacted it uh were possibly splitting up. We know she was married [snorts] at the time need to speak to James top JT that's you and HN1.
00:17:00 and HN1. So this is a little earlier I think than the question I put to you yesterday. Can you recall HN1 asking to speak to you about HN26
00:17:14 you about HN26 while she was going through the enforced move?
00:17:19 I can't recall HN1 asking to speak to me. I'm sure HN58 did. Um I can't remember an enforced move to
00:17:31 Um I can't remember an enforced move to be honest with you. Um I knew about the moving abroad. Um but it had already happened.
00:17:37 happened. Um yeah, so I'm sure he did speak to me. I can't particularly remember it. Did you speak to HN26 at this stage?
00:17:51 If I did, it was only about wanting to distance herself from the office, but I can't remember if I did at this stage. Had you been in touch with her? Is that why 58 thought that thought that you and HM1 might know something about it?
00:18:10 HM1 might know something about it? Yes. I mean, we knew each other wellish. And from your knowledge of her and what was going on in her life at the time, is it right that she was splitting up with her husband? I didn't know that. Um, but I did know them both.
00:18:24 And did you come into possession at this stage of any knowledge about whether or not she'd had a relationship with Mr. Frampton?
00:18:25 Frampton? No.
00:18:32 No. Could we take that down now, please? From volume 4, tab C116, MPS 306299.
00:18:46 This is a report attributed to you dated the 12th of July 200 and one. Uh it's
00:18:58 the 12th of July 200 and one. Uh it's titled Huntington Life Sciences. And if we could have the both paragraphs of text expanded, please give you a moment to just read that.
00:19:31 [clears throat]
00:19:48 Thank you. Uh it appears that there's a trial um crown against Avery Avery and Delmain or similar for conspiracy to cause public nuisance and you are reporting
00:20:08 nuisance and you are reporting information back um about the defense solicitors advice
00:20:23 solicitors advice to their clients and we've redacted that uh using the gist LPP. P we looked at a much earlier example of reporting of legally professionally privileged material yesterday. What I wanted to ask you this document being dated the 12th of July 2001 had there by this stage been any change in
00:20:40 there by this stage been any change in the position as to your training on the question of LPP? Had there been any further training? No.
00:20:53 No. Had there been any training uh on uh how the regulation of investigatory powers act treated legally professionally privileged material? I certainly don't recall any. Had you been given any instructions between the last report and this one? Same applies. I don't recall anything like that.
00:21:05 like that. Uh
00:21:06 Uh had there been any discussion
00:21:18 had there been any discussion uh before you reported this intelligence about authorizing you to obtain legally professionally privileged material? No.
00:21:21 No. Was there any reaction from your managers to this report? I don't remember the report particularly, but I can't remember any
00:21:34 particularly, but I can't remember any reaction certainly. Can we take it that you reported this in the usual way because you hoovered up all the information you could find? Absolutely. Can we take that down now, please? Can we look next [clears throat] at the
00:21:45 we look next [clears throat] at the document? It's at tab B54. Sir, MPSO 526929
00:21:47 526929 at page 8.
00:21:56 And our understanding is this is the last authorization um for your deployment because it runs from
00:22:07 from 2nd of October 2001 to the 1st of October 2002. The documents I showed you yesterday earlier were three months were every 3 months. Here we've got annual by this
00:22:25 months. Here we've got annual by this stage annual um authorities. Was that a change that you were aware of? No. No.
00:22:34 No. No. We see that it's signed by or authorized by uh Roger Pierce. And if we could go back to page seven, please.
00:22:43 Uh this is the end of the complete of the form that was completed for submission to Commander Pierce. And you'll see at the bottom it's signed by Detective Chief Inspector Dell.
00:22:58 Dell. Did you discuss this organiza this authorization with DCI Dell? I can't recall ever discussing an authorization. No. Can we take it from that that you probably didn't?
00:23:09 probably didn't? Yes. Uh
00:23:11 Yes. Uh if we could go to page six, please.
00:23:20 And if we could um have a look at the fifth and sixth rows down, please.
00:23:39 The top of those two rows, consideration has been given to any adverse impact on community confidence that may result from the use or conduct of a source or information obtained from that source. And what has been written is the
00:23:50 And what has been written is the positive effects of the use or conduct of the source in this arena and the information emanating there from are likely to far outweigh the negligible
00:24:05 likely to far outweigh the negligible negative impact on the few supporters of extremist animal rights activity within the community. See also attached risk assessment. The next question is details of who will be affected including collateral intrusion
00:24:18 collateral intrusion anarchists and animal rights activists who are involved in public disorder, criminal damage and serious assaults by only information regarding those
00:24:30 only information regarding those involved in such activity will be sought and actioned.
00:24:41 in completing this form or at least signing it off. What I'm interested in is do did DCIDell have any input from you? Not that I can remember director this form. No. And in order to make the
00:24:52 form. No. And in order to make the judgment that the positive effects of the information would far outweigh the
00:25:03 the information would far outweigh the negligible negative impacts on the few supporters of extremist animal rights activity.
00:25:12 activity. Uh are you able to assist us any further as to what evidential basis DCI had to come to that conclusion? I would presume he's basing it on the reporting thus far in the deployment. Thank you. Could we take that uh down now please? Want to move next uh to the
00:25:32 now please? Want to move next uh to the question of passports. Could we have up please volume 2 tab B95
00:25:38 MPS 0719783.
00:25:48 [clears throat] This is a
00:25:55 This is a file note written by HN53. It's dated the 28th of February 2002. And if we look first of all at the top paragraph,
00:26:12 MT pulled me aside after today's meeting, Reheis withdrawal to say that he had a problem with his passport. Somewhat shamefacedly, he told me that he had removed two pages from the document in the immediate aftermath of
00:26:35 document in the immediate aftermath of the Indonesia denumant in an effort to avoid detection. The pages related to his entry and exit visa stamps for that trip. Is this an accurate account of what happened?
00:26:43 happened? I'm not sure what this particular meeting refers to. I don't remember it particularly on that description.
00:26:57 particularly on that description. Did there come a time when you told HN53 that you had removed pages from your passport? Certainly. Could we go to the next paragraph, please?
00:27:14 Clearly, it would be operationally improper to countenance MT's next trip to the USA with a defective passport, particularly in view of his place of birth, Muscat. The fact that he chose to risk using it on last week's trip to Los Angeles and got away with it, must be
00:27:37 Angeles and got away with it, must be borne in mind. is the reference to last week's trip to Los Angeles a trip that you took to America to prepare your exfiltration story.
00:27:42 story. Not sure about the dates. I took one trip to Los Angeles with
00:27:50 I think the names all by handler. Well, if we
00:27:57 if we go to for the moment tab B 100 MPS 0745392,
00:27:59 0745392, please.
00:28:10 Um, this is a document we went to earlier because it conveniently
00:28:22 because it conveniently records dates and places. is if we look at the very bottom indent, Los Angeles from the 4th of February 2002 to the 14th of February 2002. Is it right that those were the dates
00:28:33 Is it right that those were the dates when you went on an authorized trip to Los Angeles to prepare for your exfiltration? Yes, I have no reason to doubt that. If we go back now to MPS 0719783
00:28:51 and the bottom paragraph,
00:29:03 I told MT to bring in the defective passport on Tuesday the 5th of March and we will then take steps to obtain a new one before he travels on the 1st of April. We can discuss further next week when we see him. And presumably at that
00:29:15 when we see him. And presumably at that stage there was a plan for you to travel again on the 1st of April. I would presume so. Yes, I've got a redacted bit. Yeah. Uh,
00:29:31 Uh, is it right then that you traveled to the United States in February 2002
00:29:34 2002 with a passport that was not only in your [clears throat] cover identity, but was also missing pages that you had
00:29:50 was also missing pages that you had removed uh to disguise your unauthorized trip to Indonesia. Yeah, certainly true. I went there in a passport, my cover identity. I don't think the pages would have been removed at that stage.
00:30:06 Why would you go and tell HN53 that you had removed pages from your passport if you had not done so?
00:30:16 done so? I had done by the time I spoke to HN53. I just don't think when I traveled to [clears throat] Los Angeles in February that was the case. I understand your evidence. Why did you tear the pages from your
00:30:37 tear the pages from your cover passport between your return from America and uh going to tell HN53 that you had?
00:30:44 you had? I can't remember doing it. I assume it's because of visas in the passport that I didn't want him to see.
00:30:51 But if you had already traveled to America uh on your cover passport, why did you need to take any steps? Couldn't you just travel again on your cover passport?
00:31:07 cover passport? I could have done if I had a control of it. I don't remember why he was taking the passport.
00:31:19 Well, on the basis of this note, it's not that he was taking it. Um, anyway, he asked for it because you told him that pages had been torn out from it. Yes. I can't remember it like that. Is it really right that you
00:31:34 Is it really right that you didn't tear the pages out until after the trip to America? I think it most likely.
00:31:48 And if you did
00:31:50 did tell HN53
00:31:53 tell HN53 on the 28th of February, surely that must have been linked to the forthcoming travel on the 1st of April.
00:32:07 I presume so. was the position that you had torn the pages out of the passport and realized how difficult or at least risky it was
00:32:22 how difficult or at least risky it was traveling on such a passport? Yes. And I think I'd have realized that before I went to the USA. And was the purpose of bringing it to management's attention to try and get a replacement passport without pages turn?
00:32:35 replacement passport without pages turn? I can't remember it, but that's certainly how that report reads to enable you to travel abroad with less risk of being stopped. To enable me to travel abroad certainly.
00:32:58 because taking such a risk uh would have put not only you at risk of adverse treatment from foreign immigration but also generated a risk to the SDS operation, wouldn't it? That's true.
00:33:13 That's true. That from the perspective of the SDS would have been a cardinal sin. Certainly.
00:33:24 Were you asked by HN 53 um whether you had traveled on a defective passport? Not that I can recall.
00:33:34 [snorts] Why then was HN53 able to write the fact that he chose to risk using it on last week's trip to Los Angeles and got away with it must be born in mind.
00:33:48 with it must be born in mind. I presume he assumed that. I don't know. Might it be that um he asked you about it and you told him? I don't know what I told him.
00:34:03 Could we take that document down now, please? And could we have a look at your um
00:34:10 um witness statement? It's UCPI50 3ELE 53.
00:34:19 [snorts] Moving now to ask you questions about the original cover passport you had, which ends with number 542. So I'll call it 542.
00:34:31 call it 542. If we could have page 22 of this file, please.
00:34:34 please. Paragraph 46.
00:34:46 I cannot remember physically removing pages 5 to 10 and 25 to 31 from my first cover passport number 542 as referred to in I give a document
00:35:00 as referred to in I give a document reference but I accept that I did so I would have done this to try and avoid SDS management becoming aware that I have traveled abroad on trips uh that they were not aware of uh so pages 5 to 10 and 25 to 31 were missing
00:35:16 pages 5 to 10 and 25 to 31 were missing from your original cover passport number 542.
00:35:20 542. Um quite a lot of pages. Yep.
00:35:24 Yep. Trips plural. Yes. Uh,
00:35:32 which trips did you disguise or whi withhold from management knowledge by removing pages 5 to 10 and 25 to 31?
00:35:50 to 10 and 25 to 31? The only one I can really remember is Jakarta that we've already talked about. Um,
00:35:56 Um, we talked about an Amsterdam trip, but I wasn't sure if that was the one I went on. So, again, that might be one of them, but I don't know beyond that.
00:36:10 Would you like to tell us about probably not a well-rased question, would you tell us about any other unauthorized trips that you took and withheld from management? I can't remember any others.
00:36:21 remember any others. Were there any others? I can't say absolutely that there weren't, but they'd have probably been France day trips. I don't know.
00:36:38 France day trips. I don't know. Were there any trips taken in the course of your cover employment? No.
00:36:40 No. Trips taken to filming locations? No. [snorts] trips taken in the course of business
00:36:56 in the film industry in any way whatsoever? No, nothing abroad. Were there [snorts] any unauthorized trips other than booze cruisers to France
00:37:17 booze cruisers to France uh that you participated in with your activist targets and associates other at all? Not that I can remember. Are you
00:58:52 Uh this is a file note written by detective inspector HN53. Uh he's dealing with the un what he says is an unauthorized USA trip. uh
00:59:05 is an unauthorized USA trip. uh twothirds of the way down the page says as detailed in a separate file note DS Thompson's second Straven passport showed that he had entered the USA on the 4th of February 2001. This was an unauthorized visit which has yet to be explained. The Straven 59A
00:59:21 yet to be explained. The Straven 59A credit card statement lists three small transactions in Hollywood, Los Angeles on the 6th, 8th, and 13th of February,
00:59:32 on the 6th, 8th, and 13th of February, 2001. But there is no indication on any of the other accounts to indicate how
00:59:43 of the other accounts to indicate how flights and accommodation were paid for. This raises the possibility, therefore, that another source of funds was used for the visit. Records show that DS Thompson took annual leave between the 5th and the 18th of February, between late February and late May 2001,
00:59:54 late February and late May 2001, traveled with a number of other SDS officers to Las Vegas on an authorized welfare trip. All of the All of those officers, including DS Thompson, traveled in their genuine identities. Is
01:00:10 traveled in their genuine identities. Is it right that you travel to Las Vegas in your genuine identity? Yes.
01:00:12 Yes. And uh
01:00:18 And uh now that you have been reminded that there were three transactions
01:00:30 three transactions in Hollywood, Los Angeles on the 6th, the 8th, and the 13th of February 201.
01:00:33 201. It's right, isn't it, that you were in Los Angeles on the 6th, 8th, and 13th of February, 2001?
01:00:45 February, 2001? No, I do not believe I was there. [snorts]
01:00:45 [snorts] And
01:01:05 in terms of the suspicion that you had hidden accounts to fund unauthorized trips, is there any truth in that? No.
01:01:06 No. Are you sure about that? I had the accounts that by this point they knew about that's all when we come to account. There were turned out quite a lot of them. There were several certainly. Yeah.
01:01:19 There were several certainly. Yeah. And were you using any of those to fund unauthorized trips? No. And they'd have seen them if that was the case. A big
01:01:27 A big They'd have seen them if that was the case.
01:01:35 And did they see them all? I believe so. All the ones that you actually had? Yes.
01:01:53 Can we move to the topic of driving licenses please? And can we go first in volume two to tab B 101
01:02:12 [snorts] That is MPS-0719
01:02:17 569.
01:02:29 [snorts] This is a file note dated the 8th of March 202.
01:02:40 says MT has four licenses in the name of Straven.
01:02:50 Straven. Is it true that you had four licenses in your James Straven identity? No, I accept that. The first was the one that was
01:03:01 The first was the one that was originally issued in September 1996 when you were preparing to deploy presumably. Yep. The second and third
01:03:13 The second and third uh were replacements which you obtained, one directly yourself and the other obtained by the office
01:03:25 obtained by the office because you said that the original license had been stolen. Okay. Yeah. Is that right? I think so. Yeah. And
01:03:39 And so does it follow that when you applied to get a replacement license, you were making a false representation to the authority which issued that license?
01:03:47 license? Yes.
01:03:51 Yes. And does it follow that you made a false representation to uh your managers which caused them to obtain a further driving license for you?
01:03:58 you? Yes.
01:04:05 Yes. The final driving license uh is one issued in 2001 and the
01:04:12 and the bit of the address that we're going to use is the coach house
01:04:26 use is the coach house and that's the license that you obtained on the base with an address which was the address of a fellow activist. Is that right? I believe so. Yes.
01:04:44 As for the two replacements in the middle of the page, is it right that one was issued for your cover address in London?
01:04:46 London? I presume so. Yeah. And the other uh was issued for an address in Scotland.
01:04:55 Yeah. I can't see it, but I presume so.
01:05:09 The fourth license, the reason you obtained it, as I understand your evidence, your written evidence, is because you were facing prosecution for one or more road traffic offenses.
01:05:26 one or more road traffic offenses. I know I said that. I can't remember when I said it, and I can't remember how true it was. And the purpose of obtaining a driving license
01:05:33 license uh to another address was to try and come up with a scheme which would avoid losing your license. I can't see that that would have worked.
01:05:53 I can't see that that would have worked. This wasn't my question. Is that is that why you obtain that additional pass that additional driving license? I don't know. Can we look at your at a document called the post operational debrief document? It's MPS-072282.
01:06:17 [clears throat]
01:06:23 It's uh volume three. Uh, tab B136er.
01:06:34 And if we could go to
01:06:35 to the bottom of page five. First of all,
01:06:47 the bottom of page five. First of all, before I ask you questions about that uh text, this document, are you familiar with it?
01:06:49 with it? Yes, I think so. You drafted it, didn't you? Yeah, that's the one I'm thinking of
01:07:00 the one I'm thinking of after your deployment essentially when you were in trouble. Yes. As a way of explaining your position. Y
01:07:08 Y if we look at uh the bottom of the page. Thank you. I'll give you a moment to uh refresh your memory.
01:07:33 Okay, thank you. So, is it right that you were stopped for speeding? I was certainly stopped for speeding at least once. Yes. And is it right that you were concerned
01:07:47 you were concerned uh that not only might you be disqualified in your cover identity uh but that your real license might also be
01:08:00 be the subject of attempts to have it endorsed.
01:08:05 endorsed. I don't remember that particularly. Um, I certainly don't think I was being honest with my managers when I wrote this. Um, it might have been a factor. Can you help us with where the truth lies?
01:08:16 lies? To be honest, no. I four licenses wouldn't have four. I have no idea.
01:08:24 The conversation the SDS office, it was established that if his address was so remote that public transport was ineffective and he would be unemployable without a vehicle, a court would be disposed under existing European guidelines to merely fine. And then if we can go over the page please.
01:08:43 Hman put points on his thus far clean license. As a result, a new license was obtained showing JS residents as as one of his weariest addresses in Deepest Sussex. This had the added benefit of having the ungodly involved in a small
01:08:56 having the ungodly involved in a small deceit against authority which further enhanced JS's legend. Again, the office was aware and seemed to agree it was a frightfully good we in the event the
01:09:07 frightfully good we in the event the prosecution like two before it failed more because JS unlike JT enjoyed the luck of the devil than because of any strategic thinking.
01:09:21 strategic thinking. So can we take it from that that you had in fact
01:09:23 in fact been
01:09:27 been prosecuted albeit unsuccessfully at least twice before? I presume so. Yes. uh and that uh the purpose of getting a driving license with an address uh of a
01:09:42 driving license with an address uh of a fellow activist which was not in London was it?
01:09:43 was it? No.
01:09:49 No. uh was uh to assist you should the need arise
01:09:50 arise to plead uh with the court that you lived in a remote location and you would be the subject of exceptional hardship if your license was taken away from you.
01:10:02 if your license was taken away from you. That seems to be what this says. Yes, it is what this says. Um what I'm asking is is that the truth?
01:10:13 is is that the truth? I don't think so. I don't think that would have worked. You obviously it's not quite the same question. It's not quite That doesn't answer the question. Is that why you got the additional driving license? I don't know.
01:10:28 I don't know. Why else might you have got an additional driving license? By that point, I have no idea. I don't know what I was doing, why I thought I needed four licenses. It's ridiculous.
01:10:48 Uh you've asserted in this document that the office was aware and thought it was a frightfully good we is it your evidence today that you told any of your managers that you were
01:11:04 any of your managers that you were acquiring a license with a false address for the purposes of evading justice? I don't know. I can't imagine why I would have written that. Bear in mind,
01:11:18 would have written that. Bear in mind, they would just ask the office anyway. Um, but I certainly can't remember telling them and I don't know what the reaction would been, but I can't believe it would be a good one.
01:11:30 it would be a good one. Yes. Is it your evidence today that any of those managing you within the SDS at this time
01:11:32 this time uh would have approved of a scheme dishonestly to
01:11:46 approved of a scheme dishonestly to mislead a court for the sole purposes of preserving your cover driving license? It seemed very unlikely.
01:11:53 Can we therefore take it that the sentence in this document uh is untrue?
01:12:03 Yes. And that you would have known it to be untrue when you wrote it? I would assume so. Yes. [snorts] Why did you write it? I don't know. Because it would never have worked.
01:12:16 Would
01:12:25 you have attempted it had the prosecution continued? I don't know.
01:12:50 You appear, as we understand it, to have later communicated to your managers what the purpose of obtaining the fourth driving license was. Is that right?
01:13:00 Not in this form, you mean? Not in this document. Did you tell them later? I can't remember. when you met DCS Black and DCell on the 19th of March 2002.
01:13:14 I might have said something. I can't remember that.
01:13:18 Can we take that document uh down now?
01:13:33 You had uh multiple bank accounts and credit cards which you hid from management, didn't you? Yes. And your evidence in your witness statement is to the effect that the purpose of having those accounts and
01:13:50 purpose of having those accounts and cards was to give you some freedom to spend without oversight. Yeah.
01:13:57 Yeah. Just want to explore that a little bit. What money were you seeking to spend without oversight? In my money
01:14:03 on what?
01:14:10 Anything really? Anything? I thought I would prefer them not to know. Limited to your cover activities or going beyond that?
01:14:27 going beyond that? Limited to the life of James Draven. So things like unauthorized trips potentially
01:14:33 and gifts
01:14:35 gifts certainly. Anything else? I think anything essentially.
01:14:53 Uh when you were asked to disclose bank statements to show what was being spent, you were
01:15:01 you were you said unable to provide copies of statements to them. Why was that? I don't remember that. Did you withhold statements from your managers when asked for them? Quite likely. Yes.
01:15:16 Quite likely. Yes. Because you would not have liked them to see what you were spending money on. Exactly.
01:15:24 Exactly. But by that stage, the cat was out of the bag. They had the passports. They knew there were problems. Why at that stage did you still wish to conceal from your managers the full extent of your misconduct?
01:15:41 I didn't want them to know. I don't think I knew what they knew. They just knew lots of things. So, I thought the more I hid, the better. In other words, you were being anything but honest and straightforward with them.
01:15:51 them. Absolutely. You were trying to evade Yes.
01:15:55 Yes. as much as you could. Yep. And to make their life difficult.
01:16:12 Picking up the thread of the money again. Could we go to uh file 2 tab B 107?
01:16:28 719702 please.
01:16:45 Uh these this document uh at page 12 please
01:16:53 employment. Uh this again is an internal document part and parcel of the investigation of your conduct by the SDS.
01:17:05 your conduct by the SDS. [snorts] Early on early on his operation MT made the transition from Duff employment with the company through to freelance locations work for he is only
01:17:20 freelance locations work for he is only known to this company as Straven. It has been confirmed that MT was paid £2,857 for the 19989 tax year by a cover employer and £399
01:17:29 and £399 20201
01:17:31 20201 by another cover employer. There is an established procedure in the MPS that any money must be paid to an
01:17:42 MPS that any money must be paid to an individual acting under an assumed name in an undercover role must be returned to central funds. First of all, were you aware
01:17:55 First of all, were you aware of any rule as to what you should do with money earned in your cover identity?
01:17:56 identity? No.
01:18:04 when you received £2,857 in the 1998 1999 tax year from your cover employment in the film industry. What did you do with it?
01:18:16 What did you do with it? I presume I just paid it into my James Straven account and then spent it as you wished as James Straven.
01:18:21 Straven. Yep.
01:18:26 Yep. And were your then managers aware that you were earning money in your cover identity and spending it in your cover identity?
01:18:32 identity? I believe so. And then for the sum of £399 in 2020,
01:18:48 um would your answer are your answers the same to those questions or do they differ?
01:18:50 differ? No, they're the same. Did you earn any other money whatsoever in your cover employment whilst you were James Straven?
01:19:02 James Straven? No.
01:19:05 No. Are you sure about that? Yes.
01:19:17 Can we take that down now, please, and go in volume two to tab B48? So that's MPF309486.
01:19:26 Uh this is a um
01:19:40 withdrawal strategy document which we understand it's dated at the end 2nd of June [snorts] 2000 and it's uh signed by or got the name the initials of null war at the bottom.
01:19:54 [snorts] Can we have a look please uh on page one
01:20:14 first of all uh at the in section one the bottom half of section one from the paragraph that starts as his career in the film industry progressed.
01:20:23 As his career in the film industry progressed, he was able to move from a motorbike to a Range Rover, a vehicle much appreciated by the Sabs. He also began to spend more time in the Sussex area and eventually came into the orbit
01:20:35 area and eventually came into the orbit of leading ALF activists L1 and L2. They along with privacy Tony Vanelli also
01:20:47 along with privacy Tony Vanelli also became close friends and visit him at his work and met some of the loveies with whom MT was filming. Is it right [snorts]
01:20:53 [snorts] uh that activists including Tony Vanelli visited you at your cover employment?
01:21:00 Some activists certainly did because they worked as extras. [snorts] Uh and is it right that they met people who you would describe as loveies with whom you were filming?
01:21:15 whom you were filming? I presume so. And how did they come to secure that work as as extras?
01:21:26 to secure that work as as extras? I would have organized it or arranged it rather.
01:21:31 Goes on to say about a year ago MT moved away from and began to work for a company. It is run by two people. MT is currently working on a large project
01:21:42 currently working on a large project which is due for completion in March 2001.
01:21:43 2001. [snorts]
01:21:49 [snorts] He's only known to redacted as James Straven and is to all intents and purposes a real employee.
01:22:00 purposes a real employee. He has now been promoted to locations unit manager and is presumably on a commensurate salary.
01:22:10 salary. [snorts] So by this stage you have moved within the film industry. Have I understood that correctly? That's certainly what this says. Is that correct? Um, certainly a company that was two people, it was the same person all the
01:22:23 people, it was the same person all the way through. The company name changed. So this phrase, he is only known to the redacted name as James Straven.
01:22:40 Is that true or not? Yes, that' be true. and is to all intents and purposes a real employee. Is that true?
01:22:54 real employee. Is that true? If this is the second period of work I did, um, which from 2001, as I assume, the one towards the end of my deployment, then everyone else on a set would have thought I was a real employee. Yes.
01:23:13 What I'm driving at is were you in fact in the later parts of your deployment a real employee? No.
01:23:18 No. Were you being paid? No.
01:23:19 No. Anything at all? No. I mean, there's that £399. I don't know what it was for particularly, but if I was a locations person, I would have needed to spend money to do various things.
01:23:45 uh your post-operational debrief uh you say that activists thought that you were quote lost in lovey land. Okay.
01:23:50 Okay. Um is that what your activist colleagues would have thought? I certainly used it for a lot of anecdotes.
01:24:04 anecdotes uh about people who were famous in the film industry. Correct.
01:24:10 Correct. The sort of people who appeared on the same credits as you did. Exactly.
01:24:21 Could we now look at B49 please? uh MPSO749475.
01:24:38 This is with uh withdrawal strategy document dated the 11th of July 2000 authored by HN58.
01:24:45 Uh could we have a look at the section under work please?
01:24:55 He's currently working on a project which will culminate in March 2000, but until then he only does about one to two days per week. The real work comes during actual production. He [snorts]
01:25:15 during actual production. He [snorts] hopes as he has done in the past to get work for some of the of his wearies as an added authenticity to his own employment. So the project that was going to culminate in March 2000,
01:25:26 2000, were you working one to two days per week towards that? Through most of my deployment, I was probably visiting the office one to two days a week, not working.
01:25:41 days a week, not working. And when the actual production began, what was the consequence of the real work coming during actual production so far as how you spent your time was concerned?
01:25:54 concerned? I certainly spent two weeks on a set
01:25:58 on a set essentially in exchange for being in the credit. Um,
01:26:09 I may well have run errands around that as well, but that was the that was the lump of it. Will you paid for that? No.
01:26:22 No. He hopes, as he has done in the past, to get work for some of his wearies as added authenticity to his own employment. Did you do so? I can't remember. He will speak to somebody ray the feasibility of work in the USA but he does not envisage any need to reveal
01:26:37 does not envisage any need to reveal anything to and redacted name locations manages a two penny and it is unlikely that redacted will come looking for MT and if he does then redacted can be the cutff point is that referring to real
01:26:50 cutff point is that referring to real work in the USA or cover work in the USA no that's cover work that was set up on that um
01:27:00 that um the trip referred to earlier.
01:27:10 The work that you we can take that down now. The work that you did do in the film industry and the time you spent showing up at the office etc. Uh would
01:27:22 showing up at the office etc. Uh would you accept that was rather interesting and congenial work? It was interesting certainly. [snorts]
01:27:34 [snorts] And there was some travel involved in the film industry, wasn't there? Yes, I was a locations assistant manager, whatever. And so to some extent, you were involved in a glamorous world doing an interesting job.
01:27:49 interesting job. I suppose yes, but it was not a glamorous job.
01:27:56 Is it right that you watched at least one uh program which had your name in the credits at the end uh with some of those you were mixing with undercover?
01:28:07 undercover? I read that and I can't dispute it.
01:28:18 And was it glamorous mixing uh with household names like Peter O Tul and Joanna Lumley? It was very good for anecdotes certainly. Yeah.
01:28:35 certainly. Yeah. And have you fully disclosed to this inquiry the full extent of your work and earnings in the film industry? Yes.
01:28:42 Yes. Can we move now to the subject of Kevin Crossland? And can we start with Kevin's birth certificate? It's in file 2 at tab B94. Sir, MPS-0526
01:28:55 6867.
01:29:08 We could go to the next page, please. Sorry, to page 14.
01:29:23 I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory. Uh this is Kevin's birth certificate, isn't it? Yes.
01:29:24 Yes. And it is a a copy uh which is dated the 9th of July 1991. Yes.
01:29:37 Yes. Did you obtain this copy? I presume so. Yes. Can you help us with the reference on the bottom? SB309476.
01:29:52 No. [snorts] Is that a police reference number, a special branch reference number, or is it a reference number from the registry? I don't know.
01:30:08 Can you help us with why you obtained a copy of Kevin's birth certificate on the 9th of July, 1991? No, I don't know.
01:30:29 Your witness statement suggests it was in the course of your then special branch employment some years preds. Is that true? Yes.
01:30:51 So why is it that you now can only say that you don't know why you obtained this birth certificate? Partly because it was in 1991, partly because I was very junior then. I got given actions. I got given inquiries and I went to do them.
01:31:12 I went to do them. Did you obtain this birth certificate in the course of your service as a police officer?
01:31:12 officer? Yes.
01:31:26 And were you sent to the registry to conduct inquiries for special branch regularly? Yes. And did that involve essentially the question, we suspect X is a false identity
01:31:41 identity based on that of a deceased person. Will you go to the registry and check? Could be based on anything. So it was done with legitimate people. When you're doing a comprehensive report, for
01:31:52 doing a comprehensive report, for example, um there are a number of reasons. actions that emerged out of larger operations that were running.
01:32:04 larger operations that were running. Can we take it there would be no police purpose to research the real Kevin who died age five in a plane crash? No, not whatsoever.
01:32:20 Can you recall whether or not you were researching whether Kevin Crossland's identity had been used by somebody else? No, I can't recall.
01:32:35 How then did you come across Kevin Crosslin's birth certificate? I don't know.
01:32:54 What did you do with the birth certificate after you had obtained it? Took it back to the yard.
01:33:00 How did you still come to have it when you joined the SDS some years later? I don't know. Hadn't done anything with it.
01:33:14 Curious thing to keep, isn't it? Yes.
01:33:22 Did you keep it thinking it might be an identity you might have cause to adopt at some point? I don't think so at that stage. No.
01:33:37 Can you offer the inquiry any explanation for retaining the birth certificate of a fiveyear-old boy who died in a plane crash? No.
01:34:04 Can we take that down uh please? And can we have a look at UCPI 50 38
01:34:05 38 350-1.
01:34:18 We go to the substantive exhibit, please.
01:34:20 please. This is Kevin's death certificate.
01:34:27 Uh,
01:34:31 when did you obtain this?
01:34:39 I don't know.
01:34:45 Would it have been in 1991 when you obtained the birth certificate? I don't recall having this.
01:35:00 Well, your witness statement says that you knew that he had died abroad. Yes.
01:35:01 Yes. How did you know that? Cuz in St. Katherine's House, there's books with basic information in
01:35:16 books with basic information in that would have covered that. With or without the death certificate. Without the death certificate, you don't have to apply for that.
01:35:25 Can you recall whether or not you ever did apply for the death certificate? I have no recollection of ever doing that. No.
01:35:35 What is your recollection of when you first saw the death certificate?
01:35:45 I have a feeling this is the first time I'm seeing the death certificate. Uh the death certificate
01:35:56 Uh the death certificate uh makes clear in column two the date that Kevin died and
01:35:57 and the place
01:36:02 the place the airport Ljubliano. Mhm.
01:36:08 Mhm. Uh it also makes plain that the cause of death column 7 was
01:36:19 death column 7 was multiple injuries. Column 8 um refers to Britannia Airways.
01:36:28 Did you know in 1991 that Kevin had died in an airplane disaster?
01:36:38 I can't remember what's in the main register. I think it's the country and I think that's about it, but I can't really remember what's it's much more basic than that.
01:36:49 basic than that. [snorts] Well, how did you link the birth certificate to any information about the death? I presume that was the inquiry I was doing.
01:37:02 doing. Well, if that was the inquiry you were doing,
01:37:05 doing, presumably one of the registers you would look at is the deaths in aircraft registered in the United Kingdom. could be
01:37:16 could be because if you were very good at misusing deceased
01:37:32 very good at misusing deceased children's identity, this is exactly the sort of registry you might use because it's away from the ordinary register, isn't it?
01:37:33 isn't it? Yes.
01:37:35 Yes. Did you in fact keep Kevin's birth certificate because you knew it was associated with a death certificate that was harder to find?
01:37:47 was harder to find? I don't remember why I kept it.
01:38:01 Can you recall who instructed you to go to the general registry office to conduct investigations into people's records?
01:38:11 records? No, it would have been whatever managers I had then.
01:38:23 You joined the SDS and you learned when you joined the SDS that the practice uh was to make a fictional use a fictional identity, wasn't it? Yes. When I joined properly. Yeah.
01:38:38 Was there any purpose in you keeping Kevin's
01:38:40 Kevin's birth certificate any longer after that? No. I mean, I don't think there was a purpose until then. Did you address your mind to
01:38:54 Did you address your mind to continued retention of the birth certificate? I don't think so. No.
01:39:10 Did you ever receive any instruction from anyone within the Metropolitan Police Special Branch as to how to create an identity using a deceased child's identity? I think it was discussed the first time I was approached. Yeah.
01:39:30 This is when you were being sounded out to see whether you would like to put yourself forward for the SDS. Yeah. There was sort of two occasions when that happened. This was the first one I think. So
01:39:41 So at what level of granularity in this preliminary conversation to invite attention
01:39:55 to invite attention was the practice explained to you? Fairly limited I think.
01:40:10 Did you speak to John Dyn at any point at any time about using an additional cover identity? No, I've not spoken to John D. Did you speak and no names uh please to any
01:40:20 any undercover SDS officer whether a contemporary or a predecessor about using additional cover identities?
01:40:38 Not sure I've got the question quite right. So do you mean at this stage? No at any time. Okay. No, I think not. I've had that discussion when I was first approached
01:40:50 discussion when I was first approached about how it was done which was then and I don't think I had another discussion after that one. So would now be an appropriate time to take the mid-after afternoon break? Certainly. Um need at least 10 minutes. Can you do 10 or 15?
01:41:01 Can you do 10 or 15? 10's fine. Right. 10 minutes.
01:54:13 Thank you sir. Uh just uh one more question about um
01:54:23 the teaching on the tactic. Um, you said that something had been mentioned at a high level when you were first approached about the SDS.
01:54:35 approached about the SDS. At mentioning no names, yes, no to this question. Can you remember who it was who made that approach to you and told you about the practice of using deceased children's identities? Yes.
01:54:45 Yes. Could you write that down, please?
01:55:06 Thank you. Thank you. That's not a name we can
01:55:25 That's not a name we can use uh so I will leave it at at written evidence.
01:55:37 evidence. Can I move now to the question of the electoral role? Can we have MPS 0722 300? Uh please tab B99.
01:55:49 Can we go to page 23? This is an Experian search that your managers had conducted when they were investigating your conduct.
01:56:04 your conduct. And this is um electoral role information. Uh and it shows that at flat 225 South A Road, London SW9, two people were
01:56:18 Road, London SW9, two people were registered. James Straven and Kevin Crossland
01:56:25 Crossland spelled with two O's and one S. This was your cover address, wasn't it? Yes.
01:56:32 Yes. And uh did you uh register as an elector at Kevin Crossland? Yes.
01:56:38 Yes. And is the spelling there a spelling error?
01:56:39 error? Yes.
01:56:50 And why did you register Kevin as an elector in 2000?
01:56:56 in 2000? I think in 2000 it was primarily to do bail checks.
01:57:05 Sorry. Bail checks. So yes, if I was arrested, give that name. Was it in any way linked to early discussion about your withdrawal? I can't remember that. Might it have been?
01:57:16 Might it have been? Yes, it might have been.
01:57:26 You did not seek authority to do this, did you?
01:57:26 did you? No.
01:57:35 No. And uh would you accept that registering [snorts] a dead person as on the electoral role is wrong? Certainly. And illegal? Yes. [cough]
01:57:48 If you had raised this with your managers,
01:57:54 managers, that might have been one of their concerns, mightn't it? Certainly. And by this stage, the SDS had long since
01:58:07 the SDS had long since itself abandoned the practice of using deceased children's identities. Yes.
01:58:14 Yes. So you would have no reasonable expectation of being permitted to do this?
01:58:14 this? No.
01:58:33 Who amongst your activist colleagues do you say knew that you had a alternative identity? Kevin Crossland. I don't remember using that name specifically with any of them.
01:58:47 specifically with any of them. Did you tell any of them that you did have a second identity? I might well have done. Yes. Did you or didn't you? I can't remember doing it specifically. I might well have done.
01:59:05 I might well have done. And to do so to make that representation to them, you wouldn't actually have needed
01:59:10 needed a specific person, would you? You could just say you had a second identity.
01:59:19 Did you ever use Kevin's name when you were arrested? I've seen reference in the documents [snorts] to two times being temporarily arrested or detained
01:59:32 being temporarily arrested or detained by sorry police. I can't remember that particularly, but I accept it. Well, hang on. Uh, can we go to tab B136,
01:59:40 B136, MPS0722282
01:59:51 show the next page to show the witness what the document is. This is your post-operational debrief document, i.e. the document that you wrote. Can we go to page six?
02:00:05 and sub paragraph 8.
02:00:16 This is uh the relevant paragraph and about halfway down in brackets I was therefore content
02:00:27 down in brackets I was therefore content that although the name had been given to Siri Sussex police on two occasions no record was held at SDS. Yep.
02:00:28 Yep. So you are the source of this identity being given to Siri Sussex police on two occasions. Yep.
02:00:46 Yep. Did you give Kevin's name to police on two occasions? I don't know. I can't imagine why I said I had. If I hadn't, it would making things worse for me. So I assume it came from somewhere else that they already knew.
02:01:02 knew. Can you recall either occasion? No.
02:01:08 No. How did you know that they knew? I don't remember. Was that a supposition on your part? Yes. Yeah. As I said, I still wasn't being honest
02:01:19 As I said, I still wasn't being honest when I wrote this document, but I can't think what I was trying to achieve by saying that if they didn't know it. Were you trying to show that it had some utility in the course of your deployment?
02:01:30 deployment? Perhaps,
02:01:36 but that may or may not in fact have been true. Yeah, I'd accept that.
02:01:49 Did your did you tell your managers about the Kevin Crossland identity at any point before they conducted checks and discovered for themselves? No, I don't think so.
02:02:04 No, I don't think so. And did you withhold it from them because you knew it was wrong to have done what you did? Yes.
02:02:16 Did you teach any activists how to go about researching and using a deceased person's identity? Not that I can remember. No.
02:02:27 Can you give me a yes no answer to this, please? Were you aware of any other SDS UCOs registering the name of a deceased person on the electoral role? No.
02:02:42 Did you give any thought to Kevin's family? No.
02:02:46 No. When you did any of this? No.
02:02:49 No. Did you give any thought to Kevin? No.
02:02:55 Can we take the document down, please, and go to tab B135, MPS-719
02:03:04 722, please.
02:03:08 please. Sorry, just before we move on from that, can I just reiterate what I said yesterday about my apology? I'm aware Risa Crossland came and gave evidence and how hard that must have been. So, I can only apologize and as I said to you, how thoughtless I was.
02:03:28 We are moving now once we've got um 719722
02:03:30 719722 up to a document which is entitled an overview and summary of inquiries. Again the inquiries into your misconduct. Can we go to page six please? This is a
02:03:44 we go to page six please? This is a document that dates from the 5th of July 200.
02:03:56 Use of detective agencies. On the 18th of January 2001, Diaz Thompson used his Straven current account to make a payment of £7243 to financial trace and name deleted in Twickenham.
02:04:12 Twickenham. On the 20th of January 2001, he used his genuine Visa card to make a payment of £1,370
02:04:16 £1,370 to the Cotswwell Group in Chelnham. It's not been possible to identify the Twickenham company, but inquiries show that the Copsell Group is a detective agency.
02:04:28 agency. Can we start with financial trace and another name? Can you help us with why you spent £7243
02:04:46 on an inquiry via financial trace? No, I have no memory of that at all.
02:04:59 And why you would have used your straven account for any such inquiry?
02:05:11 account for any such inquiry? No, no. Can you recall any reason why you ever conducted investigations as James Straven? No.
02:05:26 Did you conduct any inquiries about Kevin Crossland or his relatives? No.
02:05:33 On the 20th of January 2001, the Cotswwell Group transaction, the Cotswwell Group is a detective agency, isn't it?
02:05:47 agency, isn't it? It might be a detective agency as well. That's not the Cotswwell group that that money went to. The Cotswwell Group is a detective agency that was at the material time based in Chelham. It may well be.
02:06:13 Who do you say the transaction was with? I think that was looked into and it turned out to be a building suppliers. Who was it looked into by?
02:06:24 Who was it looked into by? I believe DCS Black or he had it done. Would it be more accurate to say that you told him that? No.
02:06:33 No. I certainly said it's not a detective agency. I've not used a detective agency.
02:06:43 If we go to if we take that down now have B138
02:06:46 have B138 that is 07 32s 89.
02:06:59 And if we show the first page again,
02:07:08 this is a long document about you. If we go to page 10, please.
02:07:17 This is um
02:07:23 I need um the next page. In fact, need a little D.
02:07:26 little D. finance.
02:07:36 Despite the penetrating investigation carried out, there seemed to be innocent explanations for most of the perceived discrepancies in this area. For instance, the Cotwell Company is not a detective agency, but a direct sale garden company. DS Thompson apparently
02:07:48 garden company. DS Thompson apparently bought Flagston from them. Is that what you told DCS Black? I don't think I could remember what it was because it was put to me as a
02:07:59 was because it was put to me as a detective agency. I just knew I hadn't used a detective agency. [snorts] Well, how would DS
02:08:07 DCS Black know that you apparently bought Flagston from them? Because I imagine he worked out what the company was from whatever was on the credit card receipt and then asked me about that.
02:08:30 There's nothing to suggest that any in the paperwork to suggest that any investigation was carried out. On the contrary, we're going to hear evidence that it was a rather short meeting which these matters were put to you. There's a
02:08:45 matters were put to you. There's a briefing note for DCS Black and that the explanate and it therefore appears that this arises from the explanation you gave. Might might that be the correct explanation? I don't think DCS Black would ever have accepted that.
02:08:58 [snorts]
02:09:08 Could we um go to B109 MPS 0745388
02:09:23 said today you didn't know why you'd kept the birth certificate.
02:09:30 It's posited that you might have registered the
02:09:36 name on the electoral role to give yourself a false identity in case of arrest. I want to look at some of the explanations you've given for using Kevin's identity.
02:09:48 Kevin's identity. This is a um note of a meeting. If we uh go to if we go to the end of the document,
02:10:04 see it's DCS Colin Black. And if we go scroll down to see the date, uh 19th of March, 2002, go back to the beginning. Please
02:10:18 record that you had a 9:00 meeting in the S squad office South London in the
02:10:34 the S squad office South London in the presence of DCI Dell and you were spoken to for about 40 to 45 minutes on that occasion. And if we go to uh page to paragraph 4,
02:10:44 he admitted creating a fictitious identity in a yet different name. He had obtained a birth certificate and a provisional driving license in that name, had entered it on the electoral
02:10:55 name, had entered it on the electoral role, and had converted some utilities bills into that name. This he said he had done because he knew at an early stage that his extraction from his area of work would not be properly handled by the office and he therefore felt that he had to take steps to ensure his
02:11:06 had to take steps to ensure his operational safety. He agreed to surrender all paperwork in fictitious
02:11:22 surrender all paperwork in fictitious names. Is that paragraph first of all an accurate record of the meeting? I'm sure it is. Is it the truth? No.
02:11:25 No. What is the truth?
02:11:33 Truth is I wanted that other identity. I wanted to continue the James Straven life.
02:11:37 [snorts]
02:11:50 And so what you were asserting about knowing at an early stage that your exfiltration wouldn't be handled properly is just lies. It might be true as well, but it's not the truth. In response to that,
02:12:08 at what point did you have reservations about exfiltration?
02:12:25 I think I struggled, as I said earlier, with management generally from the point it flipped over to um 53 and 58 essentially the managers.
02:12:42 But how would having a fictitious identity as Kevin Crossland have helped your exfiltration? I can't imagine really. I don't really know what I was going to do with it.
02:12:58 And that does beg the question of why you did it. Yes. And I can't answer it. I cannot rationalize this whole
02:13:09 rationalize this whole Can we take that down now please? Could we have up the document you will find sir at tab B123 MPSO719747
02:13:22 [snorts] last uh this is 4th of April 2002.
02:13:27 2002. It's about a meeting uh at your home wrapping up your deployment. This is after you've had final. Sorry. Can I make a Yes.
02:13:39 Yes. I don't want to make Can I make a point? Not on the microphone. Yes. We We'll need to I'll just write something down. Yes.
02:14:22 Thank you. We We've noted that. Thank you. Could you Sorry. Could be Could it be shown to
02:14:35 And in particular, the question is whether you'd like us you'd like to invite us to stop.
02:14:59 Thank you. um [clears throat] at the bottom of this page
02:15:03 page for the can we have the last five or six lines please?
02:15:12 Uh MD was keen to be able to provide such an explanation for each element. The creation of the Crossland identity however threatened that ambition. Now, this is effectively DCI Dell saying to you, we really would like to be able to
02:15:28 you, we really would like to be able to help you with higher authorities if the gist being if you've got good explanations. But he goes on threatened that ambition. MD told MT that if he persisted in offering the
02:15:39 that if he persisted in offering the view that Crossland was created to ease his covert entry into the USA
02:15:51 his covert entry into the USA following MD's refusal but weeks ago to allow MT to be in the USA under his operational cover identity and unsupervised MD would be compelled to report that MT
02:16:02 MD would be compelled to report that MT was lying given that the construction of the Crossland identity began not early in 2002 but at least two years ago. So if I stop there, keep keep it up on the screen. But stopping there,
02:16:17 the screen. But stopping there, is it right that you had been saying to your managers that you had developed the Crossland identity
02:16:29 identity to allow you to get into the USA unsupervised? Yes, I accept that.
02:16:40 Yes, I accept that. It goes on, MT appeared to fail to appreciate the significance of this and repeated his assertion that Crossland
02:16:50 repeated his assertion that Crossland was created to counter a deficiency in his exit strategy. MD explained again that he was aware that the Crossland identity began to form at least two years ago. MT appeared taken aback by this, sat back in his chair and said nothing.
02:17:03 nothing. Is that an accurate description of what happened at this meeting? I can't remember it particularly, but yeah, failing to appreciate that
02:17:14 yeah, failing to appreciate that significance sounds entirely possible. [snorts]
02:17:21 [snorts] Was that because you had not appreciated the extent to which your activities had been investigated by your managers?
02:17:33 been investigated by your managers? I think it's cuz I was failing to appreciate almost everything. and that essentially one of your lies had been detected
02:17:34 detected amongst others. Yes.
02:17:43 Can we take that document uh down now? Uh why did you apply for a driving license, a provisional driving license in Kevin's name in March of 2002?
02:17:58 I presume just to reinforce that identity.
02:18:08 identity. Uh, and how would a provisional driving license reinforce the identity? It's photo ID.
02:18:18 And that was of course without any authority. Yes.
02:18:22 Yes. And person in question was actually dead.
02:18:23 dead. Yes.
02:18:25 Yes. That's quite wrong. Yes.
02:18:25 Yes. Unlawful. Yes. And you must have known that at the time.
02:18:29 time. Yes.
02:18:41 Did you seek a copy of a cover driving license from the person we are calling HN56?
02:19:08 Sorry, I haven't got a 56. Right. Well, we'll come back to that at a another time then and we'll tell you who HN56
02:19:13 who HN56 really was and I'll move on in the meantime to banking facilities. Uh, you say in your witness statement that you accept attempting to obtain
02:19:27 that you accept attempting to obtain banking facilities in Kevin's identity. Why did you do that? Again, to substantiate it as an identity.
02:19:37 identity. And whose money was going to go into Kevin's accounts if you'd been successful? Mine.
02:19:52 And again, attempting to obtain a bank account in the name of a person who is actually deceased. Quite wrong. Certainly
02:19:52 Certainly unlawful,
02:19:53 unlawful, I presume. So, utility uh bills.
02:20:05 utility uh bills. Can we have a look at it's B tab B93 MPS 0526
02:20:07 0526 867.
02:20:21 And if we could go to pages 23 and 24, please.
02:20:30 Thank you very much. Uh on the right there's a letter 23rd of January 2002. Dear Mr. Crossland, thank you for your inquiry. I am pleased to confirm that you have been the registered customer
02:20:44 you have been the registered customer for the above address since the 28th of January 2001 and that your account number is and it gives an account number and it uh appears to be a a standard letter. Can you [snorts] help us why the
02:20:58 letter. Can you [snorts] help us why the letter is dated 2002, but it says you've been the registered customer since Kevin Crossland's been the registered customer since the 28th of January 2001?
02:21:19 No, I mean I can't remember the letter um except that I'd put him on as the customer.
02:21:23 customer. Can you recall uh whether you did that in 2001 or in 2002? I'm sure their information is correct.
02:21:38 Well, are you sure you did it in 2001 and only received a letter about it in 2002?
02:21:40 2002? I can't remember receiving this letter
02:21:48 or why I would have asked for it. Why did you do it? again to substantiate the cross and identity.
02:21:58 identity. Was this proof of address or more than that?
02:22:02 that? Um, proof of address, I suppose, proof of a financial existence before trying to get a bank account or something like that. I can't really remember. Can we take that down and go to tab B93 MPS-526867?
02:22:18 Oh, sorry. It's the same document just a page 19 of the same same document.
02:22:29 This [snorts] see this is registering a phone line in Kevin's name.
02:22:40 Why did you need a BT account as well as a London electricity account?
02:22:54 I don't know. I can't ever recall having a landline at that address. And presumably both an electricity account and a BT account incur expense. Yes.
02:23:04 Yes. Who's paying for this? It would be me. With what? My money.
02:23:07 My money. Your money from I presume my salary. You presume your salary. Was [clears throat] it from your salary or not?
02:23:15 not? Yes.
02:23:18 Yes. If we go back to page 17,
02:23:25 says council tax. You're registering Kevin for council tax. And uh we see in the top right that at that stage
02:23:37 that stage uh the council tax for the property was £65867
02:23:40 £65867 perom.
02:23:42 perom. So by the time we've got electricity, phone, council tax, financially this is beginning to add up, isn't it? Yes.
02:23:53 Yes. Why was this needed? Again, same answer. It would have been to substantiate the identity.
02:24:04 to substantiate the identity. Above and beyond electricity bills, BT bills,
02:24:04 bills, yeah,
02:24:07 yeah, provisional driving license, birth certificate and so on. Uh page 15, please.
02:24:22 Uh water. Uh this one's undated. Can you help us as to broadly when you uh registered for water? No, I presume it was all happening at about the same time, but I can't
02:24:37 about the same time, but I can't remember it. And why did you set about getting so many of these documents into place early in 2002?
02:24:47 I presume, as I've said, to continue with the James Straven life somehow afterwards. But why so many? Doesn't doesn't make sense.
02:25:00 Was it to keep? Did you have in mind keeping on the address? Don't think so.
02:25:13 Don't think so. Did you have in mind some other address from which you might live as Kevin Crossland? I certainly had an identified one. Sorry, hadn't identified one. Or as James Straven. No, same.
02:25:27 No, same. And what was your motive for wanting to keep the James Straven identity going?
02:25:40 It was a life. It was a life I was living. I liked it. And you liked it because
02:25:51 I like the character. I like the liberation. I like the people. All sorts of reason. It was a life. The job?
02:25:55 The job? No, not particularly. I couldn't see that continuing. The sexual relationships. Certainly.
02:26:04 Uh the fact that you were
02:26:15 something of a prominent character in the world that you were pretending to live in. I don't know. It was all part of the same
02:26:24 same existence. So perhaps adventurous. It was um liberated. In what respect?
02:26:44 In what respect? Completely at odds with the sort of button-down MPS existence. I suppose less disciplined. Much less disciplined. No discipline.
02:26:58 Now, why did you need Kevin Crossland's identity to continue living as James Straven? Because I knew the James Straven name would initially be terminated. They controlled that.
02:27:11 controlled that. Would using Kevin's name prevent any management checks detecting that you were still living in a false identity?
02:27:24 were still living in a false identity? It would have helped and certainly acted as a bridge. Yes. Did you at any time contemplating living a false identity which was reinforced by documents in the name Kevin Crossland for any official
02:27:41 Kevin Crossland for any official purposes whilst you continued to mix with activists as James Straven? Yes.
02:27:49 Why didn't you well should I did you do that?
02:27:49 that? No.
02:27:51 No. Why didn't you do that?
02:27:59 I think I mean a number of reasons. Um, and I was lucky in some respects. I don't think it occurred to me that I
02:28:10 I don't think it occurred to me that I might not do that until I had the second and more significant meeting with DCS Black.
02:28:13 Black. Um,
02:28:16 Um, which frankly was probably the first time I started seriously thinking more objectively. It's the first time I felt more like the branch officer I had been before.
02:28:30 In other words,
02:28:36 would it be right to say that in the early months of 2002, you had every reason to think that your future in the NPS might be very short-lived.
02:28:49 short-lived. Yes, I anticipated that. I think being sacked. Yeah.
02:28:57 And is this contingency planning in case you're sacked? It obviously started a long way before that by the time you're getting the signing starting to spend serious money. Yeah. I mean, yes, it goes back,
02:29:17 Yeah. I mean, yes, it goes back, but you're you're encoura you're signing up to financial liabilities backing up the crossland identity with a lot of paperwork. Mhm. in early 2002. My question to you is, was that because you thought you were going to be sacked and you were planning for your future?
02:29:35 I was certainly planning for a future. I don't know that it would really certainly when some of this was going on, I don't think I'd have got that far.
02:29:46 on, I don't think I'd have got that far. What do you mean? You don't think you'd have actually done it or you weren't thinking it? No, sorry. I don't think I was thinking about being sacked or not being sacked at that point. Presumably, if you've got to the stage where your managers have found out, as
02:30:04 where your managers have found out, as we have been through, that you have been committing multiple criminal offenses. Yeah.
02:30:09 Yeah. Acting frank disobedience of orders. Mhm.
02:30:16 Mhm. Uh you've been obtaining all sorts of documents. You shouldn't have passport, driving licenses. Yep.
02:30:24 Yep. And so forth. Surely you must have wondered what was going to happen to you.
02:30:26 you. I must have done in some way. Um, obviously for a lot of it, I was still in denial. I was still in denial when I had that meeting with MD that you just referred to. And you must have
02:30:37 referred to. And you must have when it's right in my face. And you must have contemplated that being sacked, being disciplined, being sacked were possibilities. I would hope so.
02:30:59 So I come back to seeking an explanation for why in the early months of 2002 you are signing up to significant financial expenditure the name of Kevin Crossland
02:31:10 the name of Kevin Crossland and I can only give you the same answer I've already given.
02:31:18 Why did you have
02:31:26 the with the phone number? Did you actually use the account? I'm not sure what that is. Whether it's a a landline or whether they did mobiles at that time. If it's a landline, I don't think so. No. And if it's a mobile,
02:31:48 And if it's a mobile, then I think there was a mobile in Kevin Crossland's name. And why were you using a mobile in Kevin Crossland's name? Same reason which is
02:31:54 which is to substantiate the identity. And who are you calling? I don't know. Anyone? Calls you wish to hide or just any calls?
02:32:03 calls? I think interchangeable by that point. What do you mean by interchangeable? I don't think I was thinking about it or certainly not sensibly. Can you help us with what became
02:32:17 Can you help us with what became of these accounts? What happened to the London electricity account in Kevin's name?
02:32:20 name? I don't know. I presume the office closed it. Did you close it? Not that I can remember. Did you transfer it to a new address? No.
02:32:35 No. Did you continue to receive bills? No.
02:32:38 No. The BT account, same
02:32:42 same the temp's water account and the same again council council tax exactly the same.
02:32:53 exactly the same. Did you ever use any aspect of Kevin's identity in any way after you withdrew from your deployment at the end of March 2002?
02:33:01 2002? I don't believe so. No. Did anyone else to your knowledge? No.
02:33:14 Can I ask for the document at tab B43 MPS 018359 to be brought up please?
02:33:28 This is the SDS undercover operations code of practice at the front. And if we could go to page 10 please.
02:33:41 This is the code of conduct for undercover special branch officers.
02:33:42 officers. Paragraph three. The officer must not adopt another identity or use logistic support provided other than in direct
02:34:01 support provided other than in direct support of the special branch operation. Uh this is a document that's associated with DCIL's name. So it post dates the middle of 2001 when he came into post. Did you know about this code of conduct?
02:34:16 Did you know about this code of conduct? I don't remember seeing it before. I certainly wouldn't have not thought that.
02:34:22 Were you ever shown this document as far as you can remember? Not that I can remember. Can you remember whether you signed it? I can't.
02:34:33 I think your earlier answer was designed to preempt the question. This was obviously a breach of that code.
02:34:38 code. Oh yes. Yeah. Did you consider whether your use of Kevin's identity was immoral? I didn't consider it then. No.
02:34:52 I didn't consider it then. No. And do you consider it immoral now? Certainly. Have you read or I know you've heard Lisa Crossland's evidence. Have you read their evidence as well? Lisa and M. Y.
02:35:15 M. Y. Thank you. Could we take uh that document down now please? Can we move to another topic which is the quality of your trade craft? Can we start uh in volume three at the document MPSO719722?
02:35:34 This is an overview and summary of inquiries into you. It's dated the 5th of July 2002 [snorts] by HN53. We've looked at other bits of it before. Can we [snorts] have page pages six and seven first please?
02:35:56 Uh this is about your spending patterns. At the bottom of page six under the heading contamination of Thompson Straven Banking Facilities and over to the first half of page [snorts] seven.
02:36:09 I'll give you a moment to read that.
02:36:44 Okay. Do you accept that you were mixing your spending in ways which contaminated your undercover identity? Certainly. And that gives rise to a risk not only to you but to the SDS operation. Yes.
02:36:54 Yes. If we could move now to pages nine and 10.
02:37:04 And this is contaminated calls paragraph 4.2.1
02:37:06 4.2.1 which starts at the bottom of page 9 goes over uh to at the top of the next page with a table.
02:37:19 Yep. Uh
02:37:21 Uh again
02:37:25 again would you accept that the way you were using telephones contaminated your real and cover lives certainly
02:37:37 certainly and that was portrait craft very much so why did you spend in ways which risked your cover I honestly can't remember
02:37:53 I honestly can't remember why did you use your telephones in ways which risked your cover the same applies I can't remember It makes no sense whatsoever. That wouldn't have been necessary. I'm not sure I still cared.
02:38:13 Can we infer from this sloppy trade craft that those you were mixing with did not pose a physical threat to you? No.
02:38:20 No. Why not?
02:38:21 Why not? Because they did. Well, if they did, surely you would have been more careful. I should have been. that you were very sloppy, weren't you? Very much so.
02:38:42 Can we in the same document now uh look at the volume of calls at the bottom of uh page 10? And we see in the analysis of calls uh for a one-year period that you have
02:38:57 uh for a one-year period that you have called Ellie 301 times. That's what been 301 connections. 94 to Wendy, 64 to L3, 53 to L4,
02:39:08 64 to L3, 53 to L4, 48
02:39:16 48 to Sara at a time when postates your sexual relationship. Yep.
02:39:18 Yep. as well as being evidence which made your managers suspicious about your contact with women undercover.
02:39:30 undercover. Uh this gives us some indication, doesn't it, of how you were spending your time. You were concentrating more on Ellie and Wendy than L3 and L4.
02:39:46 on Ellie and Wendy than L3 and L4. There's certainly more calls to them shown on this and was that because the reality was you were far more interested in living the life that you've described as liking
02:40:01 life that you've described as liking than you were in policing animal rights activism.
02:40:05 activism. No, I think that's taking it too far, but I certainly did.
02:40:20 And this is at a time when there is extremely little reporting coming from you.
02:40:23 you. Again, I dispute the level of reporting that's shown.
02:40:30 If we um zoom that out again and if we could have page two of the document,
02:40:40 document, paragraph 2.3.
02:40:46 Thank you.
02:41:03 And this is the analysis of your intelligence reporting between the 1st of January 2000 and the 25th of March 2002. It says that you produced 21 uh intelligence reports, a third relating to the L45 affair that we've
02:41:18 relating to the L45 affair that we've been through. the other 13 providing in your manager's opinion little or no preemptive intelligence and that references to L2, L3 and L1 are only in general terms
02:41:40 only in general terms and uh there is um a paradox there given the claimed close association that your manager felt you had with them. And there are some comparators.
02:41:47 Another officer has provided 222 reports
02:41:58 reports in the same period. And someone in the same field as you, code name Apple source, that's HN60, 170 reports within a year. Do you accept that the volume of your reporting is reported here
02:42:16 is reported here contemp relatively contemporaneously and therefore is likely to be statistically correct?
02:42:19 correct? No, I don't. Why not?
02:42:24 Why not? Number of reasons. Firstly, that level of report quite apart from sort of quality and quantity discussions would never have been possible. It was a busy time. There are a number of campaigns going on um [clears throat]
02:42:37 going on um [clears throat] sort of time of what they call the Blitz Creek type campaigns which needed almost daily reporting. Um, I'd contrast it with this particular
02:42:52 Um, I'd contrast it with this particular manager's opinion now and other managers and indeed the performance report that I cite in my rule nine which is completely different to that but almost exactly the same
02:43:04 to that but almost exactly the same period. There's no way he would have written that on that basis.
02:43:17 Are you accusing the author of lying and falsifying the volume of your activity?
02:43:18 activity? I think he's been very selective. How can he be selective about the number of intelligence you report that you have produced in a specific period?
02:43:31 produced in a specific period? I suppose it depends where he decided to look.
02:43:34 look. Well,
02:43:35 Well, where could he have looked? I don't know. I don't know where they went. Certainly the bits that we've done that miss person number four, for example, a lot of them miss
02:43:49 example, a lot of them miss constabularary stuff and some whole campaigns are missing.
02:44:02 Can I ask for that document to be taken down? Can I explore how much time you were spending at home uh during your deployment? How much time did you spend with your real partner?
02:44:14 real partner? It varied. It varied a lot between um
02:44:22 um sometimes I'd be there most days, sometimes I wouldn't be there for a week or so. Was there a change in that pattern over time? Yes.
02:44:30 Yes. What was the change over time? There were probably several changes over time. Um,
02:44:43 got significantly less at times towards the end the last couple of years.
02:44:45 years. Yes, probably.
02:44:54 I was asking you in the last couple of years, high or low amounts of contact. Sorry. Um, low
02:45:01 Lucy and other friends. Um, in terms of with none.
02:45:12 And were you spending any other time living your real life?
02:45:23 Um, yes. On my own, if that's what you mean. Times with your children? Certainly. Quite a lot of time with your children. Some time with my children.
02:45:40 The Open University. You studied a number of courses, didn't you?
02:45:44 you? A course, number of qualifications from it.
02:45:44 it. I see.
02:45:48 I see. How much time you spending with the Open University?
02:45:56 Enough to pass it. Can you help us with how much time it took you to pass it? I was doing it at the slow rate. So I can't remember how it works in terms of
02:46:07 can't remember how it works in terms of half modules and so on. But if a proper degree is three years, it was six years.
02:46:20 All the while spending a great deal of your time in your undercover identity. Yep.
02:46:27 Can we move now to your exfiltration plan tab B82 sir MPSO71971
02:46:48 this is a proposed chronology a proposed plan to exfiltrate from your [snorts] deployment it's dated the 19th of October 2001. And our understanding is that you
02:46:58 that you produce this. It was your proposal. Is that right? I can't remember exactly how it happened, but yeah, it's mostly mine.
02:47:12 happened, but yeah, it's mostly mine. And you were proposing an exfiltration that would have been pretty protracted and taken course over quite a long period of time. Yep.
02:47:18 Yep. And was that because uh you wanted to do anything you could to prolong your deployment? Yes.
02:47:24 Yes. Can we take that down now and go to tab B 1111 MPSO719587.
02:47:37 This is a file note of the 20th of March, 2002, apparently written by DCI Dell. And it records a private meeting that you had
02:47:48 records a private meeting that you had with him that day before another meeting with Sergeant Greeny. If we could expand the text, please.
02:48:05 give you a moment to remind yourself of the content, but it's the penultimate paragraph in particular I'm going to be concentrating on. Yes, I remember it.
02:48:18 Yes, I remember it. Uh the penultimate paragraph reads, he said that yesterday after his interview with DCS Black and Me, he had spent two hours at Beachy Head and now acknowledged the need to see our consultant psychiatrist. I need to see
02:48:34 consultant psychiatrist. I need to see Mary Piper. We agreed that he would keep the appointment to see air on the 27th of March and that he did not wish to accept my offer of arranging an immediate meeting. It says you apologize for letting him down, for letting down your colleagues.
02:48:48 your colleagues. Did you give DCidell an apology on that occasion?
02:48:50 occasion? I can't remember that occasion.
02:48:59 Did you tell DCI Black that you had spent two hours at Beachy Head? I can't remember doing so. No. Do you have any reason to doubt that you did?
02:49:04 did? No.
02:49:07 No. And uh
02:49:09 And uh did you in fact go to beachy head? I can't remember it. Could we have a
02:49:23 I can't remember it. Could we have a look if we could take that document down now and have a look at tab B129 sir MPS 0719684
02:49:37 there is at page 10 the these are expenses
02:49:39 expenses details.
02:49:41 details. It says for the 19th of March, 2002 that you're on duty at 9:00 outside the Metropolitan Police District at 10:00 to
02:49:55 Metropolitan Police District at 10:00 to go to Sussex. You've refueled at Halsham at 1338 and you've returned to the Metropolitan Police District at 11:30. You've claimed £19.98.
02:50:17 You've claimed £19.98. out 1330 A22 Halcham Beachy head that it says has been penciled in by you. Does that
02:50:18 Does that jog your memory at all? Sorry, what was the date of the meeting with Mike Dell on the previous document? 20th of March.
02:50:33 Okay. So, yeah.
02:50:43 Why did you go to Beachy Head? I don't remember doing it. [snorts]
02:50:44 [snorts] Did you feel at all suicidal?
02:50:50 I must have been distressed. I don't think I was suicidal.
02:51:00 Might a trip to Beach had to have been to go to a nice place where you could get some fresh air and a views to clear your head. Walk along beachy head and think about things. Certainly. Yeah. Not with a view to suicide. I don't think so.
02:51:18 Can we take that down now, please? Can we have B115 MPS0719
02:51:22 MPS0719 829?
02:51:38 This is following up and we're pursuing the theme of going to see Dr. Piper. This is HN53's
02:51:51 This is HN53's uh file note of the 26th of March. And it records that he pressed you on the importance of going to see Dr. Piper. And it says that you said that you did not wish to speak to Mary. That being Dr. Piper said did not want to do so
02:52:06 Dr. Piper said did not want to do so until the investigation was over. You are reminded that Dr. Piper is independent and that anything you say to her is wholly confidential.
02:52:17 confidential. You maintain your position that you're not going to attend the meeting that had been set up for the 27th of March. Is that an accurate
02:52:31 27th of March. Is that an accurate record of the conversation you had with HN53?
02:52:33 HN53? I don't remember that at all or any discussions about seeing Mary Piper at that point. Do you doubt the accuracy of this? I do.
02:52:44 I do. In what respect? I think if that offer had been there, I probably would have taken it, but I might be wishful thinking now. I note
02:52:57 might be wishful thinking now. I note that he don't want to do so till after the investigation was over. That's entirely possible. I would have assumed she was going to report to them anyway.
02:53:08 she was going to report to them anyway. And you were, as we discussed earlier, trying to withhold as much as you could. And I was still trying to withhold stuff at that point anyway. Yeah. So I can't really say one way the other. Were you trying to portray your managers that you were a man in distress
02:53:20 that you were a man in distress and uh trying to encourage them to exonerate you in the investigation? No, I think I was and I think I would
02:53:36 No, I think I was and I think I would have seen Mary Pipe in your scenario. It would obviously been advantageous to speak to that.
02:53:39 Can we have a look at B114
02:53:45 MPS 0719679?
02:54:09 This is about the return of your vehicle at the end of the deployment. It was a black Volvo T70 estate, wasn't it? Yeah.
02:54:13 Yeah. The third of the indents under that heading says the vehicle displayed a current road fund license issued earlier this month and valid for a period of 6 months until the end of August. The cost was £88.
02:54:28 was £88. On the 21st of February 2002, magenta triangle was given $160.