Morning session featuring testimony from James Straven and Kevin Crossland, likely former SDS officers or managers providing evidence about their roles, knowledge of operations, and understanding of policies during their tenure with the unit.
00:23:51 Good morning everybody. Uh today's hearing will be transmitted uh after 10 minutes uh have elapsed uh but by sound only. Uh those with recording devices may use them to transmit what they have heard in these
00:24:06 transmit what they have heard in these proceedings but only uh after 10 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're describing. Uh such devices may not be used for recording or photography. Mr. Bart, thank you [snorts] sir. Uh could we have
00:24:20 thank you [snorts] sir. Uh could we have up please first of all the document from volume 2 tab B118. It's MPS 0719665.
00:24:37 Mr. Mr. Thompson, this is a file note which records um that on the 27th of March 2002, [snorts] Bob
00:24:48 [snorts] Bob Lambert had telephoned HN53 to say that he'd received a telephone call from you asking for a meeting.
00:25:03 Do your witness statement says you recall having such a meeting with Bob Lambert. Uh [snorts] my question to you
00:25:15 Lambert. Uh [snorts] my question to you is first of all why did you ask at this juncture this is just a few days after your withdrawal from your deployment to speak to Mr. Lambert.
00:25:29 Can't remember exactly what I was thinking. I think I thought he might sort of understand the situation. Understand what
00:25:45 me? I suppose what I'd done. Don't know. I can't recall it particularly. I recall meeting it. I just thought he might be an understanding. Yeah, he was my I think they'd said it something like a
00:25:56 they'd said it something like a secondary mentor or something. I can't remember that. But he had been part of
00:26:08 he had been part of why did you think he might understand such behavior of yours that he was aware of?
00:26:13 of? I don't know if he was aware of it before we actually had the meeting. I thought just an understanding manager. Was it anything to do with the
00:26:24 manager. Was it anything to do with the fact that he had been an undercover SDS officer himself? Oh, certainly that would have been a factor. Yes. And was it uh because it was known that he had behaved in certain ways?
00:26:37 he had behaved in certain ways? I don't think that was known at that time. Certainly not by me. Can you help us with your recollection of what passed between you and Mr. Lambert when you did meet?
00:27:06 Not in any detail. Um, I must have explained my situation. I would have thought reasonably fully. Um,
00:27:12 I presume I was seeking advice. When you say explained your situation reasonably
00:27:24 say explained your situation reasonably fully, is it your evidence that you told Detective Inspector Lambert that you were in a sexual relationship with Ellie?
00:27:27 Ellie? I can't remember if I told him that particularly. Is that something you might have told him
00:27:37 him at that stage? I might have done. Yes. Did you tell him that you had had a sexual relationship with Sara? Same applies. And uh did you tell him about the issues we've been through with additional unauthorized documents?
00:27:55 additional unauthorized documents? Again, I can't remember doing it specifically, but I would imagine so. And unauthorized travel? Yes.
00:28:02 Did you say anything to him about the trip to Marseilles? Not that I can recall. No.
00:28:14 What was Detective Inspector Lambert's reaction to what you told him? I just remember him being calming. A calming influence. How did he calm you?
00:28:29 By what he said, how he said it. Just a sort of stop, think type approach. Did he seem in any way fazed by the revelations you made to him?
00:28:44 Not especially. No. But again, I don't know if I was making the revelation or if he was already aware at that point. Shocked in any way? If [clears throat] he was, he didn't show it.
00:28:58 Can we take that document down now, please, and go to B122?
00:29:07 So 0748363.
00:29:23 Uh this is another uh file note recording a telephone conversation between Detective Inspector HN53, Detective Inspector Lambert on the 3rd of April,
00:29:32 of April, 2002.
00:29:41 I will let you uh just scan the text to remind yourself.
00:30:15 [snorts]
00:30:43 Thank you. Uh, were you belligerent with Detective Inspector Lambert? [clears throat] I can't remember that particularly. It's possible.
00:30:54 possible. Would there have been any need for you to be belligerent with a man who was giving you a sympathetic hearing? No. None whatsoever. Was this Lambert's advocacy on your behalf?
00:31:07 behalf? I don't know. This is obviously a conversation between him and HN53. and it's HN53's
00:31:14 writing on that. Um, so I don't really know what passed between them. [snorts] Did you tell Detective Inspector Lambert that you were more pissed off than before?
00:31:25 before? Again, it's possible. Is it likely? I don't know why it would be more than before at that point. Uh, did you tell Detective Inspector
00:31:37 Uh, did you tell Detective Inspector Lambert that if your managers told you you were in the clear, you would speak to them?
00:31:46 to them? That seems unlikely. Can we take it then that this is Lambert's advocacy on your behalf
00:32:04 Lambert's advocacy on your behalf or HN53's interpretation of that? Were you trying to apply any pressure on your managers to clear you? No.
00:32:15 Can we move now to the second paragraph uh which says that you felt that the prospect of coming back was remote. That
00:32:28 prospect of coming back was remote. That appears to be a reference to coming back to work for the MPS, doesn't it? Yes.
00:32:33 Yes. Was it your feeling at the time that your prospect of returning to work for the Met was remote at that time? Certainly. Yeah.
00:32:45 Were you saying that um because you wanted to communicate to your managers that they might lose you as an officer? I'm sure they wouldn't have worried about that.
00:32:56 about that. Were you trying to suggest that uh if you that you would leave the MPS fold? I'm not sure when, but at some point I did offer to resign.
00:33:09 did offer to resign. We'll come to that uh in a moment. [snorts]
00:33:12 You've said in your witness statement that you think if Detective Inspector Lambert was handling your infiltration, it would have been handled very differently.
00:33:25 handled very differently. How do you think Detective Inspector Lambert would have handled your exfiltration?
00:33:36 I think essentially all of this was a discipline matter. So I engaged with it as a discipline matter. I mean it was anyway obviously. I think if Bob Lambert had handled it there would have been another facet to
00:33:49 there would have been another facet to that which would have been slightly more as I said before understanding. When you say another facet can you expand upon what you mean by that?
00:34:02 I think he'd have been more understanding of how I might have got to that point.
00:34:08 And you say what was going on was discipline. I mean, you were certainly in trouble. Your managers were unhappy with you. And they were conducting investigations. Mhm.
00:34:22 Mhm. But you had not been subjected to the Met's formal disciplinary process, had you?
00:34:30 No, I don't think so. I'm not sure. Uh there is a formal disciplinary process and you get notices and things like that don't you in the formal
00:34:42 like that don't you in the formal there certainly was at some point I don't know what was in place at this time.
00:34:44 time. Yeah. And you didn't receive any such formal notice. Not that I can remember though. Can we take that document down please? And can we go to tab B133 MPS0719806
00:34:58 please?
00:35:11 Can we start with the third in the third paragraph from the bottom please and have that expanded?
00:35:20 This is a again a file note from detective inspector HN53. It's about a meeting he's had with HN1 on the 27th of May 2002 to discuss you.
00:35:33 to discuss you. And in this uh paragraph, it starts empty. That's you, of course, also told him that he believed that most of the current
00:35:44 believed that most of the current suspicions about [snorts] his operation stemmed from SDS management disapproval of field officers becoming involved in
00:35:56 of field officers becoming involved in romantic relationships during the course of their operation. Can you help us first of all with how did you come to speak to HN1? I can't I'm afraid no.
00:36:09 I can't I'm afraid no. Were you seeking HN1's assistance? I I can't remember how it came to be whether the office asked him to speak to me or I asked to speak to him.
00:36:25 me or I asked to speak to him. Is it accurate uh that you believed that most of your manager's current suspicions stemmed from management disapproval of romantic relationships? Was true to an extent at that time? Certainly.
00:36:39 Certainly. To what extent? Um,
00:36:42 Um, I remember a sort of change when
00:36:50 HN 58, I think. No, sorry, not HN58.
00:37:00 HN36.
00:37:06 So when he arrived and took over the unit,
00:37:12 unit, he disapproved I think fairly clearly. Um
00:37:15 Um that seemed to change the tenor of the office generally. I thought it was sort of hypocritical and sort of retrospective. And what had been HN58's approach?
00:37:31 And what had been HN58's approach? I don't recall him having one. I was just going on the guidance that was in the field manual and that had been there throughout as far as I was aware. [snorts]
00:37:40 [snorts] So the difference was between nothing and positive disapproval. Is that fair? Yeah, that's that's probably fair.
00:37:50 And what made you think that your managers knew about one or both of the sexual relationships that you had been conducted conducting in your cover identity?
00:38:08 Can't remember at that point. I can't remember what it when exactly I actually admitted it, but I think it was clear even if I wasn't talking to them. How was it clear even if you weren't talking to them
00:38:20 talking to them up from the investigation that HN53 had conducted?
00:38:26 Can you help us one way or the other as to whether this is supposition on your part that they know or whether uh it's more than that based on evidence they had?
00:38:40 had? No, I can't be sure about that. And why
00:38:45 And why did you think that it was mostly about that given the gravity of the other things that they had discovered you had done?
00:38:55 I don't know if I really did. I was just angry about that. Why were you angry about that in particular? I think I was angry generally and that seemed like a I could blame them for
00:39:08 seemed like a I could blame them for that. I said because I thought it was hypocritical. Why hypocritical? For the reasons I just gave, the guidance had always been what it was.
00:39:21 guidance had always been what it was. And yet suddenly it sort of I think it says something there, avoided at all costs. Well, that's not exactly what the guidance said, but on the basis of your own evidence in your witness statement, you've always you've accepted in your witness
00:39:34 you've accepted in your witness statement that what you did went well beyond
00:39:37 beyond beyond the guidance anyway. Any guidance? Yeah. So why
00:39:40 So why what grounds did you have to accuse management of hypocrisy about that? Well, first of all, I don't think I did have any grounds necessarily. As I said before, the relationships were definitely on me. But that's what I was
00:39:53 definitely on me. But that's what I was at the time. I was very angry with them. I wanted it all to be their fault, so it couldn't be mine. Did you tell HN1
00:40:05 Did you tell HN1 about your sexual relationship with Sara at this stage? Not that I can remember, but I can't remember specifically. Might you have done? I might have done. Is it likely that you did?
00:40:24 We weren't that close certainly at that time, so I honestly don't know. Clearly, it's the point of a conversation, but I can't remember it. Did you tell HN1 about the then ongoing relationship with Ellie? That would be the same.
00:40:41 If you had discussed sus management suspicions and management hypocrisy,
00:40:53 suspicions and management hypocrisy, can we infer from that that it is likely that you told HN1 about the sexual relationships? That's sort of the inference I'm making, but I can't actually remember doing it.
00:41:08 Could we take that document down now, please? Could we have B54, please? O, that's MPS0526929.
00:41:17 And if we have the next page, please.
00:41:25 Page three. [snorts]
00:41:29 [snorts] that this is the cancellation of your authority uh pursuant to the regulatory of investigatory powers act 2000. You can see date of the last
00:41:42 2000. You can see date of the last authorization is recorded there as the 2nd of October 2001 and you can see it's about four rows up from the bottom. Reason for cancellation, conclusion
00:41:54 conclusion of operation. [snorts] Uh were you aware uh of this paperwork at the time?
00:42:02 the time? No.
00:42:03 No. Could we go to page four, please?
00:42:11 And if we expand the text. Thank you. Could we go further up? Thank you. Uh it says on the left the
00:42:27 Thank you. Uh it says on the left the left hand column under safeguards unique risk assessment. Were you aware of any risk assessment being conducted in relation to you and your exfiltration?
00:42:43 Not as such. I'm sure there were. Did you participate or contribute to this risk assessment in any way? No.
00:42:54 was there any discussion about maintaining contact with activists? No, I don't think so.
00:43:10 Uh if we uh look towards the bottom, we can see a row just above the signature block. This authorization is canceled with effect from the 8th of July 2002.
00:43:13 2002. And then if we see at the bottom of the first table controll as comments it says magenta triangle has been instructed that [snorts] he is no longer a source. Can we take it from that that DI 53 or
00:43:34 Can we take it from that that DI 53 or one of your other managers made clear to you that with effect from the 8th of July 2002
00:43:36 July 2002 uh you were no longer operational. That certainly was made clear to me. I'd have thought it was earlier than that, but
00:43:48 [snorts] uh and it would be fair to say, wouldn't it, that after that you had no possible authority for contact with either Wendy or Ellie?
00:43:56 or Ellie? Yes.
00:44:01 Yes. Uh or for asking them about any other activist?
00:44:02 activist? No authority. Could we take that down, please? Could we have up now from tab B136 in file 3 sir MPS 072282.
00:44:25 If we go to the next page to show you what that is. This is a document we looked at last week. Your post operational debrief document which you drafted. Could we go to page three please in the second paragraph there?
00:44:44 You can take a moment to familiarize yourself again with that paragraph. Uh but my questions are going to be about the apology that's contained in the second half.
00:44:57 [cough]
00:45:14 Okay. At that stage, [snorts]
00:45:18 [snorts] had you told your actual managers DCIDele
00:45:26 DCIDele and HN53
00:45:33 and HN53 about your sexual deceptions of either Wendy or Ellie? I don't think I told her. Sorry, I meant Sara. Either Sara or Ellie. Yes. Um I don't think I told them
00:45:46 Ellie. Yes. Um I don't think I told them directly. I don't think I was talking to them.
00:45:55 them. So can we take it that the apology here is for the conduct that they had discovered which included that I think they had
00:46:12 they had suspicions as a result of looking at how many telephone calls there had been but they didn't have actual knowledge at that stage. Is that fair? I don't know.
00:46:17 What I want to suggest to you is that even in this document, despite the
00:46:30 even in this document, despite the apology, you're not coming fully clean, are you, about your the scale of your misconduct. This document does not mention either Sara or Ellie. No, I think as I said last week, I'm still not being complete. I can't remember exactly when this was written, but if
00:46:45 but if it's certainly before the interview with DCS Black, so yes, I would accept that. You're apologizing for only what had been discovered and was capable of being proved against you, I presume. So,
00:47:00 I presume. So, why didn't you come fully clean in this document?
00:47:08 Don't know. to see if you could get away with it.
00:47:08 with it. I would presume so in part at least. Could we take that down now? Can we go to B138
00:47:21 to B138 in file 3, sir? That's MPS7 222
00:47:23 222 89.
00:47:30 And when we're in in the file, could we have page 10, please? Now, this is the management record of a meeting that you had with Detective
00:47:42 meeting that you had with Detective Chief Superintendent Black and Detective Superintendent Mccclaclin on the 18th of September
00:47:58 September 2002. And the record starts and in the third paragraph on that page. Do you recall that meeting? I presume it's the Sorry, I missed the first page, but I presume it's the same
00:48:09 first page, but I presume it's the same meeting as with DCS Black because there was another senior officer there, which is then I assume. Yes. This
00:48:19 Yes. This is Black and Detective Superintendent Mccclaclin. Okay.
00:48:23 Okay. Do you recall that meeting? Yes. Before the meeting started, did HN9,
00:48:31 did HN9, whose identity you may need to check, give you a card with the caution on it?
00:48:44 Not that I can recall. No. Do you think you would have recalled it if he had done so? I think so. Yes.
00:48:56 What did you think was going to happen when you went into that meeting? I had no idea. Could we look at the bottom of page 11, please?
00:49:08 says at the bottom, I have explained to DS Thompson that his operation is to stop forth with that his vetting status will be reduced and reviewed and that for now he will work under close
00:49:25 for now he will work under close supervision on a squad. I have told him that he has come very close to central discipline and the criminal investigations and that if it were not for the secret nature of the operation and the need to protect
00:49:44 the operation and the need to protect his colleagues, he would be long gone. Is that an accurate summary of the upshot of the meeting?
00:49:51 Yes. goes on. I have explained to DS Thompson that his operation is to stop forth with that his vetting status will be reduced and reviewed and that for now he will
00:50:05 and reviewed and that for now he will work under close supervision on a squad. I have told him that he has come very close to central discipline. Sorry. Um DS Thompson understands the error of his ways. He continues to give almost
00:50:17 ways. He continues to give almost credible explanations for his motivation and thought processes. But I have left him in no doubt as to how far below the acceptable standards his activities have fallen. Is that accurate? Certainly.
00:50:30 Certainly. In fact, your operation had already stopped because we looked at the cessation of authority back in July 2002.
00:50:38 2002. Yes.
00:50:43 Yes. Why did DCS Black think your operation was still going on?
00:50:48 I don't think he did.
00:50:56 Can you help us uh with the course of events between the start of the meeting and the conclusion that I've just taken you to?
00:51:16 I think I was asked about some of the issues that [snorts] were part of the investigation.
00:51:23 I think my responses were fairly brief and that was all that was sought.
00:51:32 It was essentially a discipline meeting. It was to get to that result. I think
00:51:44 It was to get to that result. I think was there any discussion of the offer to resign uh that you had by that stage made?
00:51:48 made? I mentioned it again I think which is probably why that what's the middle paragraph in that is currently there. And what was the response of uh either
00:52:04 And what was the response of uh either DCS Black or Superintendent Mccclaclin to the question of resignation? Can't remember them engaging with it at all.
00:52:16 Do you mean by that that it appeared that they'd already decided that you weren't going to go? I would presume so. Should you have resigned? Yes.
00:52:34 Can we go back? Well, before I go to that, why didn't you
00:52:42 I don't know.
00:52:55 This was certainly the point where some sort of understanding was starting to happen. Um, but I don't know. Understanding of what? My part in my conduct, I think.
00:53:08 on any significant insight into your conduct, the right answer would definitely have been resignation, wouldn't it? Certainly.
00:53:23 Was the reason that you didn't resign because you wanted to continue serving in the MPS? That must have been where it fell eventually. Yes.
00:53:34 Can we go back to page 11, please? in the penultimate paragraph on page 11.
00:53:44 There is no doubt that the officer has behaved in an appalling manner, endangering both his own operation and the very existence of the SDS. In addition to the issues raised above, it is clear that he has entered into
00:53:58 is clear that he has entered into relationships in the course of his work which are inappropriate. He has agreed to pay back any monies he owes for credit card and banking bills
00:54:10 owes for credit card and banking bills and for the road fund license. These are relatively minor sums. He has also agreed to see Mary Piper, the psychologist. The name no longer appears on the electoral role.
00:54:19 role. Did you in fact pay back those sums? I can't remember that at all. I presume so.
00:54:34 so. the inappropriate relationships. Can you help us with what you told DCS Black about entering into inappropriate relationships in the course of your work?
00:54:45 work? As I recall it, he said, "Did you have a a sexual relationship with those two?" Um, and I said, "Yes."
00:54:58 When you say those two, can we Sorry. Ellie went Ellie and Sarah. Any other women or just those two? No, just those two. And when you said yes, what was the response?
00:55:21 I can't remember. Were you asked for any details?
00:55:30 No, I think it was clear he knew about those relationships. Were you asked whether either of those relationships was still continuing? Not that I can recall. No.
00:55:45 Not that I can recall. No. Were you asked whether you were still in touch with either woman? No. Not that I can recall. Did you volunteer that you were still in touch with Ellie?
00:55:56 touch with Ellie? No.
00:56:00 No. You were still in touch with Ellie at this stage, weren't you? Yes.
00:56:02 Yes. Why didn't you volunteer that? Because I wouldn't have wanted him to know.
00:56:14 Was that because you were intending to continue the contact? I don't know what I was thinking at that point.
00:56:28 Returning to the question of why you didn't resign at this point. Is that because what was your top priority was your own self-interest?
00:56:41 priority was your own self-interest? As I said before, I don't know why I didn't. I'm not sure where my self-interest lay without any regard to morality. I would accept that.
00:57:00 Can we uh take that down please? I want to move now to your post deployment contact with Wendy.
00:57:11 You maintained a friendship with Wendy all the way through until your discovery as an undercover police officer in 2018. didn't you? Yes.
00:57:27 Yes. And that included contact during the period in which she was living in the United Kingdom, I presume. So, yeah. And then contact was maintained after she had immigrated to Australia. Yes.
00:57:44 Yes. And the contact took the form of electronic communications including emails.
00:57:45 emails. Yes. occasional phone calls. I can't remember any phone calls, but I wouldn't dispute it. [snorts]
00:57:56 wouldn't dispute it. [snorts] And meeting up in person from time to time,
00:57:57 time, on an occasion, I think
00:58:12 you exchanged emails before trips to the United Kingdom. In her case, genuine trips, in your case, fictional. Yes.
00:58:14 Yes. and met up on one occasion. Certainly. Are you sure it was only one occasion? Not completely sure. I only remember one.
00:58:23 one. [clears throat] There [snorts] was a possibility, an opportunity to meet up in 2016, wasn't there?
00:58:32 there? I can't remember that particularly. [snorts]
00:58:41 [snorts] Wendy's evidence is that there was, but you made your excuses when she came back to the country in 2016. Why did you do that? I can't remember it particularly, but probably to avoid that meeting. Why would you want to avoid meeting Wendy in 2016?
00:59:01 I presume I would generally have wanted to avoid actually meeting her. Why?
00:59:11 I think to a large extent I only continued that friendship because she was still with Ellie. So it was that that led it.
00:59:21 Was it anything to do with the fact that the undercover police inquiry was running by that stage? I don't think I ever linked the two.
00:59:33 Wendy describes the contact you had with her as entirely social. Is that fair? Yes.
00:59:36 Yes. like [snorts] to turn to one of the emails that's been exhibited by Wendy. Can we go please to UCPI5038209?
01:00:00 Can we go to page 10, please?
01:00:15 This is an email dated the 30th of March,
01:00:16 March, 2014.
01:00:19 2014. Um, if we could just blow up the text, please, so that we can see the body of the email more clearly.
01:00:36 Thank you. I'll give you a moment to orient yourself with um that email, but it's the paragraph that starts I'm currently in Canada that I'm going to dwell on.
01:00:59 Thank you. [snorts] Uh, that paragraph says, "I'm currently in Canada and it has been bloody freezing. So, LA suddenly looking much more attractive again." This is a
01:01:12 much more attractive again." This is a pretense, isn't it? Because you are not in fact based in Los Angeles at the time.
01:01:16 time. I'm certainly not based in Los Angeles. More specifically, I'm in the airport sat opposite the Victoria Secret store watching 2 hours of their rolling advertising screen.
01:01:30 advertising screen. Let me know if you think that sad at all, won't you? Even I might get a little jaded by the time I fly. Could you describe to us what the rolling
01:01:45 you describe to us what the rolling advertising screen of a Victoria Secret store would display? models, I guess. Women in linguery, within the limits of what you can do in a public airport. Yeah.
01:02:00 a public airport. Yeah. And uh when you say even I might get a little jaded by the time I fly, are you trying to convey that even you might tire of looking at images of scantily clad uh women after two hours? I presume that was the joke I was trying to make. Yes.
01:02:15 to make. Yes. And then if we go two paragraphs below, better get back to Victoria now. And that's an illusion, isn't it, to the paragraph two paragraphs above? I presume so. Yeah.
01:02:31 I presume so. Yeah. So it's right, isn't it, that even with Wendy, you were introducing a mild sexual freon?
01:02:42 sexual freon? I suppose so. Were you still trying to keep the door open to the possibility of a sexual relationship with or sexual activity with Wendy? I don't think there ever was a door.
01:02:53 Were you trying to see whether there might be?
01:02:54 might be? No.
01:03:07 No. Could we take that down, please? Uh Wendy's evidence is that you sometimes asked after other activists. Is that right?
01:03:08 right? It's entirely possible. Yeah. What was your purpose in doing so? They'd been people I knew and knew well. So I'd be interested in what they were up to, how they were doing. Why?
01:03:22 Why? Just because they were people I knew and [snorts] had liked. What did you do with that information? Nothing at all. Uh, Wendy's evidence is that you sought L4's
01:03:32 L4's address. Is that right? Not that I can remember. Do you deny it? No.
01:03:41 No. Why would you have asked for L4's address?
01:03:45 address? It must have appeared natural within that conversation. Did you contact L4? No.
01:03:51 No. [snorts]
01:04:05 Uh, in 2017, you asked for the address at which Wendy and Ellie were living, didn't you? I believe so. Yes. Why did you do that?
01:04:16 Why did you do that? As I recall, they'd moved somewhere completely different. It sounded different and exotic. I think at that stage, you could do Google Maps and things. So, I just wanted to see what it looked like.
01:04:28 wanted to see what it looked like. Well, want to have been able to do Google Google Maps for a lot longer than that.
01:04:29 that. Fine. I mean, that's what I was doing.
01:04:40 Fine. I mean, that's what I was doing. Was it anything to do with the fact that you were going through the anonymity process with the inquiry? No.
01:04:44 No. What did you do with the address? Nothing.
01:04:51 If you [snorts] did nothing with it, why did you ask for it at all? For the reasons I just gave you. [snorts]
01:04:58 [snorts] Did you pass the address to the risk assessors? No.
01:05:09 Contact continued until 2018 when you were
01:05:10 were uh publicly exposed to have been an undercover police officer. Would you
01:05:21 undercover police officer. Would you have continued your contact with Wendy if you had not been caught? I don't know. Why would you have ended it? Again, I don't know.
01:05:32 Again, I don't know. You'd been maintaining this communication for 16 years. There appears to be no reason why it would have come to an end had your real identity
01:05:43 identity and your real occupation been exposed. Is that fair? Subject to what Wendy was doing with Ellie, I think, because that was the link.
01:06:03 Wendy feels guilty because of the role she played in facilitating the sexual relationships
01:06:16 facilitating the sexual relationships that you had with both Sara and Ellie. That's entirely understandable, isn't it?
01:06:17 it? It's entirely understandable. Yes. And uh she finds particularly hurtful your involvement when her mother was
01:06:29 your involvement when her mother was dying. That's entirely understandable as well, isn't it? Of course.
01:06:41 Of course. I think you indicated that you followed some of the evidence. Would that include her evidence about the impact of your conduct on her? Yes, I certainly read the statement. She feels violated, degraded, and humiliated.
01:06:59 [snorts] and she is distrustful and abandoned plans to become an RSPCA inspector because so many are ex police. Do you accept that your treatment of Wendy has been extremely harmful to her? I do.
01:07:15 I do. And it was all entirely unnecessary, wasn't it? Yes.
01:07:25 Can we now move to your postdeployment contact with Ellie?
01:07:30 Ellie? You emailed her. Certainly
01:07:38 Certainly you kept in touch with other forms of electronic communication. Yes.
01:07:41 Yes. There were phone calls. I think so. You sent her cards. I can't remember that, but I accept it. Uh when you said you were visiting
01:07:55 Uh when you said you were visiting Europe, uh you would invite her to meet you.
01:07:56 you. Yes, I presume so. You asked her not to tell anyone about those meetings. Again, I can't remember it, but I presume so. Why? [snorts]
01:08:08 Why? [snorts] I can't remember it. Was that to protect your deception, minimize the chance of it being discovered? Yes, I'm sure.
01:08:24 Yes, I'm sure. To her, it felt like you were picking up where you had left off as a couple when you met up. Is that fair? It wasn't my impression, but I accept it.
01:08:31 it. How did it feel to you? Relationship had just moved on to a slightly different phase.
01:08:44 That you were sustaining a relationship with her.
01:08:47 with her. Yes. And it wasn't entirely platonic, was it?
01:08:58 No. In fact, it was intimate, loving, and romantic, wasn't it, when you were together?
01:09:00 together? Yes, I'd accept that. You emailed approximately every couple of months.
01:09:12 of months. Yes. I thought it was less than that and more erratic, but I would accept her record of it. you until she moved to Australia. You met a couple of times a year. Again, I thought it was less than that, but I'd accept that.
01:09:26 but I'd accept that. And then less frequently once she immigrated. Yeah.
01:09:35 [snorts] Perhaps every couple of years or so once she immigrated. Yes. Perhaps her evidence is that um at the time she always enjoyed it when she met up with you.
01:09:47 you. Okay.
01:09:50 Okay. Presumably you did too. Yes.
01:10:00 Yes. That you never spoke about their relationship explicitly or other relationships. Is that fair? Yes.
01:10:03 Yes. And when you parted, you kissed goodbye like a couple. I
01:10:06 I accept that.
01:10:16 [snorts] You will have if you've followed Ellie's evidence
01:10:18 evidence be aware [snorts] uh that it has had a profound impact upon her and one facet
01:10:30 profound impact upon her and one facet of that is concern that you might have come across her from time to time. I want to put some specific instances to you. She says that one night about a year after moving to
01:10:41 one night about a year after moving to Australia, she and Wendy were traveling home on a train and a man just like you was sitting opposite them smirking. Was that you?
01:10:52 Was that you? No.
01:10:54 No. She [snorts] describes uh an occasion when you were together and kissing and two men saw you and either appeared to
01:11:10 two men saw you and either appeared to smirk or laugh at that. Can you recall that?
01:11:11 that? No.
01:11:13 No. Has there ever been an instance when you were involved with seeing Ellie that you came across people you knew? No.
01:11:35 Can we now turn to some of the email traffic? First of all, we've only got a partial record of your electronic uh communications uh over the years and what we do have is voluminous. So I am not going to take you to uh it in
01:11:57 not going to take you to uh it in exhaustive detail but I'm going to pick out some examples. Could we have up please first of all UCPI5038289
01:12:07 [snorts] uh page two please.
01:12:20 uh page two please. Uh this is an early example from the 8th of May 2002. So that's just under two months after you withdrew from your deployment isn't it? Okay. Yeah. Could we have a look at the third paragraph?
01:12:37 I'll let you uh refresh your memory of the whole paragraph. Uh but it's the section in the just about 2/3 of the way down that I'm particularly interested in. And then
01:12:48 particularly interested in. And then from there through to the end of that paragraph. [snorts]
01:13:10 Thank you. Uh you're pretending to be in the United States.
01:13:12 States. Yes.
01:13:13 Yes. You're not? No.
01:13:15 No. uh you say actually unless I get my ass that's colloquial colloquialism for ass in these parts. O and that's just
01:13:31 in these parts. O and that's just reminded me of yours but moving swiftly on a sexualized comment certainly
01:13:38 certainly typical of the communication that you maintained with Ellie over the years. Yes.
01:13:43 Yes. And then uh towards the end uh if we can go down
01:13:55 uh if we can go down actually the last it's the last sentence on page two that I'm looking for. Last sentence in the paragraph below. It'll be fun meeting up when you're old and gray and I'm a ghost to swap war
01:14:07 and gray and I'm a ghost to swap war stories. All to be horribly exaggerated in the interests of a good yarn. Of course that is signaling isn't it uh that you intend to maintain this communication.
01:14:19 this communication. Yes, I presume so in the long term. Yeah.
01:14:27 Yeah. Giving her the impression that you are seeking a lasting relationship with at least some form of sexual dimension.
01:14:39 dimension. I don't think that last necessarily follows, but certainly a long relationship when you take it read together with the sexualized comment we went to a moment ago.
01:14:48 ago. It's fair, isn't it? No, I don't think so. Why not?
01:15:03 Why not? Because the sexualized content is within the context of that relationship. It had been a sexual relationship, but it had been I accept you can read it that way, but I don't think that's as it was intended.
01:15:15 Can we take that page down now, please, and go to 38290.
01:15:38 We're moving forwards a few years. Um, this, if we can go to Thank you. This is an email 1st of October 2007. Could we go to page three please?
01:15:53 Uh the first one is just a dining room in the souk, but it was so bling it was worth one. And this is talking about photographs. And the third photo, just a photo of me having a top night out with the local totty. But the second should make you feel reminiscent for the days
01:16:10 make you feel reminiscent for the days when you work for that fat bloke at the animal hospital in South London somewhere. Now that reference to the fat bloke at the animal hospital was to the man who sexually harassed Ellie, isn't it?
01:16:27 sexually harassed Ellie, isn't it? I presume it must be. Yes. the phrase local totty. Now that's sexist, isn't it? It certainly is. Did SDS UCOs talk about women uh in this way when you served in the unit?
01:16:40 way when you served in the unit? Not that I can remember. No. Are you sure about that? No.
01:16:44 No. Not necessarily [snorts] that specific phrase, but sexist phrase phrases.
01:16:55 phrase, but sexist phrase phrases. I'm sure there would have been some sexist phrases at that period of time. Could we take this down now please? Could we have UCPI 5038281?
01:17:22 Could we have page four, please? We've moved forward now to 2011. 14th of July 2011. this email timed at 2258. Uh,
01:17:24 Uh, by this stage, the revelations about the behaviors of Mark Kennedy had started to come into the public domain, hadn't they?
01:17:36 they? I can't remember exactly, but I would accept that. And were you aware of them when they hit the news?
01:17:41 the news? I'm sure I must have been. Why did you continue to communicate with Ellie
01:17:49 Ellie after
01:17:51 after uh revelations of misconduct by undercover police officers infiltrating activist groups had come into the public domain?
01:18:07 I don't think I ever particularly linked the two. I was communicating with her within a relationship with her. You're continuing to deceive her as to who you really are, aren't you? Yes.
01:18:16 Yes. Using a an identity forged as an undercover police officer. Certainly.
01:18:28 Certainly. Is it really your evidence that you didn't address your mind to that question?
01:18:32 question? I think the same ability to compartmentalize must carried on to some extent. I certainly don't recall any conscious memory thinking that this relates to that.
01:18:45 that. You carried on because you wanted to. Yes,
01:18:51 if we look at the first paragraph. Not really sure where to start with this one. The usual it was great to see you and variations thereon all seem a little benal. It was much better than that.
01:19:03 benal. It was much better than that. Whilst I hadn't forgotten that I missed you, I hadn't fully remembered why. A conscious effort on my part, admittedly, and even seeing you so briefly brought it all back. I had a truly wonderful
01:19:14 it all back. I had a truly wonderful time. I always did in your company. As for the attraction I so obviously still feel for you. Suffice to say, I've never felt as frustrated
01:19:29 felt as frustrated as I did knowing you were in a hotel near Heath Row without a chaperone whilst I was stuck in Scotland and all for the want of a little planning. Or so I told myself. Actually, I had made
01:19:45 I told myself. Actually, I had made promises to myself to behave so I didn't disconcert you. But I was perfectly happy to bend that idea even while on a motorbike. Can you help us with the circumstances
01:19:56 Can you help us with the circumstances in which you came to write that and in particular uh with reference to Ellie?
01:20:08 No, I can't remember writing it particularly. I mean, I don't dispute I did.
01:20:16 It's obviously a response to another email, but I don't remember it particularly. Had you seen Ellie or not, or had it been a near miss?
01:20:28 Must have seen her briefly looking at line four.
01:20:36 It's fair uh to say from that paragraph that you are clearly conveying your continual your continued interest in her romantically and sexually, aren't you? Yes, that's fair. [snorts]
01:20:52 Yes, that's fair. [snorts] And the subject of that email are is that a reference to sexual frustration? I can't remember it, but it could well be.
01:21:02 be. And because the content of the second half of that first paragraph is an expression of sexual frustration, isn't it?
01:21:09 isn't it? I would imagine so. Yeah. Can we go to the top of page five, please?
01:21:22 The first paragraph. What have you been up to since your return to the city? Back at work, I presume. I find it much easier to visualize you as a paramedic than a hairdresser. But that might just be the uniform thing. Damn it. And
01:21:43 be the uniform thing. Damn it. And again, moving swiftly on. That again is another sexual illusion, isn't it? Yep.
01:21:47 Yep. On this occasion to a uniform fetish, I suppose. So yes,
01:21:56 you are clearly staying in touch with Ellie for sexual purposes, aren't you? Again, I think that oversimplifies the relationship a lot, but I'd accept that's part of it.
01:22:09 Can we go to page six, please?
01:22:15 [snorts] This is an email of the 13th of September 2011 at 1559 hours. Can we look at the paragraph which starts glad to hear
01:22:35 glad to hear you're back to the studying even though that won't be taken as a nonmail excuse. In fact, if you're going online properly, I'm expecting many paragraphs and photos, [snorts] anything
01:22:46 paragraphs and photos, [snorts] anything involving lingery, and you will no doubt help with the aforementioned a condition you left me in by being at Heath Row when I was in Scotland. Note how it's
01:22:59 when I was in Scotland. Note how it's all your fault in my head at least. Or it might not, but I'll risk it anyway.
01:23:13 it might not, but I'll risk it anyway. Driving should be working. focus falling apart are in fact with love nonetheless of course James big kiss
01:23:22 again a highly sexualized passage yes
01:23:29 and you are this time seeking sexual photographs from Ellie aren't you I don't know if I am seriously but that's what it says
01:23:45 On the face of the document, you are asking her for expl for photographs of a sexual nature, aren't you? Okay.
01:23:48 Okay. Did she send you any? No.
01:23:50 No. [snorts]
01:23:50 [snorts] Can we go to page seven now, please?
01:24:01 An email of the 23rd of October, 2011 at 11:43.
01:24:11 I'm looking for a passage starting 11 lines up from the bottom with the words mind you. It's just below the privacy box on the left hand side of the page.
01:24:24 Mind you, your own mixture of boxing and yoga seems a little odd to you. I don't recall you have a lot of trouble with being bendy enough. In fact, damn it, I've moved swift swiftly back again. I'll stop now
01:24:41 I'll stop now hopefully. That again is an illusion to past sexual activity, isn't it? I presume so. Yes. And if we go over the page to page eight
01:25:03 and looking towards the end how you're finishing this email for now with all my lover as ever undiluted by the baser desires outlined above. Yours James kiss. P.S. Send photos soonest. Anything in lingery or out of it would
01:25:19 in lingery or out of it would [clears throat] be good. And O and again X.
01:25:21 X. So again, you are seeking sexually explicit photographs from Ellie, aren't you?
01:25:29 you? Yes.
01:25:30 Yes. Becoming persistent. I presume that's just picking up the same reference in the earlier part of the email. [snorts] Did you send
01:25:43 Did you send Well, this is an email of the 23rd of October. We looked at uh one before from the 13th of September. Did she send photographs in response to this?
01:25:57 Can't remember.
01:26:07 Did is it your recollection that you ever receive se sexual photographs from Ellie?
01:26:08 Ellie? No, certainly not sexual ones. No. And that would include a photograph her of her inery or something like that
01:26:23 of her inery or something like that or anything like that. Yes. Nothing. Can we go to page 16? [snorts]
01:26:31 And can we have uh the last five lines of the anti-penultimate paragraph? So that's
01:26:35 that's I also seem to have a promise have promisory notes. Thank you.
01:26:44 I also seem to have promisory notes for photos from this privacy and some laundry ones foolishly promised in your earlier e for recompense for a tardy response as I recall. I seem to be
01:27:06 response as I recall. I seem to be diverted already. The cold showers have done me no good whatsoever by the way. So I'm naturally full of anticipation and eagerness. But you already knew that. So, you're making very clear indeed your continued sexual interest in Ellie, aren't you? I accept that.
01:27:18 I accept that. And seeking again sexualized photographs? I presume so.
01:27:30 I presume so. Pressurizing her for such photographs. I don't think that's true. Why not repeatedly asking M part is picking up a theme from an email. It's I mean that's clearly
01:27:42 email. It's I mean that's clearly foolishly promised in your earlier e so it's response to something. So I don't think so. We go to page 19, please.
01:28:04 This uh refers to drooling. This is an email of the 24th of February, 2013. It does however keep me saneish and provides a point of focus. Otherwise, the drooling I referred to above would be even worse, and I would
01:28:16 above would be even worse, and I would spend far more time thinking about you in entirely inappropriate ways. They're only inappropriate because you seem to pop into my head when I should be concentrating on something else. When
01:28:29 concentrating on something else. When I'm on my own with a glass of wine, I believe they're completely appropriate. You may have a different view and I'm always keen to hear your opinions on everything but I wouldn't promise to
01:28:41 everything but I wouldn't promise to stop really ambling and drooling now must stop before it's all too much. So for now with love as always yours I James kiss
01:28:54 James kiss [snorts] further highly sexualized content.
01:29:10 highly sexualized content. Yes. making clear to Ellie that you have feelings of love towards her and
01:29:12 and sexual thoughts. I presume so. Yes. Not much room for presumption here, is there?
01:29:19 there? I'll accept it. Can we go to page 20?
01:29:32 9th of June 2013. Could we look at the um penultimate paragraph? As you're over for a month, I'm sure we can sort something. Just let me know when you're going to be in Wales, although that's not that far away
01:29:44 although that's not that far away either. Or if you're disappearing into Europe with family, etc. for any length of time, so I know when to be which side of the pond. On the grounds that I'll be seeing you
01:29:58 On the grounds that I'll be seeing you soon, I'm not going to put lots of news in this email. Oh, all right. I admit it. There isn't lots or indeed any news. I'm still in Excel and meetings world. However, there should be news by the time you get to Blighty as I'm off on
01:30:10 time you get to Blighty as I'm off on the bike for 3 weeks in a matter of a
01:30:20 the bike for 3 weeks in a matter of a few days. Yay. So, you can pretend that this is more representative of life by the time we meet again. So ping back whatever dates you know linked to a lingery or bikini based photograph to ensure my attention. So once again
01:30:36 So once again another instance in a persistent course of request for sexual photographs. It is I presume it's pretty much a running joke by then.
01:30:52 You say running joke, but you are asking for sexual photographs, aren't you? Yes, I accept that. And you would have been very happy to receive them, wouldn't you? No doubt.
01:30:59 Can we uh go to page 21,
01:31:14 26 of June 2014. Uh, I'm looking for the seventh and eighth lines down, please. In fact, the whole sentence. Generally speaking,
01:31:22 speaking, periods of reflection. Generally speaking, periods of reflection that are prompted by you are of an altogether less introspective sort, usually ending up back in the
01:31:38 sort, usually ending up back in the realms of the bare naked ass. and quote, "If I could just reach out and grab." Well, you get the idea. Definitely not introspective. More sorted if I'm
01:31:50 introspective. More sorted if I'm honest. This continues the theme, doesn't it, of you expressing sexualized thoughts about Ellie? Yes.
01:32:07 Yes. With a view to increasing the chances of sexual activity when you meet her. I don't know if that's true. What was the point of it otherwise? Don't think there was a point.
01:32:21 It's extremely clear what your intentions are, isn't it?
01:32:30 I don't know that they were intentions, but it's completely clear. [snorts]
01:32:32 [snorts] A and you are not just setting yourself up for sexual activity.
01:32:45 activity. You are stringing Ellie along because you are not who you say you are. That last half is definitely true. And you are leading her to believe that there is a man called James Straven
01:32:58 there is a man called James Straven who loves her and lusts after her. Yes.
01:33:09 Page 22. This is the same email. Second paragraph. The first three and a half lines.
01:33:22 On a more positive note, it is good that you think I'm weird enough to be hanging around the office naked, assuming no punctuational errors. I often think of you hanging around my various offices
01:33:33 you hanging around my various offices naked, so I shouldn't be surprised. You see how easily these distractions can happen. It's [snorts] more of the same sexualized content, isn't it?
01:33:46 same sexualized content, isn't it? It certainly is. I don't know what it's a reply to. Page 23.
01:33:55 Again, the uh anti- penultimate uh paragraph, the one that refers to mischief. Now, I'd better go and do some one below, please. Thank you. Now, I'd better go and do some serious studying
01:34:07 better go and do some serious studying and absolutely not get distracted by any thoughts of the mischief I would like to get up to, referred to in almost every
01:34:25 get up to, referred to in almost every paragraph above. Sorry about that. It is your body after all. But it's a sort of mischief I'm feeling most inclined to. Don't think I'm going to even finish this, much less read about analytic narratives. Better things to occupy my mind. And if we can zoom out. P.S. Despite my distraction, this was
01:34:40 P.S. Despite my distraction, this was sent as is always the case with all my love. And
01:34:53 this is making very clear, isn't it, uh by
01:34:59 by 2014 uh that you are seeking sexual activity and offering love.
01:35:13 Again, I don't think I'm seeking sexual activity. I think this is an exchange at the time within the context of that relationship. Really?
01:35:18 Really? Yes.
01:35:28 Yes. Because what happens next in 2015 is you do on one of your meetings have sex, don't you? Yes.
01:35:29 Yes. On or around the 24th of June, 2015. Yeah. I can't remember that I guess. And that was uh the result of you persistently communicating with Ellie
01:35:46 persistently communicating with Ellie over the years in a very sexualized and loving way. I'll have to accept that.
01:35:58 I'll have to accept that. And it was in all the circumstances a grotesque deception, wasn't it? Yes.
01:36:10 Ellie has explained in her evidence that she was never able to get over you and move on.
01:36:21 move on. You were always the one who got away. And other men never measured up, but that was because they were real.
01:36:26 Do you accept
01:36:30 that your course of communication
01:36:40 with Ellie manipulated her emotions? Yes.
01:36:42 Yes. And profoundly affected her ability to conduct an ordinary relationship
01:36:53 relationship in the real world. I accept that
01:37:04 June 2015 was 3 months after this inquiry was established. Did you know that this inquiry was going to happen at that time?
01:37:15 time? I can't remember. As I said before, I didn't link the two. It's a month before the statutory start date.
01:37:24 date. You must have known by that stage that there was con a considerable amount in the public domain about both the SDS and the MPIU.
01:37:36 the MPIU. Yes.
01:37:42 Yes. And growing concerns about the activities of undercover police officers.
01:37:43 officers. Yes.
01:37:45 Yes. And you were fully aware of the fact that you were continuing sexually to deceive Ellie.
01:37:54 Ellie. Yes.
01:37:57 Yes. And you didn't stop. Nope.
01:37:58 Nope. Why not?
01:38:06 Why not? Said I didn't link the two. The relationship was the relationship. The inquiry was the inquiry. And I didn't put the two together. Did you give any thought to stopping contact with Ellie? I don't know.
01:38:22 Why don't you know when it was your thoughts?
01:38:27 [snorts] I think I probably thought about it fairly regularly throughout that period. I obviously didn't.
01:38:38 I obviously didn't. Not related to the inquiry. I mean just generally
01:38:41 generally because you knew it was wrong. Certainly. And yet you persist persisted because you liked it. I presume so. Yes.
01:38:58 I presume so. Yes. Can I take it from that answer that even after June 2015, you were intending to continue the contact? Yes.
01:39:01 Yes. And no doubt would have welcomed any sexual activity. No doubt.
01:39:18 Whilst you were still serving in the MPS and I think you served until was it 2014 you retired? Did any manager ever ask whether you were still in touch with anyone that you'd met during your deployment? No.
01:39:33 [sighs and snorts]
01:39:37 Returning to the question of the impact this has all had on Ellie. What thought did you give to Ellie?
01:39:49 Not enough or not the right sort of thought.
01:39:54 If you had addressed your mind to it, you would have understood that your conduct was capable of doing a great deal of damage to her life, wouldn't you?
01:40:02 you? I would hope so. Yes. Why didn't you give that any thought?
01:40:11 I don't know. Perhaps because I didn't want to know that.
01:40:20 because your conduct has always been directed by your own self-interest regardless of others. I have to accept that
01:40:33 you WhatsAppapped Ellie on the 11th of April 2018 asking to speak to her, didn't you? I can't remember the date, but I presume so. Yes.
01:40:47 so. Yes. And then you spoke to her on the 18th of April
01:40:53 April and in a 35minute telephone conversation conveyed to her that you had been an undercover police officer in the SDS. I certainly did that. Could you help us first of all with why
01:41:07 first of all with why you communicated with her on the 11th of April
01:41:13 April 2018 to tell her that to set up the conversation to tell her that
01:41:22 because she was going to know. I beg your pardon? Because she was going to know. So, it needed to be me that told them because the inquiry was on the cusp of putting out your cover name. Yeah.
01:41:33 Yeah. The game was up very [snorts] much.
01:41:41 You told her that you'd used a fake name.
01:41:45 name. Can't remember exactly what I told her, but that was certainly self-evident. And you told her that she would be told your real name. I presume so. But you didn't tell her your real name.
01:41:56 your real name. Don't know. Why didn't you tell her your real name? I can't remember whether I did or I didn't.
01:42:09 Something she's likely to have remembered, isn't it? Yes.
01:42:23 You've deceived this woman over the course of the best part of two decades. the game is up. You're having to speak to her and you're not even telling her your real name. Was that still because you were trying to protect your own interests?
01:42:35 your own interests? I don't know why it would have been. She was obviously going to know it.
01:42:44 [snorts] You said to her a lot of former UCOs were leaving the UK until the inquiry had blown over or words to that effect. I can't remember saying that.
01:42:56 I can't remember saying that. Is that something you might have said? I don't know why. Was it your understanding that a lot of former UCOs were leaving the UK until the inquiry had blown over? No.
01:43:06 No. Beg your pardon? No.
01:43:11 No. It's a peculiar recollection for Ellie to have. Are you sure? No, I'm not sure.
01:43:25 No, I'm not sure. To your knowledge, at that time, had any former SDS UCO left the country pending uh the inquiry?
01:43:34 I don't know. Certainly not pending the inquiry.
01:43:34 inquiry. Well, until it had blown over and yeah, that would have been realistic anyway.
01:43:43 anyway. So, no, I don't know. Some were certainly outside the UK.
01:43:54 You didn't apologize to Ellie in that conversation on the 18th of April 2018, did you?
01:44:01 I would have hoped to do so. I If she says I didn't, then I'll accept that.
01:44:12 At that stage, did you think you had anything to apologize for? Yes.
01:44:14 Yes. Why didn't you apologize?
01:44:20 I don't remember not. It was pretty much the point of the conversation.
01:44:28 Ellie's evidence is that she had thought that your feelings for her were real. She now thinks that it was all a con. Your identity was most certainly a con, wasn't it?
01:44:39 wasn't it? Yes.
01:44:46 Yes. Were your expressions of love also a con purely to pursue sexual activity? No.
01:45:01 What were you thinking about Ellie other than purely sexual thoughts?
01:45:10 as I hope comes out in the rest of those emails,
01:45:15 emails, I was genuinely very genuinely fond of her throughout. She remained a very close someone I'd been very close to and wanted to remain very close to.
01:45:29 very close to. But not fond enough for you to give any thought to the impact that your conduct was having upon her life. If I gave any thought, it wasn't the right thought.
01:45:46 Because if your contact with her had continued, you would just have continued to do further damage to her, wouldn't you?
01:45:46 you? I'd accept that.
01:45:53 I asked you some questions last week about the offer to meet Ellie that was made on the 4th of September, 2018.
01:46:05 If you had met her again, what would you have said to her? I'd have answered whatever questions she had for me, which would have been a very personal nature.
01:46:25 Ellie's evidence is that she now considers you to be manipulative, deceitful, and probably violent. I think we've already covered manipulative and deceitful.
01:46:37 and deceitful. As to
01:46:46 As to probably violent, you did get involved in some violence in your undercover identity, didn't you? Yes.
01:46:49 Yes. Have you made any attempts at all to locate Ellie? No.
01:46:57 No. Or to follow her at any time? No.
01:47:01 No. Can you assure her that you don't mean her any harm? Of course.
01:47:20 question now about your undercover name, James Straven. You may have seen Ellie's evidence that she suspects that the name James Straven
01:47:35 the name James Straven is connected to Tilda Swinton and her family in that uh her brother is called James Christopher
01:47:50 her brother is called James Christopher Swinton. And there can there are certain parallels between your cover identity and his.
01:48:00 and his. Was your cover identity in any way influenced by anybody from Tilda Swinton's family? No, I was not aware of that family until I read that evidence. Did you base your uh
01:48:15 Did you base your uh identity on in any way on any real person?
01:48:16 person? No.
01:48:20 No. Without naming any names, did any of your colleagues? Not the I'm aware of. I assume they went through the same process I did.
01:48:47 We heard evidence. It's a new topic in the last trunch from an officer HN56. I think we do now have HN56's name available for you.
01:49:03 It's here. [snorts] Did you at some point after your deployment ended ask HN56
01:49:09 ask HN56 for your cover driving license? No.
01:49:14 No. His recollection is that you did. Are you sure you didn't? I don't know who he is or why I would have asked him. Why would he be the person to go to? He had nothing to do with my operation. Certainly.
01:49:30 with my operation. Certainly. I don't want to go into details, but his evidence is he was in a position uh where he might have had access to that document.
01:49:38 document. Okay. Certainly never went near it.
01:49:50 Did you consider trying to obtain documents from your Straven identity to perpetuate your deception of Wendy or Ellie? Certainly not after I left. Sir, is this a convenient time to take the morning break? Certainly.
01:50:02 Certainly. We'll break for 15 minutes.
02:25:21 Could
02:25:40 we have up again please? UCPI. Thank you. We were looking at the last three lines of the paragraph on the screen. moves on to explain that the historic matters dealt with by redacted were dealt with at the time and that this process is not a reinvestigation of
02:25:51 process is not a reinvestigation of those matters and is not discipline. What were the historic matters referred to?
02:26:07 All the issues that we've been talking about in the round, I think. Does this refer to the investigation into your
02:26:18 refer to the investigation into your misconduct conducted by the SDS in 2002? I presume so. [snorts]
02:26:20 [snorts] Was Commander I mean I take it from this that Commander Spindler had some knowledge of that investigation. Can you help us with whether he was fully aware of it?
02:26:33 fully aware of it? I assume he was fully aware of it given his position, but I don't actually know.
02:26:44 his position, but I don't actually know. Was there anything that was said or done in the meeting uh that um confirmed one way or the other the extent of his knowledge? No, I don't think any of it was really touched on at all as he says there.
02:26:56 touched on at all as he says there. Yes. [snorts] It says not seeking to reinvestigate. Were you asked anything about your SDS past or the SDS? I don't think so. No. If we could go uh to the last paragraph that starts PS on that page.
02:27:13 PS explains that he does not wish JT to finish his career thinking he is under a cloud. The purpose of this process is to
02:27:25 cloud. The purpose of this process is to protect the officer in the organization. describes that both BS and the DAC hold JT in high regard and value his commitment and dedication to his role and is hopeful that in a few months time there will be a clearer picture of the SDS review and that we can respond
02:27:41 SDS review and that we can respond positively to media interest. Is that an accurate uh record of what was said? I'm sure it is. And is it fair to describe Commander Spindler as very supportive of you in this meeting?
02:27:57 supportive of you in this meeting? Yes, he wasn't someone I knew at all, but that is the tenor of the meeting. Certainly. Could we go to the top of page five, please?
02:28:13 Could we look at the top paragraph? PS explains that the main thrust of the review is to protect the troops whilst examining SDS management. moves on to say that he wants to instill in JT that he still enjoys a full confidence of the organization, but that is not to say in
02:28:27 organization, but that is not to say in the future as the review unfolds he may be called to question. Can [snorts] you help? First of all, is this accurate? I'm sure it is.
02:28:38 I'm sure it is. Uh, and so, Commander Spindler making a clear distinction there between the troops, the UCOs, and the managers. Is that fair enough? He seems to be doing that. Yes. Was that your impression?
02:28:53 Was that your impression? I think my overall impression from that meeting was the one from the first paragraph. It was how do we protect the MPS?
02:29:03 And the phrase at the end that is not to say in the future as review unfolds he may be called to question. Can you help us whether you were being told that your conduct might come into question or whether you were being told that you
02:29:17 whether you were being told that you might be called to give evidence about the management of the SDS? I don't particularly recall it at all. Um I think it's just leaving the door
02:29:29 Um I think it's just leaving the door open for subsequent investigations of any sort.
02:29:36 any sort. Thank you. Can we take that document uh down now, please? And can we go to um the
02:29:45 um the record of your interview with Operation Hearn? This is MPS-0721959 [snorts]
02:29:55 volume 1 tab A Roman numeral one 1. So [snorts]
02:30:07 [snorts] if we go to page two please. This is um a statement that you made to operation hear.
02:30:09 hear. Give you a moment just to
02:30:16 refresh [snorts] your memory from of the first page. I'm going to be asking you particularly about the third uh paragraph.
02:30:52 Thank you. Um, before I ask you about that paragraph, can you help me as to what you understood the purpose of this interview to be?
02:31:10 As far as I can recall,
02:31:18 it was in response to allegations I think then in the press regarding on who SDS were looking at and why they were doing that.
02:31:29 why they were doing that. So, not an investigation into your personal conduct. No, I don't think so.
02:31:40 No, I don't think so. If we could just expand uh the text of that third paragraph, please. Thank you. I and my colleagues were given a very clear understanding of the role and strategic limits of SDS operations which
02:31:51 strategic limits of SDS operations which framed both our deployments and provided a moral compass as to the potential dichotomy between retaining a sense of self-regard whilst performing in a taskdriven way was clearly understood
02:32:02 taskdriven way was clearly understood and communicated to me by my managers.
02:32:14 and communicated to me by my managers. Um, I would like you to clarify please what you meant by the phrase moral compass.
02:32:21 compass. I think that was in respect to what sort of groups and individuals we were targeted against. And you were seeking to portray to operation hears investigators, the SDS as a unit with a
02:32:35 as a unit with a moral compass. Yes.
02:32:45 Would you stand by that now in relation to your own conduct? No, I don't think I'm referring to my own conduct at all.
02:32:56 own conduct at all. Would you? Well, I'm asking you, would you stand by that? I understand the purpose of the meeting, but you are not suggesting, are you, that your own conduct demonstrated a moral compass? Certainly not.
02:33:10 Certainly not. And in the light of what you now know about the SDS, do you stand by the portrayal of the unit as one with a moral compass?
02:33:25 Yes, I think that's probably still fair. Why?
02:33:28 Why? because I think there was a clear understanding of what it was for,
02:33:38 why we needed intelligence on those groups or individuals
02:33:48 and it related to very clear threats. So it wasn't what they were about, it was how they were about it. Not [snorts] withstanding all the evidence all the evidence of numerous deceitful sexual relationships.
02:34:03 relationships. Say I'm referring to the targeting and the deployments. Can we go on page three, please? Uh to I'm interested in the third and
02:34:17 Uh to I'm interested in the third and fourth paragraphs, but you might give you an opportunity just to see the context before we expand those.
02:34:43 [snorts]
02:34:51 [clears throat]
02:35:24 Thank you. If we could see we just before we expand the third and fourth paragraphs, you can see from the second paragraph, it's clear, isn't it? The real purpose of this interview was to get your reaction to your evidence about the allegations
02:35:38 to your evidence about the allegations made by Peter Francis in relation to the Steven Lawrence campaign and the Lawrence family. Yes.
02:35:41 Yes. If we could have the third and fourth paragraphs expanded, please.
02:35:51 looking at that. Sorry. The Thank you.
02:36:00 You essentially uh give make a witness
02:36:11 essentially uh give make a witness statement uh which is helpful to the SDS in relation to those allegations, don't you?
02:36:12 you? Yes.
02:36:13 Yes. [snorts] and one in which you're continuing to portray the SDS as a unit with a moral compass. Yeah, I suppose that just follows from the paragraphs above
02:36:31 the paragraphs above when you knew uh that so far as your own conduct is concerned, there had been no moral compass and when by that stage
02:36:42 moral compass and when by that stage considerable evidence had come out of great concern relating to the unit. Yes.
02:36:47 Yes. How could you be sure of the truth of the evidence you gave in those circumstances
02:37:00 because I can separate out my own conduct which to carry on that theme had no moral compass at all and what I generally observed in terms of the SDS
02:37:11 generally observed in terms of the SDS and its deployment and obviously that's a fairly specific at no point can I number.
02:37:12 number. That's correct.
02:37:24 And the tenor of your evidence is essentially character evidence for those you served with. No, I think it's negative evidence. I do not recall
02:37:35 not recall what had been alleged. I presume. Sorry, I have to
02:37:38 I have to Yeah, I'm I'm looking at the last sentence. nor do I think credible given my knowledge of the people involved that any of our line managers would ever have considered such a course was acceptable in any unit. Yeah.
02:37:51 Yeah. Can we go now to the next paragraph? My only recollection that does involve the Lawrence campaign was a concern that the hard left had developed a strategy to hijack one or more of the campaign
02:38:07 hijack one or more of the campaign meetings to provoke both a confrontation with the police and increase tension between the rightwing and others. Were you referring there to a specific meeting or meetings?
02:38:23 No, I don't think so. Just a general feeling. I think that's something that came out of those general sort of plenary
02:38:34 of those general sort of plenary meetings that we discussed last week. I've certainly got no particular recollection otherwise. So, can we take it that it was a widely held belief within the SDS that the hard left
02:38:54 had a strategy to hijack the campaign? [clears throat] Yes, I think that's fair. What was that based on? Um, reporting at the time. Did you see any of this reporting?
02:39:08 Did you see any of this reporting? I didn't see it. I think it was broadly discussed in the plenary sessions, not in any detail I wouldn't have thought.
02:39:20 Can you recall any examples of how it was said that the hard left were hijacking the Steven Lawrence campaign?
02:39:35 hijacking the Steven Lawrence campaign? No, I can't remember which groups it was even particularly. Can you recall what was said about how much success hard-left groups were having in hijacking the Lawrence campaign?
02:39:55 No, I have a hazy recollection of some sort of confrontations outside a police station. I can't even say with absolute certainty that related to this.
02:40:08 that related to this. Can you recall anything that was said about the stance being taken by the
02:40:20 about the stance being taken by the Lawrence family in relation to attempts by the hard left to influence their strategy?
02:40:21 strategy? No.
02:40:36 Are you able to assist us with whether these concerns about the high the hard left hijacking the Steven Lawrence campaign were prevalent in the Metropolitan Police special branch? No, I couldn't tell you.
02:40:48 No, I couldn't tell you. Are you able to assist us whether within the SDS
02:40:53 the SDS the concerns about the hardleft hijacking
02:40:59 hijacking family justice campaigns was one that was widespread?
02:41:06 No, I can't I wouldn't be able to tell you what those campaigns were. Was there a concern that the hard left were trying to hijack campaigns?
02:41:19 Certainly to that extent. Yes, I think that's true. Was there a feeling that when there was a
02:41:25 a race discrimination allegation
02:41:43 allegation in play, that was a particularly explosive issue for the MPS. Yes. Yeah, that would be generally true. And can you help us as to why what makes you think that? What what have you seen and heard
02:41:52 and heard that informs your answer? Um both inside and outside the SDS. So, anything
02:42:04 anything that was racially sensitive could easily become a big issue. Um so there were
02:42:16 become a big issue. Um so there were other things that happened and continue to happen um which then flare up into anti- police and anti- athority type depending on who else comes along with them. Um,
02:42:29 them. Um, I think that was generally true of that period
02:42:34 period and bad for the reputation of the MPS almost always.
02:42:44 [snorts] To what extent did the legacy of the Brixton riots, the Tottenham riots uh influence his thinking?
02:42:55 It must have done. And during your time was stop and search and allegations that it was disproportionately used on racist grounds
02:43:02 grounds form part of the atmosphere. Can't remember stop and search particularly. It's one of those things
02:43:14 particularly. It's one of those things that was always on a pendulum of we need more, we need less. Um, it was always something that could spark controversy.
02:43:28 Was there a feeling that black families who were pursuing complaints against the police vulnerable to the influences of the hard left?
02:43:49 I can't remember it being looked at from that point of view before. From what point of view was it looked at?
02:44:04 at? Because as soon as there was a campaign in something completely justified, then there was the opportunity for what we called hijacking to happen.
02:44:10 So can you give some examples, please?
02:44:18 This would be one, I suppose. The Steven Lawrence campaign. Yeah.
02:44:22 Yeah. And would other black justice campaigns also be examples?
02:44:33 also be examples? Yep. Certainly. I can't remember. I mean, certainly police shootings and so on. I can't remember if there were any at this time, but anything like that could easily become um deaths in custody, anything. So not starting with anything particularly political, just any incident
02:44:48 political, just any incident and anything outside of um campaigns with a racial dimension.
02:44:55 [clears throat]
02:44:58 I'd have thought so. Um,
02:45:09 anything that had that sort of core of justifiableness, I suppose, could possibly have been used. I think it had to be it had to have something at its
02:45:20 to be it had to have something at its core to get because you needed a number of people before it was worth pursuing by the hard left as we're calling it. But was there a particular concern where the explosive issue of race was added on
02:45:33 the explosive issue of race was added on top of a feeling that the hard left were exploiting potential campaign? A specific example.
02:45:42 Could we take this document down now please? And can we go to the first of your two um anonymity related witness
02:45:54 your two um anonymity related witness statements to the inquiry? This one sir is at tab A Roman numeral 1 ordinary numeral 2 UCPI50 351
02:46:00 351 999.
02:46:08 This is a statement dated the 16th of October
02:46:10 October 20
02:46:13 20 made by you isn't it? I presume so. Yes. It says at the start I am HN16. Three. Yep.
02:46:24 Three. Yep. Uh and it was in response to three questions from the chairman of the inquiry posed by letter. Can we have a look at um paragraph two please?
02:46:40 look at um paragraph two please? The first question is in relation to the creation of the pseudonym Kevin Crossland. The operation Hearn report says this was created in approximately March 2002. The creation of this pseudonym was wholly the result of my confused state
02:46:56 wholly the result of my confused state of mind and the shift in my own sense of identity from that of HN16 to that of the person created for this deployment that was by then increasingly the only life I had. I had been told
02:47:09 the only life I had. I had been told that my deployment was to end, which to me translated to an effective death sentence for the person I had become. The attempt to create a third identity was a half-formed idea for being able to resurrect it post deployment and return
02:47:28 resurrect it post deployment and return to that identity via a change of name by Deepole or some other equally unlikely route. The plan never matured and the name was never used. No identity to go with the name was ever developed.
02:47:42 developed. Now, we've been through your development of Kevin Crossland's identity as a further pseudonym for you, starting uh with the 1991
02:47:55 with the 1991 obtaining of the birth certificate through to the 2000 entry onto the electoral role. and the flurry of activity in 2002
02:48:09 flurry of activity in 2002 uh to develop uh and register Kevin's name in numerous ways. It's fair to say, isn't it, that paragraph 2 was at best a seriously
02:48:28 paragraph 2 was at best a seriously incomplete account of your dealings with the pseudonym Kevin Crossland and Kevin's identity? Yes. Can we go to uh the next paragraph please?
02:48:43 The second question is in relation to relationships with individuals identified in the letter as 1 2 3 and four. I understand these to be four females identified in the risk assessment page 15 and name Sara Ellie
02:49:03 assessment page 15 and name Sara Ellie and Wendy and Lucy. Sara and Wendy may be dealt with together. As the risk assessor notes, they were in relationships with individuals that were central parts of my network and shared addresses with them. I should have called these numbers to talk to L1 or
02:49:24 called these numbers to talk to L1 or privacy. I did not have an inappropriate relationship with these females. Bareface lies. Absolutely. Ellie is not a name I recognize. I
02:49:35 Ellie is not a name I recognize. I recall another Ellie with a doublebarrel surname. If this is the person referred to, my contact with her was workrelated. I do not have an inappropriate
02:49:50 I do not have an inappropriate relationship with her. Ellie is not a name I recognize. Another bare-faced lie.
02:49:56 lie. Yes. And then an attempt in the following uh sentences to mislead the inquiry.
02:49:57 inquiry. Yes.
02:49:58 Yes. Deliberately. Yes.
02:50:00 Yes. And dishonestly. Very much so.
02:50:11 Why did you lie to a statutory public inquiry?
02:50:24 because by then I was living a near normal life with all the connections and everything else that that implies. I think a couple of days before this I was informed um about the ruling that
02:50:37 I was informed um about the ruling that in the event of a relationship you would lose anonymity. I assumed it would happen at the same pace that this happened. So within a day. Um
02:50:49 day. Um so I wanted to make sure that wasn't the case to obscure
02:50:55 obscure those connections, hide what I could and resecure myself
02:51:07 hide what I could and resecure myself to avoid being exposed as having conducted deceitful sexual relationships. For a little while, yes. To avoid losing your anonymity. Yes. Again, for a little while.
02:51:24 Dishonestly. Seeking to pursue your own self-interest above those of others. Not exclusively, but yes. If [snorts] we could go now to your
02:51:40 If [snorts] we could go now to your second inquiry witness statement which is dated the 17th of April 2018 UCPI5035223
02:51:52 tab A Roman numeral 13 sir uh
02:51:54 uh first paragraph first of all Please,
02:52:05 this statement is intended to correct parts of the account I submitted to the inquiry immediately before the closed hearing on the 17th of October, 2017, held to consider my application for
02:52:16 held to consider my application for anonymity, and as importantly, to allow me to apologize to the inquiry for my comments in particular and my approach in general. Although I will attempt to explain my thinking at the time, I do
02:52:29 explain my thinking at the time, I do not suggest that this in any way excuses my actions. So, you're making an apology. Uh why did you make that apology? Because I knew it was wrong.
02:52:51 Because I knew it was wrong. Was it also to try and give the impression to the inquiry that you were contrite and now coming clean? It was contrite. and coming clean. I hope so. Let's have a look at that. Can we have the fourth uh paragraph, please?
02:53:15 You say, "In fact, I had relationships with three of the women about whom I was asked to comment. The first was Sara, known as nickname to most. I met her sometime in the middle stages of my deployment and we had a brief sexual
02:53:27 deployment and we had a brief sexual relationship over a few weeks. It wasn't a brief sexual relationship over a few weeks, was it? That's how I remembered it at the time. I accept the statement that's come since.
02:53:38 since. The second was Ellie, whom I had known vaguely as a friend of Wendy for some years, but with whom I began a sexual relationship in the latter stages of my deployment. This was more sustained,
02:53:49 deployment. This was more sustained, lasting a number of months. That again understates the duration of the sexual relationship, doesn't it? Duration and nature. Yes.
02:54:10 And you must have known, mustn't you, the reality of how long you had a sexual relationship with both of these women for?
02:54:14 Yes, it's that was my impression. But
02:54:23 And you had had sex with Ellie in 2015? Yes.
02:54:26 Yes. No mention of that here. No.
02:54:35 [snorts] So, you were not coming fully clean, were you?
02:54:36 were you? I'll accept that. You were trying still to minimize the extent of your wrongdoing.
02:54:47 extent of your wrongdoing. No, I think I knew it was all there. [snorts]
02:54:54 [snorts] Can we have a look at the bottom of page two, please? Next.
02:54:58 the last paragraph.
02:55:05 [clears throat] In making this apology, I should also like to explain what to my mind has changed now and why I can no longer justify my earlier position to myself. The moral authority of the letter I
02:55:16 The moral authority of the letter I receive from the inquiry, saying that these women should not find out find this out in the press is clear even to me, and I would not want that to happen to them. Eventually, I know I'll be
02:55:28 to them. Eventually, I know I'll be asked a direct question under oath, and I will have to answer it not only truthfully, but also comprehensively. What you're referring to there is the letter from the inquiry saying that we
02:55:40 letter from the inquiry saying that we were going to publish your cover name, therefore the truth was going to come out, isn't it?
02:55:51 I Yes. I don't know. There's a reality then that you are making this apology only because you have to.
02:55:57 have to. I always knew I'd have to.
02:56:09 Can we now go over the page to page three?
02:56:14 The penultimate paragraph.
02:56:22 I may be able to provide an old email address for Ellie. I am not able to assist the inquiry by providing any information that would help locating the other women in question.
02:56:46 The truth was you were in contact with Ellie. You'd sent her a WhatsApp a few days before uh setting up a telephone conversation that took place the day after this statement, didn't you? Yeah, those are the dates. I accept that.
02:56:59 that. Why did you dishonestly mislead the inquiry about not uh being in contact with Ellie? Give me time to speak to her.
02:57:12 [snorts] Why didn't you say I can help you contact Ellie? Please, would you let me speak to her first? I assume you'd have said no. Again, dishonestly to get your own way. Yes.
02:57:28 And you say you're not able to assist the inquiry by providing any information that would help locating the other women in question. Well, you had Wendy's address because you'd asked for it.
02:57:40 you'd asked for it. Yes. I don't think I was thinking of Wendy.
02:57:50 So, it's fair to say looking at this letter in the round, it was an apology, but it was far from the whole truth, was it?
02:57:55 it? Yeah. I accept that. And in fact, it contained further untruths.
02:57:59 untruths. Yes.
02:58:06 So that was the last of my open questions. I do have a very few questions that to protect various people's privacy need to be put in a
02:58:23 people's privacy need to be put in a private hearing. That will be a private hearing which will need to involve uh Mr. Thompson's representatives, the category H representatives, and I understand so you're minded to permit the commissioner's legal team to attend
02:58:37 the commissioner's legal team to attend that hearing as well. May we now adjourn and hold that hearing immediately after the lunch break?
02:58:49 the lunch break? Certainly. We'll have a shorter lunch break than sorry, we'll have a a normal lunch break in terms of length, but it will start earlier um in um 5 minutes time. Um
02:59:02 time. Um and so we will resume at 22. But that is before uh I ask whether there are any representations about the private hearing that I need to consider beforehand. If anybody has any representations to make, I would invite them to make them now.
02:59:15 now. I take silence to be indicate that there aren't any in which case we will resume at 22 with a private hearing. The hearing room will be cleared for the private hearing and it's the proceedings will not be uh broadcast.