Peter Francis (HN43) provides detailed testimony about his infiltration of Militant Labor, reporting on union activities and justice campaigns, blacklisting connections between Special Branch and Economic League, and his contentious exit from SDS. Key revelations include reporting on Militant Labor's national committee for security services, admissions about Special Branch passing intelligence to blacklisting organizations, and Francis's angry confrontation with management over his refusal to accept any posting other than surveillance.
00:33:17 C138 245264.
00:33:26 Mr. Francis, this is a nominal performer dated the 10th of July 1995 when it comes up on the screen. It's a nominal performer for Matt Rack uh of the London Fire
00:33:43 for Matt Rack uh of the London Fire Brigade. You will see at the top there is an RF number which we have partially redacted. And if we go to the text, please.
00:33:58 Matt Rack, employed by the London Fire Brigade, is the chair of the Northeast
00:34:11 Brigade, is the chair of the Northeast London branch of the Fire Brigade Union. He is also an active member of militant labor. Rack leads an ML front group known as Flame, presumably for ML supporters in the fire service, and he is the editor of the group's newspaper. And then there's some information about
00:34:27 And then there's some information about Mr. Rak's brother, Nick, one of Militant Labour's full-time editors for their paper, Militant. Can you help us with the significance of Mr. Rack's work with the Fire Brigades Union in this reporting?
00:34:38 Union in this reporting? Uh the fact that he was in the fire brigade union. He was al also a member of militant uh means once again uh that that's enough to be of interest the
00:34:49 that's enough to be of interest the special branch. I don't know if later on that a fire was created on him because I see his brother Nick had one. If the event uh he wasn't in the uh fire
00:35:03 event uh he wasn't in the uh fire brigade uh with regards to union matter, the fact that he was a brother of Nicknack Nicknack Nick Rack uh wouldn't wouldn't have been reported. It was the fact that he was in the London Fire
00:35:15 fact that he was in the London Fire Brigade. If we could take that down and have from C159 document number 245594 please.
00:35:36 And this is another nominal performer uh for an individual 10 days later 20th of October 1995. This person is said to be employed as a trolley steward for British Rail. It identifies which line. Uh, militant
00:35:49 identifies which line. Uh, militant labor member. If we could have the text up, please. After a brief interlude as a care worker for the disabled, privacy has now found less arduous employment as a catering
00:36:01 less arduous employment as a catering steward on the British rail privacy line between London and privacy. As a committed militant labor activist, he is privacy joined the RMT as soon as he began working for BR and he is now
00:36:14 began working for BR and he is now agitating within the union to advance the ML view. Uh this appears uh so far as union activity is concerned
00:36:28 as union activity is concerned away team activity is set out below. But on the union activity it appears that there was an enthusiasm for reporting um the change in union arising from the
00:36:40 the change in union arising from the change in job. Is that the sort of thing that you were expected to track? Absolutely. But this particular chap himself um once again the RF's covered up but uh he he would have been a person
00:36:53 up but uh he he would have been a person that he would have had a file in his own right as well as with regards to his employment and he was one of those very spotters that I was talking about earlier.
00:37:07 earlier. If we could take that down now, please. Could we have up B17 30748,
00:37:10 30748, please?
00:37:26 This is 10th of October. It's a note for file uh on the security service liaison file.
00:37:28 file. meeting with SDS officers 10th of October 1995. On the 10th of October,
00:37:40 October 1995. On the 10th of October, DCI Keith Edmonson and DI Lambert of the SDS visited the security service to discuss a number of matters and a militant labor security service officer briefed the SDS officers on the current
00:37:55 briefed the SDS officers on the current level of our study of ML. She agreed to provide a written brief for HN43 concerning ML individuals of interest.
00:38:08 concerning ML individuals of interest. HN43 may be moving away from Y and more towards individuals at ML. CIS officer commented that this would be useful.
00:38:31 don't want you to go into any details about the contents of the brief but can you recall receiving a brief uh which had been produced by the security service?
00:38:31 service? Yes.
00:38:39 Yes. And is it right that by this stage of your deployment you are beginning to pivot away from Y and more towards ML itself
00:38:52 and more towards ML itself or the way I looked at it was carrying on I didn't reduce my coverage of the Y I had additional coverage starting it been quite close before that September 95 when I assumed uh not a new role it was an additional role as well as being
00:39:03 was an additional role as well as being the branch secretary of the YRE for Hack New Zealand, I became the militant labor uh branch secretary. So I didn't necessarily regard it moving away. I regard because I wanted to keep that
00:39:17 regard because I wanted to keep that side of the coverage for public order. But certainly where I was going with regards to militant labor, there was less interest for several individuals I reported on
00:39:31 for several individuals I reported on without going into it for SDS purposes is what there was uh for security service purposes. So I it wasn't instead of it was an additional two.
00:39:47 of it was an additional two. Can we take that down now and have from C167 document number 245771 please?
00:39:55 This when it comes up Mr. Francis is a report uh of the London Militant Labor Conference held on Saturday the 9th of December 1995.
00:40:10 December 1995. If we could go to page three at the top, please.
00:40:18 First of all, can I take it you attended this conference? Absolutely. Source comment. That would be your source comment, would it? It would be mine alone in this one. The conference as a whole was interesting in that it demonstrated a
00:40:33 interesting in that it demonstrated a clear shift. Some would say reversal in ML's strategy for the coming year. Industrial disputes are in. Racism and
00:40:45 Industrial disputes are in. Racism and the Y are out. ML obviously sees the new SLP as having potential to attract disaffected Labor supporters and it wants to be part of it. The controversial immigration and asylum bill currently before Parliament could
00:40:57 bill currently before Parliament could have been exploited to revitalize Yre, but the issue was simply skirted around. Many activists think that y will be put into storage by midsummer.
00:41:14 First of all, did you discuss this change in strategic direction by militant labor with your managers? Yes.
00:41:22 Yes. And what was their reaction?
00:41:31 they're just accepting what reporting I'm doing and um from a public order perspective. Um you know I was not under any thought whatsoever. I had to embellish what the wire was trying to stay out there or
00:41:42 wire was trying to stay out there or something like that. I was being honest in what the report was. Um so whether or not there were concerns that there would be no no job for me because there was no
00:41:55 be no no job for me because there was no wiry wasn't expressed to me. there there wasn't over concern and I think that's why it sticks in my head when you said I moved away uh I felt as though I was
00:42:06 moved away uh I felt as though I was keeping a good tabs on what the wire was doing even if like it suggests there there wasn't as much happening anymore uh and did your managers refine your tasking in any way or
00:42:21 tasking in any way or were you asked just to continue as you had been
00:42:25 had been continue and then Uh see it's fair enough u militant saying that they're going uh towards industrial disputes but what militant was looking for was always new members new monies and I think
00:42:36 new members new monies and I think that's why I then flagged up where it might be going. So there was no feeling that there wouldn't be something that
00:42:49 that there wouldn't be something that militant would attach itself to. So if y finished there would be something else. So I don't think there was a concern
00:42:56 So I don't think there was a concern that I'd just be sitting there reporting on militant. there would be a successor to the Y in some capacity that wasn't clear at that particular stage. Can we take that down now please? Could we have up from tab C170 34434 please?
00:43:22 Could we have the date first 16th of January 19 96 then paragraph two uh expanded please
00:43:34 then paragraph two uh expanded please this it's got bears your nominal at the bottom
00:43:36 bottom on a local level the Hackne and Islington branch will be holding a schools conference on the 3rd of February to promote its work against racism there will also be an ongoing campaign against the privatization of
00:43:48 campaign against the privatization of Hackne Council housing stock. A major target on the ML horizon is the naent socialist labor party SLP being established by Arthur Skargill. There
00:44:02 established by Arthur Skargill. There will be a public meeting at the Hal Ki Center in Stoke Newington tonight to discuss the new party. ML is very keen to get into the SLP from the outset. At present, it is declared policy that ML
00:44:14 present, it is declared policy that ML will not revert to the entist tactics. it employed against the Labor Party and at present ML leaders want to be able to
00:44:34 at present ML leaders want to be able to affiliate the organization to the SLP on mass without relinquishing its own identity.
00:44:41 identity. So two things there. Can we take it that despite the general strategic shift reported at the conference that we looked at a moment ago anti-racist work was still continuing
00:44:58 was still continuing at at a local level? Yes. And uh secondly, by this stage, the
00:45:05 the party militant labor had already plainly abandoned entism. Correct. Clearly a number of years ago. And had that come was the last gasp of that according to your reporting
00:45:21 that according to your reporting uh when the Labour party uh voted to abolish clause 4. Correct. Yes. So by this stage there is no doubt that you are infiltrating
00:45:36 you are infiltrating a political party which is operating entirely openly. Yes. and as reported by me. Yes.
00:45:57 Did that state of affairs cause any review of your infiltration of militant labor?
00:45:59 labor? None whatsoever. And evidently your deployment continued. Absolutely. Can we now move to take that down and move to 34435
00:46:12 down and move to 34435 please? This is tab C175.
00:46:24 Uh now if we stay on that first page for this particular report, this is the consumer comments uh page. And if we look at the gist on the left for this
00:46:37 look at the gist on the left for this report, the security ser on the the left please.
00:46:39 please. Thank you. The security service are grading this information as extremely valuable. If we could go over to page
00:46:52 valuable. If we could go over to page three, please in the beginning of the text.
00:47:02 Uh this shows top right. This is your reporting and if we could have paragraph uh one up please.
00:47:13 Uh this is your report on the militant labor annual conference in Morham between the 20th and the 23rd of January 1996.
00:47:25 of January 1996. And is it right that you personally attended this conference? Yes, I did. And did you get any feedback from management in the light of the security services reaction to it?
00:47:40 security services reaction to it? I never saw that particular form but definitely verbally that yes they were very pleased. This is like saying February 96 they were very pleased with uh this this particular report.
00:47:54 uh this this particular report. Can you give me a yes no answer to this? Did you have any direct contact with the security service about this report? Yes.
00:47:55 Yes. And if we move now to zoom it out, uh we'll see the agenda at paragraph three. I'll give you a moment just to
00:48:08 three. I'll give you a moment just to look at that. But the question will be this was a a purely political conference dealing with ML's political affairs.
00:48:25 dealing with ML's political affairs. Yes. Could we go to page um the bottom of paragraph one on page three
00:48:42 that it maybe turn three I want um paragraph two please
00:48:51 security at the conference was remarkably tight and I'll give you a moment to look at it to see the details about the security um
00:49:14 yes includes saying anything considered sensitive was collected and checked at the end of each session. Do you recall that happening? Not specifically, but my intelligence report I spent a lot of time to make
00:49:28 report I spent a lot of time to make sure it was accurate. So if I said that happened then I I can't specifically remember it. Uh the security was that because anything untoward was happening or was that because a legitimate political
00:49:47 that because a legitimate political party was protect protecting confidence in its internal affairs? specifically what it was with militant they themselves were used to being an
00:49:58 themselves were used to being an entrious party themselves. So basically they they were aware of how you could technically have in the same thing happened to them. So they they were security conscious with a view of
00:50:13 security conscious with a view of interest from uh the equivalent of like the real something like that the small atrocious groups or other people from that area. They didn't want them in their party disrupting the same as what they had been doing in the Labor Party themselves.
00:50:24 themselves. But there is no suggestion of any unlawful or untoward activity.
00:50:35 unlawful or untoward activity. That that's no no I I took it reporting from that side of things. Uh, if we go please to page four of the file, paragraph 4,
00:50:46 under the heading membership and staffing at paragraph 4, please.
00:51:00 In that paragraph, we set out, don't we, membership uh figures with a regional breakdown.
00:51:07 Yes, sorry. With a
00:51:09 With a contrast with the previous year's membership, all confidential information to the party, but of interest to SDS customers. SDS customers. Yes.
00:51:20 SDS customers. Yes. And paragraph six, please.
00:51:36 uh information on the parties then finances.
00:51:43 Yes. Again, confidential information but of interest to SDS customers. You're talking a high level of interest because the party is where where the party is. Like I said, it's extremely important uh for STS customers in a word
00:51:59 important uh for STS customers in a word to know where every organization is with regards to money. And if you come back with figures like that, um it allows it allows the assessment where the party is.
00:52:13 is. And if we go to page five, paragraph nine, please.
00:52:25 Do we see there um mention of the party's effort to fund the standing of candidates in the next then next forthcoming general election?
00:52:47 then next forthcoming general election? Absolutely. And that's just reminded me there. I I I did exactly what they asked to do as a good member of Militant. I did that. And once again, that would have been uh an identifiable expense. The irony is the Metropolitan Police paid that one week's equivalent of income for that very thing.
00:53:14 income for that very thing. And so it's ev self-evident from this paragraph that the militant labor is using as at least one strand of its attempts to achieve its objectives parliamentary democracy. Yes.
00:53:21 Yes. Uh there is there are a series of uh appendices to this report. there's an appendix which has uh those who
00:53:32 which has uh those who uh are attending the conference. But if we go to page 12 please.
00:53:46 Uh we have a list which extends in fact
00:53:57 we have a list which extends in fact over to page 13 as well. members of the militant labor national committee. Was this committee uh elected at the conference? Yes, but sort of a lot of it was ratified positions that they they didn't have a lot of people contending positions, but yes, there were certainly voted for. Amongst if you were to rate
00:54:11 voted for. Amongst if you were to rate the significance of the intelligence you obtained at this conference according to your understanding of customer priorities how high high up the list
00:54:22 priorities how high high up the list would a bang up to-date list of uh the militant labor's national committee be
00:54:33 militant labor's national committee be for the security service is extremely high because that's exactly up to date along with members there's a lot of work on my behalf to get that list the way it was. Special branch uh C squad of
00:54:48 was. Special branch uh C squad of interest limited because um there sort of a more of a watching brief public order wise uh for the public order rem uh absolutely zero.
00:55:03 uh absolutely zero. Could we take that document down now please? Could we have from tab B19 245903
00:55:05 245903 please?
00:55:23 This is a document we understand it's dated the 5th of February 1996. It's entitled SDS uh report writing uh with the following notes for guidance in report writing by back office staff. If
00:55:42 report writing by back office staff. If we look uh under the heading purpose and the first paragraph under that the purpose of SDS reporting is primarily to impart information of use or current value to customers. A secondary purpose
00:55:53 value to customers. A secondary purpose is to place on record matters of little immediate significance such as personal details of activists who may become prominent in the future. Do you
00:56:05 prominent in the future. Do you understand that to be an accurate recitation of the purposes of SDS reporting?
00:56:25 I've never seen this document when I was out, but I think that's that's accurate. Yes. Comes across writing wise as sort
00:56:40 Yes. Comes across writing wise as sort of like a John Web document type thing. Uh and from this that second sentence would we be right to understand that essentially
00:56:51 that essentially SDS UCOs may often report on individuals of little significance simply in case they go on to become significant.
00:57:01 It's a fine margin I'm saying. Unfortunately, it was down to the actual SDS officers themselves. And I was certainly aware some did a numbers game, which meant that inadvertently some poor person might get a file which could affect the rest of their life. But
00:57:12 affect the rest of their life. But unfortunately, that is actually true. But there were definitely some officers, myself, uh Trevor Morris, uh we took a great deal to make sure we didn't write
00:57:24 great deal to make sure we didn't write really. You could get a file very, very quickly if you followed that directions. But yes, it is accurate. Uh, now we understand why you wouldn't have seen this document because you were out in the field by February 1996.
00:57:39 out in the field by February 1996. Not sure who's directed at I can't quite work out who that' be directed to. Unless that's new people coming in the office. It doesn't quite make any sense to me.
00:57:47 to me. Well, it the title notes for guidance in report writing by back office. I can't I can't read it. I haven't got these on. So, unless you zoom it. But my question to you is, even though you didn't see it, does this appear to be
00:57:58 didn't see it, does this appear to be simply committing to writing an existing practice or is it a change of direction? No, this this is um a saying
00:58:10 No, this this is um a saying I don't know. It doesn't read like a Bob Lambert document because it's this normally it's always more flowery and dramatic. So this looks like a quite a steady report but looks like it's a John Webb report. John Webb was a highly very
00:58:29 Webb report. John Webb was a highly very very good uh intelligence report writing officer and I think he's giving advice um for the back office staff. I don't know if you have who wrote the document but
00:58:40 document but signed by John Web dated 5th of February 1996.
00:58:48 1996. If we could um go please over the page to the third paragraph
00:59:01 says the responsibility for deciding whether or when an item should be
00:59:15 whether or when an item should be reported lies with the intelligence manager. The back office need only decide yes or maybe. If in doubt, consult.
00:59:20 consult. Are you able to help us uh with whether the intelligence manager uh and no names at this stage, whether
00:59:31 uh and no names at this stage, whether the intelligence uh manager sat inside or outside the SDS? I've never heard that terminology before, so I'm only guessing which you don't want.
00:59:44 guessing which you don't want. No, no. I only want to know if you can help us. Uh, can we have the fourth paragraph, please?
00:59:56 If an item is to be issued as a report, decide what format it will take. Also decide who it will go to. Items.
01:00:05 Can we take it therefore that dis what I'm driving at is can we tell whether decisions as to dissemination are being taken within the SDS or outside it
01:00:17 taken within the SDS or outside it no it was it was before before I don't know if there's any slight change there but when I was in the back office uh you would get the so the report would come in go to equivalent of John Webb
01:00:28 in go to equivalent of John Webb normally John Webb John Webb would decide after consulting ing HN86, HN67
01:00:39 decide after consulting ing HN86, HN67 where the intelligence goes. By the time it then goes to me in the back office, it's already decided within the SDS where it's going and the SD and my role in the back office was to say, you've seen them on the forms. You had box 500 stuck in the corner. That was another
01:00:55 stuck in the corner. That was another great uh task for the back office person used to stick 500, but it was decided within us. We didn't send the intelligence out and decide where it go if that's the question. And when it went out to the people that the SDS had decided should see it, uh,
01:01:10 the SDS had decided should see it, uh, was further dissemination a matter for them or did the SDS retain a say in further dissemination? The SDS would mark up if this um, dissemination
01:01:21 dissemination dissemination can't go any further. If it was marked up, and it's normally marked up to the effect of uh to contact chief superintendent or something like that, there'd be something clearly to
01:01:33 that, there'd be something clearly to identify uh that it couldn't go out any further.
01:01:40 further. Thank you. Could we take that down, please? Could we have from tab B20, sir? 527328.
01:02:02 Um this if we go to the next page please we'll see what it is. This is a briefing note for assistant commissioner special
01:02:16 note for assistant commissioner special operations who at that stage we believe was David Vanesse meeting with SDS officers on Thursday the 15th of February
01:02:17 February 1996.
01:02:19 1996. If we could go to page six please.
01:02:30 Uh this it has this is part of a section of the document of the briefing which has a summary for each officer. The summary for you is at the bottom of this page. If we could just have that summary expanded please
01:02:50 give you a moment to look at it. My first question is going to be does that accurately reflect your manager's view of your deployment at the time.
01:03:03 Not just the managers, that's what the managers reported back to me. They felt that the that that that's what I would have thought the managers were saying to me as well as for this report. That's how I felt they felt about me at that particular point in time.
01:03:21 particular point in time. And for the purposes of the ACSO, the ACSO is being given a glowing write up of your deployment and performance and hopefully it was warranted. Did you speak to the ACSO on the occasion of this visit?
01:03:39 occasion of this visit? Once again, the introduction would have been you'd be on equivalent a very tight leash as they used to say. So you would have that that that's literally what they would be saying in your behalf and then Mr. Vaness orever came out. There'd be a brief conversation about uh what what was happening if he asked any
01:03:51 what was happening if he asked any further, but you'd always be very guided um with a sort of threeline whip explain to you that it wasn't for you to take the conversation any further with these
01:04:05 the conversation any further with these senior officers. It was them to ask, not you to go off on a tangent or something like this. uh being careful uh not to breach any restriction orders. Can you help us with what uh the ACA ac?
01:04:20 what uh the ACA ac? No, I can't. Sorry, I just can't remember.
01:04:32 remember. What is not in this text is any mention of the Steven Lawrence campaign. Why is that? it really will be where the Steven Lawrence campaign was then at that uh
01:04:46 Lawrence campaign was then at that uh period of time. You mentioned a number of big uh benchmark things. So if the campaign was in one of their legal places that point of time, us and the SDS was then happy that campaign was
01:04:59 SDS was then happy that campaign was wherever they were. It was always when one of these pinch points came to an end, where where's the where's it going to go?
01:05:13 to go? Uh there's no reference to any specific justice campaigns here or even justice campaigns generically. Why is that? I I can't answer that. That that's what they would have said something. Obviously you've changed it slightly
01:05:24 Obviously you've changed it slightly there. That's what they would have said the that's what they would have said
01:05:37 the that's what they would have said about us and it's not for us to open open up the conversation further. Might it be because your managers
01:05:43 managers regarded all of that as subsumed within the category of public order events? I'd say yes, that that'd be fair. Could we take that down now, please? Can we go to tab C1774630?
01:06:21 Uh this is an event performer for an event on the 6th of March 1996 in Hackne organized by the trade union unison in connection to a council workers strike. It's a lobby of Hackne Town Hall at which between three and 500 people were
01:06:42 which between three and 500 people were expected and it was an advertised event. If we could have the text expanded please.
01:06:45 please. The trade union unison has called a strike of its members working for Hackne Council on Wednesday the 6th of March. The strike, which demands that the
01:06:56 The strike, which demands that the council abandons its plans to end its no compulsory redundancy policy, will be punctuated by two lobbies at the town
01:07:07 punctuated by two lobbies at the town hall in May Street. The first of these will be at 11:00, the second at 6. In addition to the mass lobbies, which could attract 300 to 500 people, there
01:07:20 could attract 300 to 500 people, there will be pickets at all council premises throughout the day. Uh can we take it from the fact that it was advertised that Hackne Council would have known this action was coming? Definitely.
01:07:35 Definitely. And uh are you able to help us with whether uh unison would h be cooperating with police or not? They would definitely be cooperating with the police. Uh what in those circumstances is the purpose of
01:07:50 circumstances is the purpose of reporting on a trade union's legitimate activities relating to an industrial dispute uh when there is no reason to believe there'll be any lack of cooperation with police. This is being
01:08:09 cooperation with police. This is being directed u from the idea of showing the security services that what I actually wrote in the report earlier about
01:08:20 wrote in the report earlier about militant labor's new directive of doing union activity in all branches is now being undertaken by Hackne. So, it's just me confirming the intelligence that I provided earlier to say they've said this at the conference and here we are in Hackne doing what they've actually asked.
01:08:37 asked. Could we take that down now please? Can we have up from tab C180 at 24672
01:08:40 at 24672 please?
01:08:53 This is another individual nominal performer. This time dated 14th of March 1996.
01:08:55 1996. This document refers to Dave Smith. It is a usual identifying uh data recorded.
01:09:10 is a usual identifying uh data recorded. Uh, and then at the bottom it says, "Pex violent
01:09:12 violent carries a knife."
01:09:20 Uh, those two appear to be linked. They give the impression to the reader, don't they, that this is a man who is not just violent uh, but also carries a lethal weapon.
01:09:34 weapon. It's a problem here with regard to Dave Smith that's here and there be some other reports that Dave Smith for quite a while uh had a PIW file which means
01:09:47 a while uh had a PIW file which means possible identified with file. So this is
01:09:49 is I'm trying to get confused over which Dave Smith we're talking about. The Dave Smith who's the back here normally um he would be somebody that I would put as violent when necessary. And this
01:10:01 violent when necessary. And this particular Dave Smith didn't carry a knife at all, but this is this other
01:10:12 knife at all, but this is this other Dave Smith. Now, I can't see above there what the file is. Uh but uh can can you go above?
01:10:13 go above? If we the file reference is 40286204.
01:10:22 Yeah. No, that's not that's not this I don't know if he's here. He's normally here at the back here. That's not that's not his regards that that's the confusion there. If you go
01:10:34 that's the confusion there. If you go through all the reports I've ever done, it's always been a bit of a pain. Dave has and Dave was a pain with the Smith aspect that no, this particular uh Dave, he would talk your death about union
01:10:49 he would talk your death about union matters. Uh but he would not uh it's not a knife for this particular Dave Smith, but that Dave Smith who's been muddled up in there. Uh yes, there was a violent I don't know if we've breached somebody's privacy now because that's
01:11:00 somebody's privacy now because that's not that Dave Smith, is it? Well, just a moment. Can we just um look at the entire page again? Just ref just have a look at the identifying
01:11:12 just have a look at the identifying details. Organization militant labor. Yes,
01:11:12 Yes, there's a file reference there 495125.
01:11:22 That's the updated militant labor file because militant had a lot earlier file than that. But when I took it on, they updated the file when I became active in there. So that's the militant.
01:11:35 that's the militant. That's militant file. IC1, 5 foot8, medium build, virtual skin head, drives a silver run5 registered to his ex wife. It's just the knife bit. The knife bit isn't right in that that scenario there.
01:11:48 isn't right in that that scenario there. Well, can I just step at a time, please? Yeah.
01:11:54 the identifying details that I've just read out
01:11:59 read out down to the end of run five registered to his ex-wife.
01:12:10 to his ex-wife. Are those the details of the Dave Smith who is a core participant in this inquiry?
01:12:13 inquiry? I've got no idea looking back with regards to what vehicle he was driving then. No, I I can't remember the slide just what it is. If you had the file,
01:12:24 just what it is. If you had the file, you'll certainly be if it's his picture, but all I know is that the Smith thing, it took me quite a while, the other Smith, Frank, to identify him, uh, as well. We were actually told, never when we go undercover, ironically, to use the name Smith and Jones because it doesn't
01:12:36 name Smith and Jones because it doesn't appear to be real. And when I actually, it took quite a while for me to identify Frank Smith. at Dave. Now, this is my No, just 100%ly the Dave Smith to do
01:12:51 No, just 100%ly the Dave Smith to do with the blacklisting uh never carried a knife. There's no gifts, no butts. Can I be clear? Are you saying there are three Smiths uh that you are mixing with? Frank Smith and two Dave Smiths.
01:13:09 with? Frank Smith and two Dave Smiths. There was more Smiths. There was there's there there's another Smith. No need for any more names. I wasn't reporting them all on him either, but it it was definitely there was a confusion era till I I managed to nail it down. Can we go to page two, please?
01:13:20 Can we have the text expanded?
01:13:29 Dave Smith is a long-standing member of ML who has a yearning for the old days of planned violence against the fascists. He is a member of the currently inactive away team. Like many other away team members, he confidently
01:13:40 other away team members, he confidently predicts a return to violent disorder on the streets while talking about past glories. He's an active member of the Tower Hamlet's branch of the party. His commitment to the extreme left has not diminished and he will be at the
01:13:56 diminished and he will be at the forefront of any high-profile ML activity if and when it happens. Smith was one of those arrested for attempting to attack BNP
01:14:09 arrested for attempting to attack BNP activist privacy during a Tower Hamlet's council bi-election. Smith is not and never has been a member of the Anti-Nazi League. Smith is
01:14:21 of the Anti-Nazi League. Smith is believed to live at privacy, but this has not been confirmed. Does that do anything to uh help you establish whether or not this report is about the Dave Smith who is a core participant in this inquiry?
01:14:36 this inquiry? The bulk of it is Dave Smith as the core participants inquiry. But you actually see there that did remind me there was actually another Dave Smith with a file who was in the anti-Nazi league that we had to clear up that that wasn't that
01:14:49 had to clear up that that wasn't that one that he was referred to. And that that's why it's actually it's quite unusual and you probably won't have another report whereby you're reporting a negative to say he'sn't a member of that group because there was also another Dave Smith who is the ANL as
01:15:01 another Dave Smith who is the ANL as well. So there's a lot of muddling up there here. But wherever it is um that particular aspect, but also he both the the other Dave Smith was involved with
01:15:17 the other Dave Smith was involved with the away team stewarding type stuff as well. And for this particular Dave Smith, um he was definitely a defender more than he was. But Dave Smith was
01:15:33 more than he was. But Dave Smith was also handy to have on your side if you happen to bump in some PMP somewhere. want to sort of chat with them type thing.
01:15:38 thing. Dave Smith, the core participant. Did you ever
01:15:44 you ever uh see Dave Smith with any sort of knife?
01:15:45 knife? The the core participant Dave Smith. No,
01:15:55 Mr. Smith's evidence, as I understand it, is to the effect he did sometimes did have a knife with him for leg entirely legitimate purposes of his work as a builder. And I didn't see if he had the knife or maybe that's where the confusion came
01:16:07 maybe that's where the confusion came that if I did write something down, it might have been the quantity of what he said, but it wasn't me having a knife written down here without then quantifying. There's a lot of difference between like a little knife or like
01:16:18 between like a little knife or like equivalent zombie knife or work knife and um if that had been here, it should have been more clear what it actually
01:16:32 have been more clear what it actually was. But Dave, I never saw him with a knife that could have been used in a situation like with a violent confrontation. None of the away team whatsoever carried it. It was offensive weapon they had. you could turn a glass
01:16:46 weapon they had. you could turn a glass bottle, particularly a Lucasade bottle. That was potentially the only offensive weapon that that that that was there, but that was that was also sort of the
01:17:00 but that was that was also sort of the deer or drink uh type thing as well. But I never saw him going onto a demo and saying, "Oh, look, look, I got a knife. He's like that." He he isn't that sort of person and never was that sort of
01:17:12 of person and never was that sort of person. was Dave Smith, core participant Dave Smith, that is a man who confidently predicted a return to violent disorder on the streets while talking about past glories. That was
01:17:25 talking about past glories. That was very much a theme not just amongst Dave it was the away team members and if I was to be totally honest which that's a requirement me here I was actually quite looking forward uh to us not now in my
01:17:38 looking forward uh to us not now in my head thank you very much but at the time I was looking quite forward to it it's
01:17:51 I was looking quite forward to it it's it was a it was a general general rush and everything else I think all of us who' done the more stewarding type I think there was a bit of look to more those exciting times rather than being a normal steward. Can you just to be absolutely clear are you saying core participant Dave Smith
01:18:08 you saying core participant Dave Smith was part and parcel of that sentiment? He was.
01:18:13 He was. Can you help us with what past glories were being discussed?
01:18:28 just trying to remember who was involved in what war story when we were out there. So
01:18:31 there. So at the time I would have remembered what he was involved in. So whether or not he was the one of the ones who was involved in the BMP uh on Brick Lane. Uh he was
01:18:43 in the BMP uh on Brick Lane. Uh he was uh certainly with us at Victoria on some of them. So pass glories to any of the reports that I've mentioned where there was some interaction with the BMP physical
01:18:58 the reference to arrest. Did you see Dave Smith the core participant arrested with your own eyes? No. No.
01:19:07 No. No. Uh
01:19:11 Uh we've looked at this report which on the face of it sounds very sinister indeed talking about someone who's violent and carries a knife. You've accepted that more clarity
01:19:22 more clarity was needed. Did you give any thought to the potential consequences of a report which portrayed someone as
01:19:38 of a report which portrayed someone as violent uh and knife carrying might have upon their career? Well, if I would have ever seen that, it wouldn't have been allowed to go through the pro. If I'd have ever seen this report with that Dave Smith as in that Dave Smith down there, I would have
01:19:54 Dave Smith down there, I would have never allowed that report to go anywhere because it was wrong. But I basically I saying you put the work in. If there's some confusion through uh the SDS side which Dave Smith it was maybe the best thing would have been to come although we did have talks about the Dave Smith
01:20:06 we did have talks about the Dave Smith files. But no it's it's horrific. It's absolutely horrific. Of course, it would be if somebody from uh the Economic League or whatever they're called at the time rung up and they said that and Dave
01:20:24 time rung up and they said that and Dave Smith himself has actually turned around and said because of the reporting that his life was affected. Well, you read something like that, of course it would have affected. It's it's totally wrong if if that information ever got out anywhere. I I don't know. I know he's
01:20:36 anywhere. I I don't know. I know he's had some information sent to him and if the information said that he was violent and he was a knife carrier that that information has come directly from here which which was inaccurate is very very
01:20:50 which which was inaccurate is very very wrong. I have no compunction to say that he was violent but uh I don't agree with that at all.
01:21:05 but uh I don't agree with that at all. I'll be coming back to blacklisting again later on but in the light of that answer can we just clear something up now? you referred to if the economic league had rung up to your direct knowledge. Did the consulting association
01:21:17 consulting association ever telephone the special demonstrations? They'd had no access to that. There'd be no access when when rung up. Uh I was certainly aware you're going to ask questions later on that there was contact to special branch itself which
01:21:33 contact to special branch itself which would be different people in the special branch had contacts within within there but no the SDS had no direct link with the uh economics league as it was called
01:21:44 the uh economics league as it was called then and apparently later on became this consulting agency. Can we take this document down now please? And can we go to C181747764?
01:22:08 Uh this is a report about an event that's an event performance about an event which is going to take place on the 23rd of March 1996 between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. between Forest Gate and Ilford Police Station. It is being
01:22:21 Ilford Police Station. It is being organized by the Ibrahim SE memorial
01:22:33 organized by the Ibrahim SE memorial campaign. It's a march in a picket. 300 to 350 people expected. No disorder expected,
01:22:35 expected, tense
01:22:36 tense and hostile. In fact, I think this is expose facto
01:22:48 In fact, I think this is expose facto report. So there was no disorder. Mood was tense and hostile and it had been advertised. Uh, were you on this march and pick it?
01:23:04 I I specifically can't remember it, but if you show me the references of the fact that the Y was there, I would have been there. I just went on a lot uh demos. It It definitely rings a bell,
01:23:17 demos. It It definitely rings a bell, but if you if it did show that the Y was there, then I would have been there because there's no other reporting there.
01:23:20 there. It rings a bell, but nothing and go over the page.
01:23:28 Thank you. If we look at on the the left hand page, the top paragraph
01:23:40 of text that is Thank you. Thank you. Some 300 people gathered to pick at Forest Gate Police Station and to march to Ilford Police Station, the place where Ibrahim say, an African refugee, died after having CS gas used on him by police. About 90% of the demonstrators
01:24:01 police. About 90% of the demonstrators were from the local black community with the remainder being predominantly white political groups such as the SWP, Militant Labor, the Workers Revolutionary Party, and the Black and Asian Newan Monitoring Project. With the exception of the NMP, which attended to the stewarding, the political groups
01:24:14 the stewarding, the political groups were only there to sell their papers. Does that assist you to recall whether you were there? Yes. Yes, I would have been there but not by myself.
01:24:27 not by myself. And if we could look please at the source comments.
01:24:39 Considering the level of bad feeling among the marchers, it is remarkable that there was no trouble. Police restraint and effective stewarding are jointly responsible for this. Future say
01:24:50 jointly responsible for this. Future say campaign marches and demonstrations will have to be handled in a similar fashion to maintain orderly if somewhat strained
01:25:01 to maintain orderly if somewhat strained restra strained conduct. Would that have been your assessment?
01:25:13 been your assessment? It had been a collective assessment two maybe three SDS officers there but I would have been part part of that assessment. And if we go to the paragraph above this please.
01:25:21 No future events were announced but it is clear that there will be other protests as the investigation into SE's death continues. The predominant role of the NMP did not go unnoticed by other political activists present and the
01:25:34 political activists present and the white political groups represented were subjected to intimidating approprium by the black marchers who were wise to
01:25:53 the black marchers who were wise to their attempts to exploit the issue. Can you help us with your recollection of anything connected to intimidating approprium? I can guarantee that word didn't come from me because I don't even know what it means. So it's it's not for me.
01:26:06 it means. So it's it's not for me. Can you help us from your rele from your recollection what the relationship between
01:26:08 between local marchers and left-wing political activists was. I think I think it summarizes there that it was the feeling that I think they
01:26:20 it was the feeling that I think they were wise uh for what the intention of uh the groups were there. I think they were wise to what what groups were trying to get from it and it really wasn't necessary to help put the
01:26:36 wasn't necessary to help put the interests of the campaign at the forefront.
01:26:47 We saw from the source comment that this was a demonstration that had been sensitively policed. Yes,
01:26:51 Yes, we saw that there was no disorder despite the strained relationships. Would it be fair to say there was on this occasion no need for any secret intelligence
01:27:06 intelligence in order to ensure orderly, legitimate protest?
01:27:10 protest? depending on what the proformer said originally. The original event pre-proform, I'm not sure if it was the other way round that the police at the time uh I definitely
01:27:23 the police at the time uh I definitely I've said it before, I'll say it again that the police when they have a black demonstration were always more concerned that there
01:27:35 were always more concerned that there might be a problem there. I don't know what the pre-assessment was by us, but there's evidently that maybe the pre-assessment was very very
01:27:47 maybe the pre-assessment was very very clear. You know, you've the police have to be on best behavior here. Um, this is really well and obviously the activists there uh the credit as well.
01:28:02 activists there uh the credit as well. It was effective stewarding as well. I I I'm not 100% sure I can ask answer your question truthfully without seeing what the pre preassessment was. This is post.
01:28:13 the pre preassessment was. This is post. Did you have any dealings with Mr. Se's family?
01:28:15 family? No, I didn't. I didn't have anyone at all.
01:28:24 One gets the impression from reading this report that the local community was perfectly able to protest in its own way without
01:28:36 to protest in its own way without needing any assistance from political campaigners. Is that fair? Totally fair. Not being led by anybody. No, but from the S SWP and also uh the militant perspective, they would like to have
01:28:53 perspective, they would like to have been involved with the campaign to lead it for him because otherwise they wouldn't be involved there. It wasn't necessary totally correctly and that is a different different feeling to what it was had not just by
01:29:07 feeling to what it was had not just by us I think actually to the groups. the groups felt uh that these uh black people needed help organizing their campaign
01:29:14 campaign and the truth was they didn't abs totally evident totally evident here.
01:29:19 here. Can you recall that there was any management comment or guidance about either this demonstration or the Ibrahim say memorial campaign generally
01:29:38 as saying so hard without the preassessment we afraid we we don't have that if it comes out that this is what we said as the preassessment then the answer to your question is if we said
01:29:49 answer to your question is if we said please you know you serious Obviously, you've got to handle this with care. Behave yourselves and then this comes out as a result. Then the answer to your question is that's very satisfactory for the SDS.
01:30:05 More cynical observers of the evidence to this inquiry might be wondering why the police had to be advised to behave themselves. Was that the unfortunate reality?
01:30:17 reality? That was definitely the unfortunate reality and um it is a shame that not just in this I haven't seen a lot of uh pre-proformers
01:30:28 pre-proformers and unfortunately we had to say that spell out on a number of occasions uh to the police. Uh it didn't quite spell out how I behave yourself. It would have
01:30:39 how I behave yourself. It would have been something along the lines of what's been written in how very sensitive everything is. Although you need to tell the police that this is sensitive, but it we you the SDS on occasions did have to spell it out unfortunately.
01:30:54 to spell it out unfortunately. Could we take that document down now please? Could we have tab C1892461
01:31:00 90?
01:31:19 This is a document uh about an event uh on the 29th of April 1996 at 2:00. This is a prospective report. Uh this is about a picket that has been planned outside the CPS
01:31:33 outside the CPS headquarters at Lgate Hill. There's a special branch reference for the organizer, the Brian Douglas campaign. About 20 people are expected. Disorder
01:31:46 About 20 people are expected. Disorder is said to be unlikely and it has been advertised by leaflet. Could we have the text, please?
01:31:57 The Moribund Brian Douglas campaign has come back to life with the announcement
01:32:10 come back to life with the announcement by the CPS that the two police officers concerned will not be prosecuted over the death of Douglas. The campaign's initial response has been to call a picket of the CPS headquarters on Monday, the 29th of April. This event will be followed by a picket of Kennington Police Station at 11:00 a.m.
01:32:26 Kennington Police Station at 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday the 8th of May, the day on which a memorial service for the dead man will be held at St. Anselm's Church in Tutting, Beck.
01:32:37 in Tutting, Beck. There is some input from militant labor in the Brian Douglas campaign. Ruth Woolhouse is on the steering committee, but otherwise there is no involvement by the White Left. Can you help us? Did you
01:32:55 the White Left. Can you help us? Did you ever meet directly with members of Brian Douglas's family? No.
01:32:59 No. Were you involved in the Brian Douglas campaign in any way? I went on um a couple of
01:33:11 way? I went on um a couple of demonstrations and this may very well be probably more than a couple a few demonstrations but I is one of those again that I had coverage of the demonstration. So I was able to put
01:33:24 demonstration. So I was able to put something in uh the mood that would be there and this was because uh information I was getting directly from uh Ruth Woolhouse who thought she was talking to just the Hackneington uh
01:33:37 talking to just the Hackneington uh concerned branch secretary uh you know if he could get some members to come down to these events uh in support of her locally. So she she it was one of those that we we felt in the SDS we
01:33:50 those that we we felt in the SDS we could monitor that without me having to be a member or on the committee because once again Ruth Woolhouse she had no
01:34:01 once again Ruth Woolhouse she had no reasons to suppose by talking to me me finding out what is going on in that campaign and that's the hallmarks of what I was doing uh with any campaign that we had access to via militant.
01:34:15 that we had access to via militant. Now, there are three events mentioned. There's a picket of the CPS headquarters. So, just to be clear, did you attend that? I think I did. A picket of Kennington Police Station on the 8th of May. Did you attend that?
01:34:26 the 8th of May. Did you attend that? Yes, that's a more memorable one. The memorial service for Mr. Douglas at St. Anselm's Church in Tooting Beck. I did not attend that one.
01:34:40 I did not attend that one. Did the Brian Douglas campaign cooperate with the police? As far as I was aware, they they did. Did the Brian Douglas campaign have a history of
01:34:51 history of association with public disorder? It was definitely an event where it it did really kick off, but I can't
01:35:03 did really kick off, but I can't remember saying head unfortunately. It was either the Brian Douglas uh campaign, one of the events definitely definitely kicked off that was there, but I that was an expression of the anger through what happened. So I think
01:35:16 anger through what happened. So I think that was very early when the death first happened, but something I I can't remember. I I know I was involved in it. Uh cuz it's another little memory I've got tucked away as well. That was a riot.
01:35:31 riot. Are you able to help us whether that was at an event organized by the Justice Campaign or not? No, no, no, it wasn't. Or no, you can't tell. I can't remember. I can't distinguish who who organized what when when it actually the day it kicked off. I don't know who who who was there. It was it
01:35:46 know who who who was there. It was it was very much reported. It went in the media. It was a riot there.
01:35:53 What were you tasked to find out? Basically, very much along the lines of that. if the campaign said they were
01:36:09 that. if the campaign said they were going to go to the equivalent of the CPS headquarters, what the mood would be, what the anticipation of the people were, but obviously they wouldn't necessarily have control either that with all their best intentions in the world. Uh the wrong group of people
01:36:23 world. Uh the wrong group of people could get involved uh there as well. But yeah, my role was to uh when whenever they did anything that had a public order potential to it would have been to report that through. But by this stage, if I've understood the reporting correctly,
01:36:44 there is no reporting. There's no involvement by the white left, save Ruth Woolhouse on the steering committee. Was it abundantly clear by this stage that the Brian Douglas campaign was
01:36:56 that the Brian Douglas campaign was another campaign that was perfectly able to look after and organize itself with a slight problem on this one? You actually have got somebody for militant
01:37:09 actually have got somebody for militant labor as a very active person uh on the steering committee. So as far as we're concerned u the special branch perspective you have got a a white troskist from militant labor in a steering committee and as the name
01:37:23 steering committee and as the name suggests you're steering the campaign. So uh this is different to the uh say one because there was there was nobody this this one would have been more concerned to the special branch because militant labor were there
01:37:47 militant labor were there and given what we've heard about the state of militant labor by this time what was the concern of the police arising from the presence of a member of militant labor on the steering committee. Well, not necessarily the police, but the special branch that once again they
01:38:03 the special branch that once again they could be persuaded to make the campaign more militant. Um, that's that's what the worry that's what the worry was.
01:38:14 what the worry was. And by militant, what do you mean? as in more potential for public disorder, make them seek demands uh from the state, make them change the campaign and just basically become them uh more with
01:38:27 basically become them uh more with regards to demos and um trying to trying to cause cause change. How well did you know Ruth Woolhouse? Not not in a friendship basis, but certainly I I wouldn't have had any
01:38:43 certainly I I wouldn't have had any trouble seeing her, asking for her for updates on the campaign. You'd never make it obvious, can you give me an update? It was always from the perspective of as um the branch secretary, do you need any assistance down there? Can we help uh with anything from that lines? Very, very pleasant.
01:38:57 from that lines? Very, very pleasant. Can you help us? I'd like to know which side of the divide Miss Woolhouse might fall. Was she someone who cared passionately about subjects like this and wanted to do her
01:39:09 subjects like this and wanted to do her best to support the campaign or was she the sort of person who was going to incite the campaign to commit criminal offenses uh of a public order nature?
01:39:22 offenses uh of a public order nature? No, I'd put her in the very caring campaign. Uh the idea she's a very very pleasant, very caring person, but I'm saying she was still a militant. She was still a Trosky as far as we're concerned. She had uh she was a subversive subversive lady subversive
01:39:37 subversive subversive lady subversive things. So I'm not you know Christ am I trying to justify anything? I'm not trying to just I'm trying to explain it. Understood. Uh, can we take that down and have from B68, sir? 720
01:39:51 B68, sir? 720 9991.
01:40:04 And if we go to the first page to see to show you what it is, it's the Guardian
01:40:17 show you what it is, it's the Guardian online Q&A uh that you did on the 25th of June 2013. If we could go to page seven, please.
01:40:27 Uh and if we look at uh the question under tux 28 timed at 12:58
01:40:37 and it says was there a point at which you attempted to quit the force due to your reservations about your undercover work and if so when did you decide to continue for the purposes of then becoming a whistleblower? If we could have the reply please.
01:40:49 have the reply please. The lowest point I reached morally was when I was standing outside Kennington Police Station for the Brian Douglas Justice Campaign in May 1995.
01:41:07 It was a candle lit vigil and his relatives were all there. Stopping there, this says May 1995. The document
01:41:19 there, this says May 1995. The document that we've just looked at uh was about a vigil on the 8th of May 1996. Can you help us with whether you've got
01:41:34 Can you help us with whether you've got the year wrong here or whether it was an annual event and you attended a candle lit vigil in 1995 as well?
01:41:40 as well? I'd go on the date that you've got there. I've made mistakes with date before. I had no access to documents, but it could very well have been that date, but it could have also been that I I don't know.
01:41:53 I don't know. And then it goes on to say, "Brian died after an encounter with police and his family were campaigning for the case to be properly investigated. There were allegations, suspicions about how he died." This was one of black justice
01:42:08 died." This was one of black justice campaigns that I had infiltrated at the order of my superior
01:42:23 order of my superior officers. Can I pause there and ask you to clarify on whose orders did you uh well you've used the word in the interview in infiltrate uh the Brian Douglas justice campaign. Basically this with regards to
01:42:41 Basically this with regards to infiltrating as in you can report back. So you know have you infiltrated by being on the campaign or if you infiltrated by being able to provide information from the campaign there. So um for me I was providing intelligence
01:42:53 um for me I was providing intelligence on this black justice campaign. I know how I personally felt outside Kennington police station when it happened because
01:43:05 police station when it happened because it was a large moment for me. So uh yeah the infiltration you know but you know am I going to break down in this particular thing you know but what I mean by infiltration means I actually
01:43:17 I mean by infiltration means I actually was getting real good intelligence from somebody who was on a steering committee that knew me really well or am I just going to say overall that I you know I
01:43:30 going to say overall that I you know I was reporting back on the black justice campaign but not breaking it down exactly how uh I was obtaining that information. But certainly the the first sentence there uh certainly the lowest point I certainly felt while I I was there
01:43:48 certainly felt while I I was there because um the whole thing about is you know the person was dead there because the police action and here I am reporting on the campaign that I you know it was caused by the police and there's this whole conflict of what what
01:43:59 there's this whole conflict of what what happened the conflict of what I'm doing. Um, so it's certainly correct from that aspect. But yes, I didn't break it down exactly what I meant.
01:44:10 exactly what I meant. Well, two things. First of all, I'm I'm understanding your evidence to be that you think reporting on would have been a better word than infiltrated.
01:44:24 better word than infiltrated. They only let me do this once. I've never done it again after that. So yes, it would have been far better to say reported on. And the second aspect, was this reporting on the orders of your superior officers? And if so, who ordered you?
01:44:37 ordered you? Well, this goes back to my original tasking by H86. But as you've seen the report there afterwards, I was still reporting on
01:44:51 afterwards, I was still reporting on black justice campaigns with the other officers that then took over like Bob Lamb, Keith Edmonson. So that's just basically the collection of the superior officers as I refer to those but there is nobody more senior other than we've
01:45:06 is nobody more senior other than we've gone very early on with Bob Potter. So I think as an election of at the order of my superior officers is certainly beyond just one officer they were aware that
01:45:17 just one officer they were aware that everybody was aware that I was at this demo uh reporting back on this demo there. There was no, you know, I wasn't there by myself. I was doing reports on it and they they were going uh senior
01:45:32 it and they they were going uh senior officers and they also it didn't stop in the SDS. These reports went into the special branch. Can we take that down now, please? Can we have up from tab C1946
01:45:41 222?
01:46:02 And could we, this is a special branch uh note dated the 1st of May 1996. Could we have paragraph two, please?
01:46:09 I I've picked this out not so much because of the particular detail of this, but because of what's in the last sentence of paragraph 2. ML's youth policy is of interest because of the involvement of the party's younger
01:46:22 involvement of the party's younger followers in street demonstrations and public order events. It's one of a
01:46:33 public order events. It's one of a number of documents we've seen in which the phrase public order event is used.
01:46:39 is used. Was there any definition of what a public order event was?
01:46:51 It's just using the own uh words. Uh we filled out public order uh event proformers.
01:46:58 But no, what's striking about the phrase is it says public order event rather than making any reference to public disorder. What I'd like to know was was did the
01:47:17 What I'd like to know was was did the use of this phrase focus people people on any event at which members of the public were going to gather
01:47:27 unless your intel was absolutely certain that they would not do anything that could possib So basically if as long as they went along to the piece which you obviously had to do to order
01:47:40 which you obviously had to do to order to do a demonstration. You said exactly what was going to happen. You adhereed to it absolutely totally. Then hopefully there should be no reason for us to do a
01:47:53 there should be no reason for us to do a separate public order um a public public like you're saying almost like a public disorder assessment. That's what I'm driving at. is for is there any threshold of risk at which you report or don't report?
01:48:14 report or don't report? There certainly would have been some uh demos that I I would have attended some small uh demonstrations that I would have attended. I was just trying to think we done some campaigns as well as the hospital uh Wittingham Hospital or something like that not that far from Hackne. We had the post office
01:48:28 far from Hackne. We had the post office was being closed, one of the big sorting offices. So there were small demos there. My pre-assessment was that we're going down as militant. It will be
01:48:39 going down as militant. It will be effectively stewarded. There's no chance of disorder. So that went no for more forward than me doing a proform to the SDS. And I don't think that was even
01:48:51 SDS. And I don't think that was even sent out to to division. So yes, there would be examples of it, but very rarely. But that would still be spoken about and recorded as a public order event. Just one at which there was little risk of disorder.
01:49:08 little risk of disorder. But very few of them, very few of them. If we if we had so many events that were so well, it would obviously diminish diminish us in this if with regards to disorder.
01:49:22 disorder. Can we take that down now, please? So would um since we had an early start, would this be an appropriate time to take the mid-after afternoon break? Certainly. And um I take it everyone would like 15 minutes. Yes. 15 minutes. Thank you very much.
02:12:23 Mr. Mr. Francis will seem some time ago now, but uh early on Monday morning, I took you to documents that you had helpfully exhibited to your witness statement from
02:12:39 exhibited to your witness statement from the special branch centinary ball. And I wanted to know uh if you recognized the handwriting uh two words the SDS uh written on the historical briefing.
02:12:50 uh written on the historical briefing. Am I right to understand you've now been shown the document? I have.
02:12:55 I have. Can you help us? Whose handwriting is that?
02:12:55 that? Mine.
02:13:00 Mine. Uh can we have up please? Document C19946
02:13:03 228.
02:13:16 This is a nominal performer 1st of May 1996
02:13:18 1996 on Dan Gilman who has given evidence to this inquiry. uh you will see the usual
02:13:35 this inquiry. uh you will see the usual information recorded and then under PEX it says will use violence when necessary. It may be your earlier answers uh will now explain this. Did you mean by that
02:13:47 now explain this. Did you mean by that that he was a man who would use force in selfdefense or the defense of others?
02:13:57 basically both them, but it was more of uh exactly as it says, we'll use violence when necessary. And like I I did say earlier, I I didn't see these reports, but I'm very sure I put that
02:14:09 reports, but I'm very sure I put that terminology more often down than just purely violent. And certainly, uh Mr.
02:14:20 purely violent. And certainly, uh Mr. Heron, uh I put the same category down, but obviously it didn't transfer into this. And I can think of some other examples as well. Uh that this is more defensive, but uh Dan and himself, but
02:14:32 defensive, but uh Dan and himself, but I've got to say with Dan, it's different because I didn't spend a lot of time with Dan early on. And obviously, he's taken on a far greater uh stewarding
02:14:43 taken on a far greater uh stewarding role uh waiting whatever platform role uh later on when I was there. um his mentions there, but I definitely uh got a file created on him. I know that. Uh but yes, not as much time with Dan, but
02:15:00 but yes, not as much time with Dan, but yes, Vance when necessary. And the other one, yeah, Dave Smith, apologies there. Uh he should have had the same categories as well there.
02:15:12 Did you ever see Mr. Gilman use violence as a form of attack? No.
02:15:20 No. Can we take that down now please? Can we have from B23 uh 246 298 please?
02:15:35 Uh this is a file note. Uh if we could have the text expanded please.
02:15:46 This records that on Friday the 3rd of May, and we understand that to be the 3rd of May, 1996, you and a detective
02:16:01 3rd of May, 1996, you and a detective constable met uh at at the author's home address to discuss various operational and administrative matters concerning militant labor. You are recorded as being able to explain ideas for updating
02:16:12 being able to explain ideas for updating the militant labor file which was agreed and various strategies are put in place. There will be a subsequent meeting to
02:16:23 There will be a subsequent meeting to continue this work and then a meeting which will also involve the security service which has been provisionally set for Tuesday the 25th of June. You are recorded as being rightly
02:16:36 You are recorded as being rightly concerned that the branch file dealing with his target organization should properly reflect the work he is doing. Can you recall whose
02:16:47 whose uh back garden that this is um taking sorry whose home address this is taking place at?
02:16:59 place at? It certainly if that's my home address this is absolute madness. I never invited anybody around to my house. It's definitely all I can say is I don't know that it's definitely not around my my real house and I wouldn't have taken them around to uh my duff house.
02:17:16 them around to uh my duff house. No, I definitely can you recall meeting a detective constable at any of your managers home addresses to discuss those matters.
02:17:25 matters. Am I allowed to see who that is again? It's DC who the DC. uh we haven't got that immediately to hand but we can come back to that
02:17:37 to that that that would help but um if if we're talking about the only home address I ever visited for the purposes of discussing anything was around uh Bob Lamberts but they were always like sort
02:17:51 Lamberts but they were always like sort of dodgy type conversations that um you you didn't have uh under the sort of normal SDS uh type type uh stuff. uh his was a little bit more uh questionable. Uh but no, I 1,000% me I've never had anything
02:18:08 no, I 1,000% me I've never had anything at my home address. Uh I'd be stunned if I actually went around DC, whatever his name is around his home address. Uh sorry, I'd like to help. I really can't help too much with that one. If I get his name, maybe weirdly I think yeah, I did go around his home.
02:18:27 did go around his home. Right. Well, we'll get the name and come come back to that point. Can I take you to the third paragraph? HN43 is taking on an arduous role within militant labor. That is to say, the job of branch secretary. This will be very time consuming, but it will lead him to a further rich and I think it's supposed
02:18:41 further rich and I think it's supposed to say seam of intelligence obtaining to militant labor matters at the highest level. He has clear objectives for his last year and this includes providing penned pictures of a le of a leading
02:18:59 penned pictures of a le of a leading players at the London center. This is particularly important for HN43's professional standards given the relative inactivity of the militant away team in an anti-fascist and general public order context.
02:19:10 public order context. So, can you help us with what intelligence becoming militant labor
02:19:22 intelligence becoming militant labor branch secretary gave you access to that you had not access to before? Uh, basically it's a leap leap up once again to introduce yourself to be able
02:19:33 again to introduce yourself to be able to introduce yourself to people. Uh so once again I'd almost always say I'm militant uh branch secretary for Hackne in Islington and it was very important
02:19:48 in Islington and it was very important Hackne in Islington to Militant itself because the militant uh HQ uh at the time was situated uh within within Hackne Hackne Wick as an area. So you had the full-time members uh who many of them then lived close or nearby to the
02:20:04 them then lived close or nearby to the HQ would also come to the meetings and then just quickly going up I was so stuck with the home address bit if we go back to the first paragraph I can still see as part of that uh learning more about people uh me being me I'd also
02:20:22 about people uh me being me I'd also carefully read the old militant uh file over and it was so out of date it was just just rubbish. It was nothing nothing like the organization I had in front of me. So really what I done is I set to militant uh basically the HQ if you walked into it where every single
02:20:34 you walked into it where every single office is where every single worker was who worked in the printing uh where the computers were situated he works in such
02:20:45 computers were situated he works in such and such department basically within the tasking I had which was then quite a time tight time frames about a year uh I wanted to have as though if you walked into that militant you'd almost know where everybody was and how they fitted into the structure.
02:21:00 Can we take that down now please? Can we have up from tab C209246
02:21:04 296 please.
02:21:15 That was impressively quick. We've got the name for you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do you want to
02:21:22 Thank you.
02:21:40 If you could show that to the chairman and then to Mr. Francis, please. Thank you.
02:21:44 Yes.
02:21:47 Sure. Thank you very much. Yes. Yes, that makes more sense.
02:22:10 Does that assist you at all? It does, but I still wouldn't have done it around his house. So, I'm not quite sure who's the reporting officer on that cuz that might be my house. They unhelpfully doesn't record it. Right. Well, all I know is it wasn't my house.
02:22:20 house. The document makes it clear it's not your house and it's not the DC's house. It's somebody else's house.
02:22:38 It's somebody else's house. Somebody else's house. That's the one. Uh so as I was saying 246 296. Uh this is a report of the 21st of May 1996.
02:22:43 1996. Uh it covers the reelection of the militant labor executive committee. Um uh was that uh reported for the benefit of the security service
02:22:56 for the benefit of the security service and primarily? Yes, absolutely. Primarily, but C squad under the pod desk, we're giving them a a really good awareness what's going on in that organization. Uh and how did you get this intelligence? through me now being who I
02:23:16 intelligence? through me now being who I am and basically uh cobbling cobbling it together over a quite a long period of time working out who these people are and the national executive and no doubt I would have had minutes from somewhere.
02:23:27 I would have had minutes from somewhere. Could we have paragraph two expanded please?
02:23:38 The executive committee makes all ML's decisions, some of all of which are then presented to the party's national committee for ratification. The national committee meets quarterly. The reduction in size of the executive committee reflects the overall restructuring of ML, which is largely cost dictated.
02:23:52 ML, which is largely cost dictated. There were three executive committee members who were not reelected. Colin Deus, formerly the party's black and
02:24:05 Deus, formerly the party's black and Asian affairs officer. ML found that its intervention in black and Asian matters was a complete waste of time and this intervention as it is termed has been abandoned.
02:24:18 abandoned. How did you get that particular piece of information? Basically from whoever I spoke to which I can't remember exactly who it was. It wouldn't it wouldn't have been one person. Uh there's many people on that
02:24:34 person. Uh there's many people on that list that I knew uh as in good speaking terms, but it it it's not well worded. Uh basically um the the short summary with regards to militant perspectives of their their main
02:24:46 perspectives of their their main objective. They're not individuals. They're very very committed individuals, but we're talking from an organization
02:24:58 but we're talking from an organization perspective. It was a waste of time and intervention with regards to how many recruits how many black and Asian recruits have they got since supporting these campaigns. And I I don't think there's more than like a couple. And
02:25:11 there's more than like a couple. And then their other thing which actually takes precedence over membership is finances. So by spending so much money on literature, spending so much money on plaqueards, there's nothing free all
02:25:29 plaqueards, there's nothing free all that on how much money did they get in response and uh the black that particular campaigns it sounds awful. It sounds awful and benefit of hindsight shouldn't be written that way. But from a very um materialistic point of view, what does
02:25:40 materialistic point of view, what does the party get by having the support in there? And that that is what it was. It was a waste of time. But you know the the good the good that the party did by
02:25:52 the good the good that the party did by uh help you know hopefully helping their campaigns even with this sort of agenda. They wanted to recruit people and that
02:26:03 They wanted to recruit people and that militant also had an issue with regards to singleisssue campaigns and if you yourself was a single issue person you were sort of regarded as you know not being
02:26:12 being you have to be educated that single issues are not the way forward. So not enough members definitely not enough
02:26:24 enough members definitely not enough finances leads that but not a complete waste of time with regards to helping people but that's there And I'm interested also in how accurate it is in terms of predicting what ML went on to do. Did ML completely
02:26:40 went on to do. Did ML completely abandoned campaigning for racial justice or was it just shifting the balance and reducing its effort in that direction?
02:26:51 effort in that direction? What you've just said certainly at that point there wasn't a total abandonment and obviously I didn't leave that later on. I don't know where it then went. And now, if we can take that document down now, we're reaching a stage where
02:27:04 down now, we're reaching a stage where there isn't a great deal more reporting from you, although you've got a little while left uh in your deployment, but I want to take this opportunity to ask you some questions now looking back over
02:27:18 some questions now looking back over your uh deployment to ensure that we're not missing uh anything. We've seen that the only written reporting well the the only evidence
02:27:32 reporting well the the only evidence you've given about Baroness Lawrence has been that right at the start of your deployment where you orally reported something to HN86. Did you
02:27:48 Did you at after reporting the partying rumor, did you, to the best of your recollection, at any other time in your deployment, report anything orally or in writing about Baroness Lawrence?
02:27:59 about Baroness Lawrence? Her specifically, no. Same question. Dr. Lawrence, no.
02:28:06 no. Same question. Dwayne Brooks.
02:28:22 No. Same question. Steven Lawrence campaign. Yes.
02:28:28 Yes. What did you report about the Steven Lawrence campaign? There would have been at least two quite meaty analyses of where the Steven Lawrence campaign was with regards to the left and that would have definitely
02:28:40 the left and that would have definitely been completed with my input and Trevor Morris's input. But it's it's a negative report. So whether or not it went any further than we compiled a report, it
02:28:52 further than we compiled a report, it was written, I don't know where you'd necessarily put a negative report, but it should have gone on the Steven
02:29:03 it should have gone on the Steven Lawrence campaign file. It it really defies belief that the Metropolitan Police didn't want to know even a negative report that you know they wanted confirmation that Panther, the
02:29:15 wanted confirmation that Panther, the Wy, SWP, ANL, Workers Power, all of them weren't involved. is just stretches beyond credibility that the there wasn't something and me and uh Trevor uh and early on um other officers we we
02:29:28 uh and early on um other officers we we definitely spent time there there's time and it was constructed as a report which once again would have gone to John Webb to turn into something.
02:29:48 to turn into something. You said on Tuesday uh yesterday morning something to the effect that there were concerns about writing down anything about the Lawrenes. Can you help us with what those concerns were?
02:29:58 were? Well, along my the tasking that that would have been that would have that would have not been written down. I'm sure of that. But with regards to this report I just mentioned, there'd be
02:30:10 report I just mentioned, there'd be reason no reason. I can't imagine no reason not to reply that we're confirming what we were saying that this party isn't being influenced on anybody. I can't understand why they wouldn't have that.
02:30:21 have that. When you say the tasking, can you be more precise? Tasking to do what? The H&86 one, the going out looking for anything.
02:30:28 anything. and may may already be clear from your
02:30:39 and may may already be clear from your answers, but just to be absolutely sure, was there anything that you relayed about the tasking to undermine the campaign
02:30:41 campaign either in writing or orally?
02:30:52 either in writing or orally? Could you repeat that, please? Did did you at any time during your deployment after the partying rumor
02:31:00 rumor report anything either orally or in writing
02:31:06 writing about the Lawrenes that might have been used to undermine them? No, I didn't. Same question for Dwayne Brooks. No, I didn't. Was
02:31:18 Was that subject ever raised again with you by any of your managers after you reported on the partying rumor?
02:31:30 There certainly was an understanding with regards to Bob Lambert that when I was out I was looking for the same sort of stuff but it was done from his educating the public.
02:31:50 Was there ever any discussion with your managers about
02:31:56 about the influence that far-left groups might be having or not having on the Lawrence campaign and the Lawrenes within the context of us writing the reports?
02:32:06 reports? Yeah,
02:32:07 Yeah, that that's it. And after after those reports were put in?
02:32:14 in? No. And that would have been still when Trevor Morris was there. I I never done anything by myself and there was no other officer with any form of input. It had only been me and Trevor. So once
02:32:25 had only been me and Trevor. So once Trevor had left, I didn't do it again. The
02:32:27 The Guardian in 2013 reported you as saying that you were under huge and constant pressure from your
02:32:39 and constant pressure from your superiors and that throughout your deployment there was almost constant pressure on you personally to find out
02:32:51 pressure on you personally to find out anything you could that would discredit these campaigns.
02:32:58 Can you help us whether is that literally true or did there come a point when your managers were no longer raising the issue of the Lawrenes?
02:33:12 issue of the Lawrenes? I just took it that it hadn't changed that I hadn't been stood down from getting getting the information. I then was aware that Bob Lambert was aware of what I was still looking for. And as I
02:33:23 what I was still looking for. And as I mentioned, it was every time there was a pinch point with regards to the Lawrence campaign has stopped here, there was always the wondering where they're going to go. And we were ready from our
02:33:39 to go. And we were ready from our intelligence capability that if they then came over to any of the groups saying this is where we're going, we would have been able to report back on it. But that that's the brief. But it it
02:33:50 it. But that that's the brief. But it it to me the Lawrence campaign through that the entire time I was deployed and obviously when I came off within getting into the era of 1881
02:34:06 into the era of 1881 there was constant pressure with regards to if this campaign went anywhere that the that we in the SDS want to know where they were going. Was that a pressure you were feeling solely because of that initial those initial taskings or was it one that was
02:34:24 initial taskings or was it one that was reinforced in any way by the actions of your managers over the years of your deployment? I think it's something I personally took more because it was a tasking given to
02:34:38 more because it was a tasking given to me and then when Trevor Morris left uh I didn't feel I just felt it was only me me out there looking if if there was something. Yeah, more me. I think those questions were directed specifically at the Lawrenes and Dwayne
02:34:50 specifically at the Lawrenes and Dwayne Brooks. Why stepping back and looking at the question of other family justice campaigns? We've been
02:35:02 family justice campaigns? We've been through your reporting. There is some of it but a pretty limited volume of recovered reporting on family justice campaigns. Earlier in the week we went through your time with KFG.
02:35:17 your time with KFG. I want to know now about your time with ML.
02:35:22 ML. In addition to the reports we've been through,
02:35:23 through, can you recall any or you've already told me about, can you recall anything else that you reported either orally or in writing
02:35:35 in writing about family justice campaigns?
02:35:46 No. No. But the there was there was nothing really happening that wasn't being reported on. So if there was not too many demos or activities that were being reported that you haven't got
02:36:00 being reported that you haven't got reports, I think that shows more that the campaigns weren't actually doing that much publicly because uh you know you mentioned one like Winston Silkot done one at one at the police station.
02:36:11 done one at one at the police station. Had that been regularly say monthly or other campaigns regularly I would have been on there reporting more and I think the absence of reports is more about the
02:36:27 the absence of reports is more about the absence of activity but every time there was an activity uh I was in a position to either be on it or be able to report on it. So I I don't think unless I'm missing that there was a lot of demos
02:36:39 missing that there was a lot of demos that I wasn't aware of or was I I did go on all of them. Can I now
02:36:45 Can I now ask you about different types of activity that you're reporting on? I want you to compare how you were tasked in relation
02:36:59 how you were tasked in relation to campaigns which involved allegations of racism, whether against the police or because they arose from racist attacks with how you were tasked to deal with
02:37:21 with how you were tasked to deal with things like militant labor involvement in schools, hospitals, industrial action.
02:37:22 action. campaigning against legislation, that sort of thing. Was there any difference
02:37:36 sort of thing. Was there any difference in the way in which your managers spoke to you in about the importance or the purpose?
02:37:38 purpose? Very much so. Could you expand on that please? Yes. basically those other campaigns that you mentioned, I would go on to
02:37:53 that you mentioned, I would go on to them, but there wouldn't necessarily be a report writing uh necessary. um I would um go on them, but I actually done it more to maintain cover because my concern
02:38:07 to maintain cover because my concern always was if I only showed interest in the Pacific area I wanted the intelligence on uh that that wouldn't quite look right because uh your rounded
02:38:18 quite look right because uh your rounded uh activists particularly when they they were in militant labor in some sort of position would go on all all matters whether a hospital demo, post office demo, or whatever else uh they were concerned with. But yeah, there was there was almost no interest
02:38:31 there was almost no interest from the SDS with regards to that reporting. But there'd always be great interest if I said, "Oh, on Saturday I'm
02:38:46 interest if I said, "Oh, on Saturday I'm going here because it's um whatever demo there is that you've just asked about that sort of demonstrations." There there's a market difference, a very very marketked difference. But SDS customers were generally
02:38:57 But SDS customers were generally interested in what ML was doing across the board. The uh SDS mainly was public public order. The other customers even they had
02:39:08 order. The other customers even they had a limited interest in some of the events that militant labor involved in. They weren't that excited about the closing of a post office or a school or something like this. Could
02:39:22 Could we uh have up please from tab B79? This is your 2003 officer A account 726970.
02:39:40 Can we go once we've got that to page 26 and to paragraph 129?
02:39:44 that may be just over the page.
02:39:54 I got close to a number of people within those organizations, including a well-known left-wing Asian lawyer, and was feeding intelligence back to the SDS about those various campaigns and how
02:40:08 about those various campaigns and how the Lawrence campaign and indeed many other similar campaigns were being infiltrated by political left-wing elements, including Y
02:40:22 elements, including Y and Militant. If you want to see the leadup to that, just say so. No,
02:40:23 No, my question is uh is the well-known left-wing Asian lawyer Imran Khn. Correct.
02:40:39 Correct. But there's one wrong word. I got close is I got information a number of people. I didn't get close to Mr. Khn at all. And once again with regards to checking statements, it's very very similar to what my
02:40:50 what my barristers said with problems with me with this statement. This statement I made here was under the exact same extraordinary security measures. I I
02:41:02 extraordinary security measures. I I couldn't have my own statement. Uh it was done for me when I was sitting there. I never had access to the laptop that was there. Literally I was sitting there with them and I kept going in to
02:41:13 there with them and I kept going in to make the statement. It's a read through at the end. And yeah, I I never got close to him. You know, I I would, you know, take shame entirely. If I would have been in a position to be close to
02:41:33 have been in a position to be close to Mr. Khn, you know, I I would have 100%ly reported back on him. But yeah, the the word I'm looking for there is I got information on a number of people including including that. And the
02:41:48 including including that. And the information I was basically feeding back was that Mr. Khn was uh along with Sesh Grover was uh the gatekeepers to this campaign and they were not allowing people like the Y Panther UK to dominate this campaign and that was also borne
02:42:03 this campaign and that was also borne out very much by Trevor Morris and that was all fed into that report that I can't seem to see anywhere but yeah no there I I didn't get close uh to Mr. KHN anymore. I got close to Michael Mansfield.
02:42:24 Mansfield. Aware it says we're being infiltrated by political left-wing elements including y and militant and that's with reference to the Lawrence campaign. The word infiltrated means surreptitiously and gradually. again is infiltrated
02:42:36 again is infiltrated an accurate descript is to say the Lawrence campaign was being infiltrated by the Y and militant accurate or not. It's it's inaccurate. It's the same description I provide as I'd had
02:42:48 description I provide as I'd had information on the campaign but not me being directly in that particular group. the clause in the middle of that sentence and indeed many other similar
02:43:07 sentence and indeed many other similar campaigns. Again, is it really accurate to say many other campaigns similar to the Lawrence campaign were being infiltrated by Y and Militant being reported on in the manner that I've explained over the course of the afternoon would have been more accurate.
02:43:22 afternoon would have been more accurate. Also saying 2000, where was this 2000? the other
02:43:22 the other 2003.
02:43:26 2003. Yeah. Saying, you know, so explain again that it's not necessary, but I wasn't particularly in a great mind when that was being written. The last sentence of the paragraph, I knew that the ultimate aim of the
02:43:39 knew that the ultimate aim of the security services was to try and stop these campaigns from going any further. Can I have a yes no answer to this, please? Did anyone from the security
02:44:01 please? Did anyone from the security service say anything to you directly to the effect that the security service wanted to stop the Steven Lawrence campaign?
02:44:04 campaign? No, they should read the police, not the security services. There was never anything and they showed no interest uh at the meeting or meetings I had. There was never a request for direct information on the Lawrence Lawrence
02:44:19 information on the Lawrence Lawrence campaign off them at all. Does the same apply
02:44:21 apply to other justice campaigns with families from racial minorities? Correct. The their their interest was they were interested with regards to
02:44:34 they were interested with regards to were militant able to make militant a lot bigger through being involved these campaigns and then after a while I was even able to say that was a negative even to that.
02:44:50 Thank you. Can we take that document down now? Want to move to a completely different topic and that is the actions of your then wife at the time.
02:45:09 of your then wife at the time. Uh we've got some written evidence to the effect uh that the then uh Mrs. Francis
02:45:11 Francis approached uh the SDS uh and that it resulted in DI Lambert going to see her at your home.
02:45:27 going to see her at your home. Is it your understanding that your ex-wife approached the SDS? It was and my my understanding was if it's correct or not it's when uh I was
02:45:40 it's correct or not it's when uh I was in the summer 96 this would have been I don't know if you've been given a time Pacific but that's when I I was told it it happened somewhere in that region with concerns about your welfare
02:45:53 with concerns about your welfare with concerns about my welfare and my behavior at the time. And would it be right to say there were some objective grounds for concern about your behavior by then?
02:46:04 your behavior by then? Looking back at it now, yes. At the time, I didn't feel that was right. Afraid I'm going to ask you the question you just asked me. Do you know when this was, can you any more precisely than the summer of 96? the the discussions and
02:46:21 summer of 96? the the discussions and the admissions uh later on we just had a single one-off discussion uh that this had taken place and we never discussed it again and I didn't dig any deeper but
02:46:34 it again and I didn't dig any deeper but I got the feeling it was summer 96 and I think it may have been even abroad when I was in Greece at the time
02:46:40 and this was an approach he made confidentially without your knowledge correct yes how did you find out about it.
02:46:47 it. It was um
02:46:55 It was um we haven't sort of I don't know sort of out of sync because we haven't got me coming off the unit yet. I I'll obviously answer your question, but I think if everyone understand when I came off the unit, we've sort of left it on a very high your evidence here is
02:47:15 it on a very high your evidence here is how the security services, everybody was so pleased with me and the work I was doing and at the time uh the reports were only but super positive. There was an ongoing thing that the subversion
02:47:26 an ongoing thing that the subversion side was was certainly going to be less interested, but there was actually a swing towards the security services side saying, "Look, we're closing down, but we want you to keep us aware of what was going on cuz we're pulling out more."
02:47:38 going on cuz we're pulling out more." So, to me, that even implied more than I'll actually be staying out. So off I went uh to Greece, came back and there was this huge shock that I was actually
02:47:52 was this huge shock that I was actually coming off the SDS later. So there I was off and I had 6 months off. So I came off September 1997. I had six months off and really I just I just seriously I could not understand. I had some runins
02:48:05 could not understand. I had some runins with the management as well which didn't no doubt help my cause. uh and really it's just this perplexing question of uh what had actually happened and I I
02:48:16 what had actually happened and I I somehow or rather it's either she she made some sort of conversation or otherwise I literally said to her and it happened straight after I had lunch with Bob Lambert. Bob Lambert came out to see me January uh 1997 he came to see me sort of
02:48:33 uh 1997 he came to see me sort of welfare we had a curry together and he didn't say anything but it was still niggling me that something had happened. So, literally when I got back, uh, I dropped in conversation that there was no need to worry. Uh, I'm not going to get angry at all. Uh, but Bob told me
02:48:50 get angry at all. Uh, but Bob told me that you contacted the, uh, SDS. And she just turned around says, "Oh, he promised he'd never say." And all this sort of stuff there. And next meeting I had with Bob Lambert. I said, "Oh, she told me that you'd done it." So, I
02:49:02 told me that you'd done it." So, I played both against each other that way around. And my ex-wife did say, she said, "You know, the reason I didn't tell you is because your reaction
02:49:13 tell you is because your reaction wouldn't have been uh too good." Um, and she was very right in that, you know, not not on a violent basis or anything, but I certainly wasn't happy. And I wouldn't have been happy knowing what what she had done despite it being for my good.
02:49:26 my good. And what was her account of what had passed between her and Di Lambert when they'd met? that he would not remove me uh offer firstly that it was in total confidence that he wouldn't say to me
02:49:42 confidence that he wouldn't say to me which he didn't. So he wouldn't say that that I wouldn't be immediately removed from the SDS. Um and basically if that if I am correct I don't know if you've got a date and you're going to say to me actually you're wrong but the date I'm
02:49:53 actually you're wrong but the date I'm having is summer 96. So I'd then stay on from summer 96 all the way to summer 97. So instead of I wouldn't be pulled off
02:50:09 So instead of I wouldn't be pulled off early, but I wouldn't have an extension to my tour, which it started September 93. So a normal tour be September 97, but it wouldn't be extended for another year. And that's what she was told. I wouldn't be hoked off. She he would
02:50:21 wouldn't be hoked off. She he would definitely not say it was her, and I would continue to stay out. Can you recall whether you were being told
02:50:30 told that the plan was being changed because
02:50:43 that the plan was being changed because she had spoken to the unit or whether DI Lambert was simply telling her what the plan already was for your deployment.
02:50:55 I don't know what he said to her. I I can't answer what he might have said to her, but yeah, I can't possibly answer that. I don't know what he said to her.
02:51:06 that. I don't know what he said to her. Uh, can we have up now tab B26 30756?
02:51:26 Uh this is a liaison uh file document sent to MPSBS squad 12th of November 1996 for the attention of DCI Edmonson
02:51:38 1996 for the attention of DCI Edmonson about the reporting on subversion. If we could have the text expanded please. You are aware that there is no longer any requirement from the security
02:51:49 any requirement from the security service for the SDS to actively seek intelligence on subversive groups on our behalf. However, for militant labor
02:52:02 behalf. However, for militant labor socialist worker workers party, we would be grateful for drop copies of reports that give an overall assessment of the health size, morale and activity of the party. any significant changes in the
02:52:19 party. any significant changes in the leadership or ideology of the party and any fundamental changes in the party
02:52:32 any fundamental changes in the party such as splits, mergers, change of name, etc. In addition, we would be grateful for copies of any SWP party notes you may acquire.
02:52:38 So far as it is relevant to militant labor,
02:52:43 labor, was this changed requirement communicated to you with regards to the this is what I was saying. There seemed to be a shortterm
02:52:59 saying. There seemed to be a shortterm emphasis of there actually needed to be more high-grade intelligence and the this message here uh the way the security services the report writing is always very they give a lot of
02:53:10 always very they give a lot of intelligence there and the fact they're asking for militant labor first is significant because they're asking for it ahead of the SWP. So when this comes in, they're asking asking for all that information and militant labor in the
02:53:23 information and militant labor in the priority of those two two left groups there. That is their priority and I felt
02:53:35 there. That is their priority and I felt so I didn't I didn't have access to this but I had a conversation with them and they were saying they needed more information and two give or take two well it's definitely September 96 they say I'm coming off. So, you know, this total mind head warp and the S SWP
02:53:47 total mind head warp and the S SWP coverage was bordering on zero. You'll get on to them, but uh HN81 was out and he was making a right hash of it. So, the SWP, we had no good coverage from
02:54:01 the SWP, we had no good coverage from the SWP. Certainly nowhere where we were before when you had the likes of Trevor and else there. I was in militant labor and all of a sudd I'm coming off because there's honestly it sent my head like
02:54:13 there's honestly it sent my head like dooy what was going on plus everything else that was going on at the time
02:54:21 is what's going on that the security service
02:54:27 service as a waning interest in counter subversion uh the cold war having ended some years before
02:54:34 before 1996
02:54:36 1996 and it is reducing its level of interest. Not extinguishing it alto together,
02:54:42 together, correct?
02:54:45 correct? But reducing it to what might be described as a watching brief. And if people could identify significant shifts to help them. Yes. And
02:54:55 And they are getting the SDS to help them with the watching very much so.
02:55:13 very much so. And they are redefining in A, B, and C what they're interested in. Correct.
02:55:15 Correct. Their residual interest. Correct.
02:55:18 Correct. And what they're no and what is conspicuously
02:55:29 conspicuously absent from that list is there is no further interest in rank and file membership. Not individually. But you are talking about the size, the structure, the health like they're actually saying in
02:55:41 health like they're actually saying in A, B, and C. But for somebody to be able to report on that, for militant labor from the SDS perspective, there's one person, and that was me. And this was a
02:55:56 person, and that was me. And this was a very critical time. This was ending. And really, that that's the argument I was making. I wasn't saying I want to stay another four or five years, but to finish the job off properly, I felt me staying out there for the year to finish it off would help them.
02:56:10 it off would help them. Obviously, I wanted to stay out as well, but it wasn't just a it wasn't just a a general request. I I wouldn't have done it if I didn't think my intelligence
02:56:25 it if I didn't think my intelligence could help. Uh I wouldn't do it. And so by this stage, waning security service interest, but with a residual requirement. Militant labor pivoting away from campaigning for racial justice, not
02:56:39 campaigning for racial justice, not completely, but with more emphasis being put on industrial matters. Yes.
02:56:44 Yes. And in terms of how it was seeking to advance its interests, looking more to the ballot box uh than to anything that generated public disorder,
02:57:01 although later on the SDS posting show that wasn't quite right, they did actually continue in the public order area under the Socialist Party.
02:57:12 area under the Socialist Party. What was it? What was the what did it look like to you at the time public order wise that public order size it was shifting and it wasn't really known where it was going but the militant labor then into the socialist party wherever it would go
02:57:27 the socialist party wherever it would go they would be there and that was part of my pitch to try to stay on as well. Why did you want to stay on? Um, my home
02:57:41 Why did you want to stay on? Um, my home life uh was I I enjoy well home life was not good definitely but I thoroughly enjoyed being an undercover SDS officer and I've always been somebody who if you do your work and you do it well and you
02:57:56 do your work and you do it well and you are being congratulated say for example by the security services I felt I was providing a good job and that's really where I as I as a person thrive the best It's when I'm doing something and there there's some sort of reward.
02:58:12 Can we take that down now, please? Can we have tab B28246930?
02:58:32 This is an SDS operational report. It's dated the 17th of December 1996 bearing Keith Edmonson's name
02:58:44 1996 bearing Keith Edmonson's name at the bottom and it's a report to Commander Moss. Uh so can we just have a look at please at paragraph one?
02:59:01 DC Francis is scheduled to complete his operational tour of duty in September 1997. As you would expect with an officer of his caliber, his withdrawal strategy has been meticulously planned. Throughout his operation life as a
02:59:15 Throughout his operation life as a Germanopile has formed the basis of his cover story. DC Francis is a fluent German speaker and has a working knowledge of the country. So a document which is looking forward to your withdrawal.
02:59:27 withdrawal. Yes. If you could uh zoom that back out again. Uh thank you very much. Uh can we look at paragraph two please?
02:59:41 Commitment required of his target organization militant labor is such that withdrawal from the group is very difficult. And then I'll leave you to read that uh for yourself.
03:00:09 Yes. And uh if we then zoom back out uh we'll see the rest of the document continues to flesh out your withdrawal plan and that was due to start. Um, if
03:00:22 plan and that was due to start. Um, if we look at paragraph five, pick it up at paragraph 5. Your approval is therefore sought for DC Frances to travel to Berlin for the period commencing 3rd of January 1997 for three nights. Private arrangements
03:00:34 for three nights. Private arrangements have been made to cut the cost etc. So,
03:00:47 have been made to cut the cost etc. So, permission being sought to commence the ex your exfiltration strategy starting with a trip to Berlin. Is that a fair summary of what is happening? Correct. almost within a few weeks of that very MI5 request about the militant stuff. Uh did your managers sit down with you at any point
03:01:04 with you at any point around this air at this time to explain why you were being withdrawn just from the what you were base is saying with regards to the reduction of uh subversive interest but I say they
03:01:23 uh subversive interest but I say they just contradicted themselves by a short while before talking about that very document without me seeing that document.
03:01:26 document. So we all a sudden had that conversation and a very short time later we're talking about this conversation being removed. But yes they this is a sitdown discussion uh with Keith. He's the
03:01:39 discussion uh with Keith. He's the authorizing officer. Uh but Bob Lambert would have you know the one who's just gone to see my wife. Bob Lambert would have had a big part in in helping doing this as well.
03:01:53 this as well. I'd like you to put yourself back uh to December 1996 and tell us how did you feel when your managers were telling you you're coming
03:02:09 managers were telling you you're coming out we're going to start your withdrawal strategy. We're going to start with you going off to Berlin in January. I was already angry, but it certainly notched up the anger. And I I I haven't mentioned anywhere, but I actually spent four years playing a very angry character. And I deliberately, very very
03:02:24 character. And I deliberately, very very briefly, I inserted anger literally when I went out there because some other SDS officers were having problems with some of their targets, almost believing they were police officers. So, I built into my charact.
03:02:37 my charact. And if you were ever ever to even suggest to me that I was a police officer, then that's an entirely
03:02:50 officer, then that's an entirely different reaction. So, and I'd actually and I can mention, you know, definitely one cuz he's mentioned it already. You had HM1.
03:02:52 had HM1. He had problems with somebody almost from day one accusing her of being a police officer. Now, that would never have happened to me when I was out because I played a very, very angry person. and there's only one way is it
03:03:04 person. and there's only one way is it going to go for you if you then accuse me of being a police officer. So I was angry for four years. We then had a number of other discussions heated about other issues that I'm sure you're going
03:03:16 other issues that I'm sure you're going to ask me about as well. And then on top of this, yeah, no, I was I was called Mr. Angry by then on the SDS itself. Uh but yeah, that notched up another couple of levels.
03:03:28 of levels. Just want the notching up. I want to try and track. Right. So can we start with before this meeting you said you were already angry and you've explained that that was part
03:03:40 and you've explained that that was part of your p the persona you'd been playing for four years by this stage or three
03:03:51 for four years by this stage or three just over three years um was there any other reason by that stage to fuel your anger yes I was very unhappy at home and basically what had happened is um I best describe it as I was sick of lying.
03:04:05 describe it as I was sick of lying. Literally sick of lying. I was lying all the time in the role of being undercover. I was then going home and having to pretend I was happy. And there was this odd thing. Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me I'm not going to go blame game or anything like this but
03:04:20 go blame game or anything like this but me and my now ex-wife we got married far too young
03:04:22 too young love like I don't think there was even
03:04:33 love like I don't think there was even that much likeness and love between both of us a set of circumstances and I felt that I was pretending all the time and then what I was actually sick of was going home and actually pretending that I was happy in an environment that I wasn't happy and I just wanted to be able to be truthful
03:04:46 able to be truthful And for example, my ex-wife, she touted over as having uh counseling. I turned down counseling because I didn't want to go to counseling because a counselor would actually say to me, "Well, what's the problem?" And if I was
03:04:58 "Well, what's the problem?" And if I was being truthful, I'd actually say, "Well, I don't like and I don't love this woman, but I'm with her because we've got the child." So, there was an anger that I was in that situation. And whenever I became Pete Black, I was playing an angry
03:05:13 Pete Black, I was playing an angry person. But that life, it was it was a better life for me. So the anger manifested itself. And the other anger issues, there are other ones I've mentioned. the fact that I was angry about the uh this Kennington police
03:05:25 about the uh this Kennington police station one. There was a real anger about what happened to the black justice campaigns, the ones that the police officers had actually murdered the
03:05:42 officers had actually murdered the people and that I was reporting on them. And I remember having a report uh they came in to see me and it's somewhere between Kennington Vox and not Voxville Kennington and Brixton police station. The police came in a uniform and they as the SDS has
03:05:54 in a uniform and they as the SDS has asked me Kennington police stations has asked an assessment about this demo. They're really really worried about the black community's reaction and the managers asked me and I they said and I just literally said stop effing killing
03:06:10 just literally said stop effing killing black people. It's quite simple equation for the London police to grasp. If you start effing killing black people, you don't get people coming to your police
03:06:24 don't get people coming to your police station to want to tell you that. And I think the managers this same period of time were quite shocked and later on thinking about it, I don't think that helped my chances of staying on the unit would also started having
03:06:37 on the unit would also started having the beginning of a series of discussions which also involved when they actually said I was coming off. I actually said also to have a think about the mutings
03:06:49 also to have a think about the mutings of a public inquiry about where I'd been for the last few years with regards to everything. So we also had this aspect of me very gently probing but it was a probe more at the beginning had would
03:07:03 probe more at the beginning had would have also thought whereas if I was here maintaining
03:07:12 maintaining we will be coming okay just trying to work out. You asked me where I was angry about and that's just another strand of anger I had. We'll come to that in a moment.
03:07:13 moment. Sorry.
03:07:16 Sorry. No, no, don't apologize. Um,
03:07:18 Um, so we've done pre meeting in December. We've done why the December meeting added another notch to your level of anger. You've told us that
03:07:33 your level of anger. You've told us that in January 1997, you find that your wife has
03:07:35 has gone to
03:07:41 gone to This isn't January 97. This is January 98 when I was off. All right. So, you you don't know that your wife has No. And your notice in there, I would have had no access to this document whatsoever. I'd never been shown this one. They could have very easily
03:07:53 one. They could have very easily inserted in there that my wife had approached him as well. And uh I know there's a matter that you raised with HN86 uh that we'll come to in a moment. Yes.
03:08:04 Yes. Before we do that, I'd just like to stick chronologically to a couple of matters. The first is is this. Um,
03:08:13 this. Um, Michael Menson died on the 13th of February 1997
03:08:24 died on the 13th of February 1997 following an attack uh in on or about the 28th of January 1997.
03:08:37 Was Michael's death ever raised with you or did you hear it being spoken about whilst you were still on the SDS?
03:08:45 I can't believe that I didn't hear about it, but I I as far as I can remember, I was never involved with that campaign. I I've certainly heard of it.
03:08:57 I've certainly heard of it. Are you able to help us with whether any of your colleagues, don't break any anonymity orders, but were any of your colleagues, to your knowledge, involved
03:09:10 colleagues, to your knowledge, involved uh in uh reporting on the Michael Menson campaign?
03:09:15 campaign? What area was it? What area of Northondon? Then there's a possibility it could have been Mark Jenner, which I'm not breaking anything, but saying that. I'm
03:09:20 that. I'm I'm really interested whether you personally knew. No, but that because the North London area, the time that he may possibly involved in that.
03:09:33 may possibly involved in that. Again, before we go further into your exfiltration, I'm just going to take this opportunity to to look at another matter,
03:09:38 matter, blacklisting. Yes.
03:09:44 Yes. Did you ever pass on confidential intelligence about activists to the consulting association yourself? It wouldn't have been the consulting association back then. It would have
03:09:59 association back then. It would have been the economic league. It became that later on. But whatever it's called, me directly and the SDS, no. But if you asked that from every SDS officer, which I know you have asked, I I can't believe they're not all going to say the same
03:10:10 they're not all going to say the same answer. No, the question really should have been is when you were on C Squad.
03:10:23 have been is when you were on C Squad. Yeah, don't worry. I'm coming to that. Um any other directly? Did you pass on anything to any other blacklisting organization? It's totally impossible. We can't pass anything on such a vacuum. Did you witness anybody else do so? It's impossible to do. So,
03:10:35 impossible to do. So, did NES special branch officer tell you that they had done so? If we go back to C squad, yes, I was aware of that. Right. Can you help us when you're on C squad? We know there's an industrial desk.
03:10:45 desk. Yes.
03:10:56 Yes. My questions have tended to be directed at those who sat on the industrial desk. Were you on the industrial desk or were you on another desk? I was on the air liaison desk, but the C squad uh the whole of C squad was probably about maybe the size of this room, slightly bigger. So when the industrial desk was, it' be where the chairman is. I might be sitting over there, but I'd certainly
03:11:09 sitting over there, but I'd certainly know who is here and the branch was a very small small place and everybody knew each other. So I would certainly be speaking to people in the industrial section. They're not giving away. They weren't one of the closed circle groups.
03:11:24 weren't one of the closed circle groups. So they were allowed to talk. There were some units you weren't allowed to talk openly about what you did, but the industrial unit wasn't one of those units.
03:11:33 units. Organizationally, can you help me? I've used the phrase industrial desk, but we know there were organizational changes over the years in C squad. Can you help
03:11:44 over the years in C squad. Can you help us with by the time you are serving with the SDS, is there still an industrial desk?
03:11:45 desk? Correct.
03:11:47 Correct. Yes, there was. But there might be then by the time the pod starts midnight what we're talking about. No that's not
03:11:58 we're talking about. No that's not correct. We have to be 100% sure because it's very very important matter. So by the time I left which is January 1993 that was the position but there was an industrial desk when I joined but after
03:12:16 industrial desk when I joined but after that that moment in time I have not got a clue what happened there afterwards. So that's how I'd leave it there. So back to the question, let's I'll break it down. So we start with when you are yourself on C squad, do you hear any
03:12:30 yourself on C squad, do you hear any special branch officer tell you that they have passed intelligence to a blacklisting organization or not using those very words?
03:12:42 not using those very words? Yes, words to that. certainly was a link between the special branch and the economic league and you would there is the industrial section would have had because they were I I find it I find
03:12:54 because they were I I find it I find some things some of the officers have said here a little bit of a stretch to understand but there's nobody who was working on sea squad wouldn't have been aware of the economic league because
03:13:07 aware of the economic league because they had a role within a subvers versive the the countering subversions they they we had Mr. can't use the word vetting. So the vetting you had a number of
03:13:23 So the vetting you had a number of companies that people couldn't work for if we just narrow it down just to the troskiest because they they whoever decreed it you wouldn't be able to work for them and the consulting the economic league at the time was also within that
03:13:42 league at the time was also within that loop of they didn't want these troskers organizing there. So if the event you had any sort of inquiry finding out is this person uh troskiest you'd look through our our records.
03:13:53 you'd look through our our records. You'd look through our records then it's up to the industrial desk whoever the allocated sergeant DS was. There would have been one maybe two would have a liaison role between them and the
03:14:08 liaison role between them and the economic league and it's up to them if the intelligence was only one way that's that's certainly what they're saying the branch would have intelligence come only one way what do you mean by that
03:14:19 what do you mean by that I think the economic league would give them intelligence look this is all the people is on our our sites or whatever it is uh but you don't have a oneway a relationship,
03:14:31 you don't have a oneway a relationship, you you have to give something back. And I know there's a specific example, and I'll be able to name the officer who I know had a lunch with somebody uh with in the building industry, very senior
03:14:45 in the building industry, very senior within it. And I was junior on the desk to him, and I was sent down to go and research if the people had had filed, they were known to the special branch. I either went back to the reporting sergeant. I don't know what happened with it, but the fact I was asked as a
03:15:00 with it, but the fact I was asked as a junior one and this was in the building industry.
03:15:05 industry. Can we start by asking you to write down the name of the sergeant concerned and he's not nothing to do with the SDS. He doesn't feature in your list. Understood. And I'll also put down I actually know the person he spoke to as well if you'd like that as well.
03:15:16 like that as well. Yes, please.
03:15:35 juices.
03:16:38 Thank you. So I understood you correctly. A sergeant. Was he linked to the industrial desk? No, he was my he was on my when I was doing the three area. He was one of the sergeants there. Three area sergeant. Yes.
03:16:50 Yes. Has had a meal. When you said building, do you mean within Scotland Yard or another building? No, outside. He was taken out for lunch at a a building at a restaurant or It certainly wasn't a builder's cafe.
03:17:02 It certainly wasn't a builder's cafe. He's taken for lunch and he comes back. No. Before Before he goes to lunch, he's asking you.
03:17:06 you. Yes.
03:17:10 Yes. Does he tell you he's he's doing that for the purposes of the lunch? Correct.
03:17:13 Correct. Does he make it worth your while? It's not necessary. I just He just orders you to do it. Well, it's not even an order. He just asks me to do it. It's a menial task. I go down and do it.
03:17:27 go down and do it. And there's I do not know. And I'd just like to emphasize there's no suggestion from me that there is any monetary reward he was receiving either. I I don't think so. I'm not aware of it.
03:17:41 don't think so. I'm not aware of it. Does he tell you that he has disclosed any of this information to his contact? No, he just went off for lunch. I'd given him that. I didn't question any I
03:17:55 given him that. I didn't question any I didn't question any further. But at that particular point in time, what would I have felt about it if the subversives I'm saying the subversives in the special branch decreed by them was stopped from getting into the place that I've just said there. That was our role in countering subversions in all its
03:18:06 in countering subversions in all its forms, in all its places it took. So I had no compunction. I had no misunder. I just can you go and check this in SPR for us.
03:18:19 for us. The second name you wrote down is that the name of an organization or a person? That's his his surname. His surname. Yes.
03:18:26 Yes. Did you know whether this person was attached to a particular organization or company? No. But he had access. That's when the whole conversation's gone. He was also part of the economic league. However, they paid for other bits. I understand. Uh, was it your
03:18:38 I understand. Uh, was it your understanding that passing information to the Economic League was not strictly allowed?
03:18:49 allowed? I think we're back in the gray area of where the special branch loved to live. Does that mean it wasn't officially sanctioned within the special branch? there would have been no comeback because the fight against aversion uh is is the way off.
03:19:02 against aversion uh is is the way off. Was it officially authorized? It certainly wasn't on a police form.
03:19:12 Is it a case of a blind eye being turned to people leaking information or is it uh more than that and a case of senior management encouraging it?
03:19:25 management encouraging it? It's countering subversion. I I I I just I can't go any further. I I don't understand any further. But uh this officer did not feel it wasn't hidden away of Pete to do this quiet. If it was scary, he would have done it himself. He's talking about junior DC, very
03:19:38 He's talking about junior DC, very junior because only really arrived this month. Oh, I can't be bothered to go and do this in SPR myself. SP was huge,
03:19:50 do this in SPR myself. SP was huge, thousands of files. So you'd go down, it takes some time to work it. He sent me down there because it's just a menial task. It wasn't it wasn't like super secret. Don't tell anybody else, Peter. You did it. Was this a one-off or did it happen more than once?
03:20:02 than once? No, that was one occasion for me, but it one one occasion, but it was quite a memorable occasion for me to do it. Are you aware of any other occasions involving other people? No.
03:20:20 Uh, those questions were all directed at your time when you were on Squad. At any other time in your police service, did you become aware of anybody passing information to any form of blacklisting organization? No, it purely C squad because that that's relevant to C squad.
03:20:38 that's relevant to C squad. Can I ask you now you mentioned vetting? I'd just like to be clear. We understand that there is a vetting system for people who apply for certain roles working for the state.
03:20:50 working for the state. Yes. For example, you had to be vetted to be a special branch officer. Correct.
03:21:03 Correct. Is the vetting that you are talking about for certain commercial companies the same official form of vetting or not?
03:21:06 or not? You'd have to ask somebody who worked at vetting. I don't know. But can I write down one thing that it was called which I don't know is in the public domain at all. There was a particular name of it
03:21:18 all. There was a particular name of it and this was held century in a special branch.
03:21:40 What I'll do is I've just put a selection of three companies that I know were on this this thing.
03:21:48 Thank you.
03:22:22 Were you ever aware of any form of vetting requirement for local government posts?
03:22:24 posts? Not personally aware. No.
03:22:38 Not personally aware. No. Were you ever aware of any channels uh by which information was exchanged between special branch and M do the company McDonald's? Not personally. No,
03:22:48 we can resume now the chronology of events leading Before we do, may I ask a question to clear something in my own mind? Of course, sir. Um, the detective sergeant whose name you wrote down
03:22:59 you wrote down Yes.
03:23:00 Yes. before he went off to have lunch with the individual whose name you written down,
03:23:11 down, what precisely did he ask you to do? He gave me a small list. I I can't remember. It wasn't it wasn't a great big list. It was a small list to go down the special branch records to go down to see if they were known to us. And uh it certainly wasn't bringing files up for
03:23:24 certainly wasn't bringing files up for him to take out or anything like this. It just purely would have been it would have been yes known to special branch or something like that from there. It it
03:23:35 something like that from there. It it certainly wasn't know here's his file off he goes to lunch with those special branch files or something like that. It would have just been enough uh that the person who's asking yes he's known to
03:23:49 person who's asking yes he's known to special branch i.e. you don't want to then employ that person because he's potentially a subversive. Can you remember roughly the number of people on the list? No. Or how long it took you? Not particularly long. No. Thank you.
03:24:05 No. Thank you. Could we have up please from tab B32747851.
03:24:25 This is a file note produced by Keith Edmonson.
03:24:29 Edmonson. We understand it to be dated the 11th of June 1997. It's entitled note for file Peter Francis application to join the surveillance team on leaving the SDS.
03:24:45 surveillance team on leaving the SDS. And if we look at paragraph one first of all
03:24:48 all give you a moment to to read that. But is it fair to say that you had raised a wish to transfer to surveillance
03:25:03 wish to transfer to surveillance with Sergeant War and you done so in about February 1997? Correct. And in the intervening period for that last report to this report because there's a lot been said as how badly I took the fact that I was being
03:25:15 badly I took the fact that I was being removed off the SDS. It was exactly the opposite. I I didn't like being removed off the SDS, but when I was told I wasn't, I then got on to do a lot of work to make sure my exfiltration plan
03:25:31 work to make sure my exfiltration plan was wrong was done properly. And then I started to think to myself, right, I definitely am coming off the SDS. This is where I'd like to go to. But certainly, I'd already I'd started
03:25:45 certainly, I'd already I'd started working professionally by then. I'd gone to Germany. The activists aware that my mother was ill, my pretend mother was ill. Uh so I was doing there's been something raised I can't remember who said it whatever I took it really really badly I wasn't happy with it but I was getting on with it
03:26:06 getting on with it but yes no war somewhere raised with him but I also would have raised it higher uh BL uh Keith would have also been discussed too we'll come to that in the very next paragraph if we could go to paragraph who
03:26:23 records that you had spoken to Mr. to DCI Edmonson and raised your objections based on operational security grounds to the posting. Um,
03:26:34 sorry, he had raised his objections with you. However, I was left in no doubt as to the depth of Peter's feelings on this matter. He was quite adamant that no
03:26:45 matter. He was quite adamant that no other posting would be acceptable. Aware of this, we spoke about just how he could perform the task without jeopardizing his former position. Peter had obviously given careful thought to a posting and was able to satisfy me that it was manageable.
03:27:00 it was manageable. So, is it accurate to say that you had a conversation with DCI Edmonson, the upshot of which is you persuaded him that transferring to surveillance after the SDS would be feasible in your case?
03:27:19 the SDS would be feasible in your case? He he didn't come up with a valid reason why I couldn't do it. That's basically as far as I was concerned. If I'd listened to anybody and you had the scenario of James Thompson going on to protection, there's no way should he
03:27:30 protection, there's no way should he have gone on to protection. I would have accepted not to go on protection because it's a public facing role. You can be caught out TV. Surveillance was hidden.
03:27:41 caught out TV. Surveillance was hidden. I was going to go on surveillance before uh the SDS and so uh adamant with regards to when I was speaking to Mr.
03:27:52 regards to when I was speaking to Mr. Edmonson. It wasn't disrespectful. It was just an argument. If he could possibly explain to me why it couldn't be done, he couldn't.
03:28:03 be done, he couldn't. Did he actually tell you he'd been persuaded or or or did you just have the conversation? I felt by the end of it, I'd persuaded him.
03:28:08 him. Could have paragraph four, please.
03:28:19 So, you've spoken to your sergeant, you've spoken to your DCI, and now you have a meeting with HN86, who by this stage is in a more senior role.
03:28:36 role. HN86 met with Peter and me at NLOP, that's North London OP, is it correct?
03:28:44 correct? On the 22nd of May, 1997 to discuss the matter. One can only say that Peter was more than usually intense. Would it be fair to say that this was a matter that uh concerned you? It mattered a lot to you.
03:28:59 mattered a lot to you. And we also that was the beginning of my uh crossover when I could no longer really get out of my very angry uh undercover persona. It started to
03:29:11 uh undercover persona. It started to seep into my own life quite marketkedly. He stated quite categorically that he would only serve on the surveillance team and actually told HN86 that is what he was coming back to. I leave the reader to imagine HN86's demeanor at
03:29:23 reader to imagine HN86's demeanor at that precise moment. Two exclamation marks. H&86 once he had composed himself told Peter that he would have to take time to think about what he had heard
03:29:37 time to think about what he had heard but stated that any decision would have to be a management decision taking all aspects into account. Now you've painted
03:29:48 aspects into account. Now you've painted a picture for us already uh as HN86 as a somewhat strong and autocratic leader.
03:29:59 somewhat strong and autocratic leader. Correct me if I am overstating that, but is that what um DCI Edmonson's exclamations relate to? Very much so. And I think in the intervening four years, I had changed
03:30:10 intervening four years, I had changed drastically, but HN86 had become even more severe at that stage as well. What HN86 did offer was the certainty of staying on S squad. But working from Tintagel as part of the now developing
03:30:22 Tintagel as part of the now developing OSU team without giving any promises as to the future, HN86 indicated that such a move would enable the senior management of the surveillance team an opportunity to assess Peter and make
03:30:38 opportunity to assess Peter and make their own decision as to his eventual suitability. Peter then left 86, H&86 with me to discuss what had taken place. H86 was clearly confounded by the way Peter had
03:30:52 clearly confounded by the way Peter had acted, but I did remind H&86 that that this is not unusual in an officer at this stage of his departure from the field. Um, is it right that you were essentially offered a compromise of uh
03:31:10 essentially offered a compromise of uh staying on S squad which did not close the door on an ultimate move to the surveillance team? I did just draw attention to the now developing uh operational support unit team as an OSU. The OSU did not have a
03:31:24 team as an OSU. The OSU did not have a glowing reputation uh beforehand. And it was a bit of a drop center for sort of um not the best special branch officers. So I took it as a bit of an insult that I would be uh not going onto es squad
03:31:35 I would be uh not going onto es squad surveillance. I'd be going to the OSU team. But what they emphasized to me is they were bringing uh a new sergeant onto the team. He was a uniform direct
03:31:54 onto the team. He was a uniform direct entrance. They were it was it was a dead wood posting. So I took it as an insult that I was going there. But that's why he's actually inserted the word now developing because they were aware it had a bad reputation and they actually sold it to me as in you know we don't regard you as deadwood you will bring
03:32:06 regard you as deadwood you will bring changes we got a new sergeant which I thought was a bit of a sort of a I don't know I thought was a bit of a sort of pap sort of way of doing it but uh I I
03:32:17 pap sort of way of doing it but uh I I listen I listen to the thing but yes the carrot of if I behave believe myself and do well on the OSU team, then yes, the
03:32:33 do well on the OSU team, then yes, the surveillance where I was supposed to go before the SDS might be open to me. Paragraph six, please.
03:32:47 At the next available meeting, Bob Lambert and I gave Peter the news. He was not impressed saying that he had never had any faith in my ability to get him the move he wanted. So the news was that you were not going to surveillance. Yes.
03:33:01 Yes. And you were going to the OSU. Is that right?
03:33:04 right? Yes. The now developing or whatever they were calling it. All the talk of afterare was merely thin air. He then stated uh that he would now decide his future
03:33:16 uh that he would now decide his future for himself and whether he would return to work. Somewhat beused, I asked him whether that meant return to work at any time until he was offered something he wanted or actually resign from the
03:33:31 wanted or actually resign from the police service. That question was left unanswered, or at least I did not understand the answer. We then spoke about what H&86 had suggested and the functions of the OSU as we understood
03:33:42 functions of the OSU as we understood them were explained to Peter. He asked to be able to speak with a member of the team who would be able to spell out precisely what its functions are from a practical level. I said that I would
03:33:53 practical level. I said that I would arrange for a meeting with blank with whom Peter had has previously worked.
03:34:04 whom Peter had has previously worked. Peter previously mentioned working with the financial section but that has not been pursued. The main reason is that they are often in court seeking orders under the PO. Is that the prevention of terrorism?
03:34:15 terrorism? And this certainly would preclude Peter from that work. Is that a fair summary of the meeting with Bob Lambert and DCI Edmonson? Yes, it was.
03:34:30 Yes, it was. How did you feel about HN86's decision?
03:34:37 decision? Uh, let down a let down by him. Um, because I saying I was due to go on surveillance beforehand. Surveillance wasn't a unit that when you leave the
03:34:48 wasn't a unit that when you leave the SDS, you weren't allowed to go on. And I once again, I couldn't I couldn't work out why I was leaving the SDS. And now I couldn't work out why I was being dumped in the OSU. So I'm saying it wasn't a
03:34:59 in the OSU. So I'm saying it wasn't a great posting. Well, it became a good posting. I turned it into a good posting, but before I went, it's reputation preceded. It was something I I I still I was What have I done wrong? What had I done wrong? But there we are.
03:35:12 What had I done wrong? But there we are. Were you in any doubt that this was HN86's
03:35:14 HN86's personal decision? Um
03:35:24 yeah I suppose yeah because of Keith Keith and Bob had tried null war suggested it. Yes I suppose I I did I don't know did as H86 got the ability to
03:35:36 don't know did as H86 got the ability to call everything. Um, I I ended up having another discussion with this and other things that were going on and arked it over 1886 uh because I took it all the way up to Roger Pierce in the end. So, I
03:35:50 way up to Roger Pierce in the end. So, I wanted to I think I was checking that he had that authority to make that decision.
03:35:54 decision. And were you left with the impression it was his decision or Roger Pierce's? Uh, by the time I then had a subsequent meeting with Roger Pierce, it was
03:36:06 meeting with Roger Pierce, it was evident it was Roger Pierce's decision as well. Uh amongst the emotions you felt, were you feeling angry?
03:36:17 felt, were you feeling angry? I was feeling angry. I think I was feeling more uh let down and confused, but there was definitely an anger persona there as well. Was that feeling that you were let down and confused directed at any particular
03:36:29 and confused directed at any particular person or was it a general feeling that you were being let down? I told Keith as well, he'd let me down as well. So I felt fairly let down by universally everybody.
03:36:43 I'm sorry to uh ask the chairman to rise at such a low point but sir I am now going to move to another topic. Would this be a convenient um
03:37:01 that's what I mean convenient don't worry a convenient point right until tomorrow. Um I I had noticed the time as well and uh Mr. Francis I I can tell you we are on course to finish tomorrow. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.
03:37:19 So um if that uh I believe realistic statement uh proves correct. You've only one more day to go. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you.