DCI Malcolm MacLeod's testimony covering his management of the SDS from November 1986, with extensive questioning about Robert Lambert's deployment in the animal rights field. Key topics include Lambert's contribution to the McDonald's libel leaflet, Lambert fathering a child as 'totally and utterly unacceptable', criminality by undercover officers, and detailed examination of the 1987 Debenhams incendiary device attacks. MacLeod admits he received no advance intelligence about the attacks despite Lambert's reporting, accepts Lambert must have been 'part of the cell' to obtain such detailed information, and cannot explain why Jeff Shephard's name didn't appear in reporting until a month after the attacks.
00:06:28 e e
00:07:27 today's proceedings are being live streamed those with electronic devices may use them to report what they have heard in the hearing room but only after 15 minutes have elapsed since the event
00:07:41 15 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting those devices may not be used for recording thank you thank you sir
00:07:56 um Mr McLoud I'm going to ask that we start this morning by having on the screen a part of your witness statement it's page 36 paragraph
00:08:10 82 M MPS 0748
00:08:22 808 page 36 paragraph 82
00:08:34 sorry May must be page um 80 sorry page 35 to begin with thank you um and you were asked when you gave your statement about your awareness of um various police discipline
00:08:49 um various police discipline regulations and I want to ask you about what you said at paragraph 82d in
00:09:00 particular at the bottom of the page and going over to the top of the next page
00:09:08 please right and you said this I have been asked what type of conduct I think would amount to discredit discreditable conduct in the context of a long-term undercover deployment the definition given in the legislation is very broad
00:09:22 given in the legislation is very broad but I would encapsulate it as behaving in a way that is morally wrong or generally regarded as bad behavior and where the UCO could not show that the conduct was a necessary part of their behavior in role um you go on to offer up an example
00:09:36 role um you go on to offer up an example that I'm not going to ask you any detail about but the example was an officer who was involved in a drink Drive incident
00:09:48 was involved in a drink Drive incident all right what I want to ask you is this following on from yesterday's questions do you regard deceitful sexual relationships as discreditable conduct yes the fathering of a child as Robert Lambert did discreditable conduct
00:10:05 Lambert did discreditable conduct yes did you regard the commission of Crimes by undercover officers as discreditable conduct yes in all
00:10:17 discreditable conduct yes in all circumstances there may be extenuating circumstances on occasions where that
00:10:27 may may may not be applicable I'll come back to ask you some more detail about that um can I ask you specifically first of all about um one allegation that is
00:10:40 of all about um one allegation that is made regarding Robert Lambert and I'll do that by reference to a an intelligence report so can we have on screen please MPS 0742
00:10:50 0742 720 it's a report dated in October of 1986 so it's just before you were you came into the role uh in the
00:11:14 SDS excuse me and I want to um focus on paragraph three
00:11:21 please it's a report its subject heading is the
00:11:28 AL um but I want to ask you about what's set out in the bottom part of paragraph three paragraph 3 is about an individual
00:11:39 three paragraph 3 is about an individual producing material printed materials and it says this one of his first orders is
00:11:51 it says this one of his first orders is from London green piece for the printing of a new McDonald's fat sheet a clearly lious publication certain to be of interest to the lawyers of this worldwide hamburger chain right so a report in part about a leaflet being provided that is described in the report as clearly
00:12:03 in the report as clearly lious the evidence um to this inquiry is that Robert Lambert in his undercover identity contributed material to that leaflet that went on to be the
00:12:18 to that leaflet that went on to be the subject of liel action by McDonald's in the uh early 1990s were you aware at any [Music]
00:12:25 [Music] stage that Robert Lambert had contributed to a leaflet an anti- McDonald's leaflet if I can term it that for these
00:12:39 for these purposes I wasn't aware at the time I became aware subsequently do you mean in the course of this
00:12:45 of this inquiry yes you became aware or before that well before that yes I be I became aware of it
00:13:03 um yes I I can't remember it was point but I I I was aware and and how did you become
00:13:10 aware I think there must been something in one of his intelligence reports so whilst you were still serving in the
00:13:36 SDS I think I might have been on C Squad by then I'm not sure if I if that that was during the time I was in post but or whether it was subsequent to meet understood understood on the dates but just in terms of how you became aware then it was through intelligence
00:13:49 aware then it was through intelligence reporting yes I believe so and is your recollection that you saw some intelligence reporting which suggested that Robert Lambert had contributed to the McDonald's fact she I I hadn't no I
00:14:01 the McDonald's fact she I I hadn't no I didn't see any I thing it suggested that I was aware that these Publications were been circulated but I didn't see that I see so the intelligence was to the effect that this sort of literature was being
00:14:16 sort of literature was being circulated my question was aimed at any knowledge that Bob Lambert had contributed to the creation of the literature did you hear or see anything to that effect
00:14:31 no did did you yourself have any contact with McDonald's no at any stage no were you aware of um individuals by the name of Sid
00:14:45 of Sid Nicholson a former police officer who went on to work for McDonald's no or Terry Carol
00:14:53 no were you aware of McDonald's having their own private investigators their own agents in London Greenpeace at any stage are you quite sure about that I'm certain if that had been the case what
00:15:08 certain if that had been the case what would your uh reaction have been to the presence of McDonald's agents in the same groups as your undercover officers would that have caused you any
00:15:21 officers would that have caused you any concern well McDonald's are entitled to do what they see fit to do
00:15:29 um provided that provided there was no sort of um collusion with Lambert i' say it might have concerned you had there been collusion between
00:15:41 you had there been collusion between private agents acting for McDonald's and your undercover officer yes thank you can we take that down I want to move now to ask you more generally about the involvement of undercover officers in criminal
00:15:53 undercover officers in criminal activity and can we start please by looking at your witness statement page 155
00:15:59 155 paragraph
00:16:08 269a We have 269 thank you and
00:16:20 a right you were asked about some phrases in uh your the notes of your conversation with operation Hearn um one which was to the effect no there was no acceptable level of
00:16:32 there was no acceptable level of criminality by by field officers and the other that inevitably they would get caught up in public order offenses and you said this at 269a
00:16:44 offenses and you said this at 269a perhaps I spoke too Loosely in the Hearn interview I did classify public order offenses as criminal offenses at the time I was an SDS manager they are still offenses under the law public order
00:16:57 offenses under the law public order offenses were an occupational hazard for uos they often got caught up in arrests for such offenses though I know of no convictions public order offenses were lowlevel offenses like obstructing the street in
00:17:06 street in demonstrations however there is a distinction to be drawn between low-level public order offenses and other acts of criminality for example damage to property common in the AL the latter is a step too far I maintain that
00:17:23 latter is a step too far I maintain that there is a distinction between condoning criminal behavior and dealing with inevitable but regrettable arrests does that paragraph Act Ely set out your attitude your views to
00:17:35 out your attitude your views to criminality by undercover officers yes so accepted they may get caught up in situations which led to their arrest for public order offenses is that right yes there's an occupational hazard as I
00:17:47 there's an occupational hazard as I understand what you're saying there though it would be in circumstances in which they hadn't planned to be involved but they were caught up in the moment is that fair
00:18:03 that fair exactly and you were join a distinction between that and criminal damage as an example of crime that you would not consider they should be involved in is that a fair assessment of what you're
00:18:17 saying yes I think it is yes correct me if I'm misrepresenting you no no no I think that is an accurate submission were the undercover officers
00:18:28 submission were the undercover officers under your command told by you that you considered something like criminal damage to be a step too
00:18:34 far I never had occasion to actually say that I have to I have to assume that their
00:18:48 intelligence would be sufficient for them to
00:18:49 them to be the mature officers for them to be aware of what is acceptable and what is not but but how would they know where
00:19:02 not but but how would they know where exactly you drew the line if you didn't tell
00:19:07 tell them well I suppose a lot of that is is just by in intuition um I I can't I can't foresee how when could sit down and have a
00:19:20 how when could sit down and have a discussion on what is permissible and what is not I mean they're trained
00:19:34 what is not I mean they're trained police officers to know right from wrong um and there's a limit to how far one can go in terms of wet nursing mature officers the undercover role is quite different from ordinary policing if I call it that isn't it because for
00:19:47 call it that isn't it because for example you're contemplating that they might be arrested for a public order offense in their undercover role yes that's quite distinct from the life of a police officer on other duties isn't it yes the expectation as a police officer would be that you get arrested for
00:20:03 would be that you get arrested for anything full stop wouldn't it correct so they were going to be Crossing the Rubicon as a police officer yes by getting arrested for a public order offense potentially yes wasn't it
00:20:19 offense potentially yes wasn't it important then to tell them you're going to cross that line possibly and that's okay but don't go further than this second
00:20:28 line well I can't see how one could make that kind of
00:20:32 kind of statement or give that kind of warning because of it in the midst of U
00:20:41 AA and they are rubbing shoulder by shoulder with the activist it would be very difficult for the undercover officer to extract
00:20:56 the undercover officer to extract himself from that kind of scenario is almost inevitable if if he wanted to protect his identity uh there would there might be a
00:21:07 identity uh there would there might be a risk of his cover being blown so there's a dichotomy here that um he would be faced with and I think it goes through the territory there's a an inherent
00:21:24 the territory there's a an inherent risk that they may get arrested but we can't expect them to be out there and sort
00:21:29 sort of trying to avoid the um trying to
00:21:35 avoid not participating full-heartedly with what his com are doing in the uh in the group so it's um it's it's a difficult it's a difficult
00:21:49 difficult it's a difficult dilemma but does that dilemma apply in your mind if the officers comrades in the group are planning a criminal damage attack for example or does that only apply for an impromptu demonstration impr promp to
00:22:01 demonstration impr promp to demonstration yeah so there's a distinction to be drawn in your mind
00:22:12 distinction to be drawn in your mind between that sort of uh situation that arises somewhat unexpectedly sure a demonstration that starts to get disorderly for example and a planned criminal activity yes like a planned criminal damage attack is that fair and make that distinction yes and so the
00:22:31 make that distinction yes and so the question really is how was an officer to know that their boss considered it okay for them to keep their cover if a situation arose in in impromptu you unexpectedly but
00:22:43 unexpectedly but not to engage in planning for example a criminal damage
00:22:49 attack yes it is once again it's a it is a dilemma
00:22:57 um they they have to live by their weights
00:22:59 weights once
00:23:04 once again it's perhaps easy to enh hand sight to state that something should be
00:23:16 sight to state that something should be done to prevent this from happening but I suppose they get caught up in the events and the momentum of the actions that have been taken for it's a um
00:23:29 a um leafl or whether it's a
00:23:38 um minor minor criminal damage
00:23:40 damage um I can't see how one could avoid
00:23:51 um I can't see how one could avoid it if we can have a look at another part of your witness statement please page 162 paragraph 280
00:24:12 and you acknowledge there that there were different levels of risk of arrest attaching to different types of deployment and you say that the officers would have been advised accordingly at the start of their
00:24:26 deployment yes did you identify deployments into animal groups and related groups so the type of deployment that Bob Lambert had as coming with a higher risk of arrest or
00:24:42 coming with a higher risk of arrest or not yes I I think it's true to say there was that higher risk and when you say that the officer would have been advised accordingly do you simply mean that you might have told somebody like John dyes
00:24:57 might have told somebody like John dyes who was about to deploy into the animal rights field when you were in the unit your deployment is going to come with a higher risk of arrest or would you have given him any additional advice about what to
00:25:08 what to do I think we would have explained him what what the hazards are what the risks are and how he should respond if he found himself in that situation would
00:25:21 found himself in that situation would that have been discussed with him yeah well it ought to been do you have any recollection of discussing it with John dyes not after this length of time or hn
00:25:32 dyes not after this length of time or hn 887 who also deployed into that field no that kind of minua I just cannot
00:25:51 recollect you say elsewhere in your statement that you think that the there was some advice given about what to do if an undercover officer was arrested you thought that the folder in the back office the binder might have included instructions do you recall that
00:26:03 instructions do you recall that now I can remember obviously the folder in the back office
00:26:17 um frankly I can't remember it may it may have been in the in the
00:26:22 in the folder but I I I cannot honestly remember if that was in the folder but it was certain contemplated
00:26:34 folder but it was certain contemplated that officers might be arrested yes and were they given guidance about what to do in the event of an
00:26:42 arrest well there's not much they can do other
00:26:47 other than get a um a phone call into the the back office staff who are always aware in advance
00:26:58 staff who are always aware in advance when there's any action or demonstration they taking place to provide support from the office if the in the event of them getting arrested by uniform
00:27:10 them getting arrested by uniform police was your expectation that an
00:27:23 police was your expectation that an officer arrested would maintain their cover even to the arresting police officers the rest police officers wouldn't be aware so they would be misled as to the identity of the person they were arresting yes did that trouble you at all no why
00:27:40 all no why not well if you if if they identity is exposed they go to a lot of money training these under cover officers to do the job they're doing that would necessitate and the officer being
00:27:53 necessitate and the officer being withdrawn if there was some a risk to his identity being um
00:28:00 um
00:28:06 disclosed and if the officer were to go on to be charged with a criminal offense and be called to appear before a court would you expect the officer to maintain their cover identity before a
00:28:23 court the answer to that is I don't think they should the the court should be a aware of the of the true identity of the
00:28:36 of the of the true identity of the officer we would just have to manage that as best we can and why the difference between the attitude toward misleading the arresting officers as to the identity of the person
00:28:49 the identity of the person arrested and misleading the court as to the identity of the person appearing before
00:28:55 it well the
00:29:09 if if that information was as I say disclosed there there is a possible risk that
00:29:15 that his under his undercover identity might be um might be uncovered but is that because the police are inherently less trustworthy and
00:29:31 are inherently less trustworthy and might give away his identity whereas the court wouldn't or for some other reason well not deliberately so it's possible to
00:29:33 to me but when it came to the court your view was that their real identity should be made known to the court yes can I ask you about a specific
00:29:45 yes can I ask you about a specific arrest that happened whilst you were in post you didn't deal with it directly Eric Docker did but there are documents about it it's arrest of Robert Lambert
00:29:56 about it it's arrest of Robert Lambert at a a hunt a hunt sub event in Corley and ham the do document is MPS 0526 789 it's your b9c sir and this is March
00:30:06 March 1987 whilst you were in
00:30:20 post we see um from this document that Eric Docker went along and was in was in attendance for the purposes of the arrest do you recall being aware of Robert Lambert attending a mass hunt sabater event a big hunt sabater event
00:30:34 sabater event a big hunt sabater event where the risk of arrest might arise I wasn't aware of that particular event it would the reason for Eric
00:30:45 event it would the reason for Eric Docker attending be because the risk of arrest was anticipated by at least one of
00:30:54 you well yes I mean there's always going to be that risk particularly with the hunt Sabers there's always a risk of a FR car occurring and the officer being
00:31:10 arrested could we have a look please at page five of this uh document it's a report drafted by um Eric Docker following Robert Lambert's
00:31:30 Eric Docker following Robert Lambert's arrest soorry can we just so to help the witness orientate himself can we just look at the previous page sorry my fault right so Mr mlar we see the subject heading of this is arrest of an SDS officer uh DSR Lambert um and it's a report written dated the 3rd of March
00:31:46 dated the 3rd of March 1987 which is recording Robert Lambert's arrest in fact on the 28th of February
00:31:58 arrest in fact on the 28th of February you see in paragraph one taking part in anti- Hunt demonstration at ham Sussex yes and then Mr Docker sets out the circumstances um of the arrest um paragraph three I'll just summarize about 180
00:32:11 summarize about 180 demonstrators um they it's recorded that they penetrated the police net in the area they were shephered or massed by police encountered another
00:32:22 police encountered another roadblock uh and decamped from Vehicles into the surrounding fields and then paragraph 4 records detective Sergeant Lambert was therefore left no alternative but to
00:32:33 was therefore left no alternative but to follow his fellow activists who were all chased by uniform police officers the majority escaped but the officer along with seven others was caught and arrested and then all those arrested
00:32:46 arrested and then all those arrested were taken to Horan police station and interviewed however it soon became apparent that most of those arrested including uh DS Lambert had not committed any substantive offense and
00:33:01 committed any substantive offense and therefore after about 2 hours in police custody detective Sergeant Lambert was released without charge so arrested interviewed but released without charge um Mr Docker goes on to say at paragraph
00:33:16 seven over the page uh this although the arrest of an SDS officer is always an unwelcome experience I consider that on this occasion the matter has proved beneficial DS Lambert's standing within his group has been enhanced
00:33:28 his group has been enhanced further useful intelligence has been obtained and above all our operation has not been
00:33:34 not been compromised in any way at all do you agree with the uh sentiment expressed there that the arrest of an SDS officer was always an unwelcome experience yes and why
00:33:57 so well it's unwelcome it's unpleasant for the officer himself being in that situation being a serving police officer being arrested it does it doesn't come as a
00:34:08 arrested it does it doesn't come as a natural thing for a police officer to do so it's
00:34:14 so it's um it's just a difficult situation to be in this kind of moral dilemma any sense that it was undesirable as a starting
00:34:27 undesirable as a starting point for a police officer to be in involved in activity that might justify arrest there the whole point of them
00:34:39 arrest there the whole point of them doing what they're doing is to obtain that
00:34:40 that intelligence with it the curry inherent risks of arrest so it's an occupational hazard for second can
00:34:55 hazard for second can see Mr docker's assessment there is that on this occasion in fact the arrest was beneficial and that the officer standing within his group had been
00:35:15 within his group had been enhanced how significant a factor was it to you managing the unit that an arrest might in fact enhance an officer standing in the group well that's that's for to the good of the actual
00:35:29 of the actual operation was it ever considered in fact beneficial generally for the officers to be arrested so rather than trying to avoid
00:35:41 trying to avoid it unless you have no other option in fact was it regarded as something beneficial for the officers to be arrested I I don't think if if you're
00:35:52 arrested I I don't think if if you're sugges to putting themselves in hars way of getting arrested I don't think they would do that I think it would be in the
00:36:03 would do that I think it would be in the unfortunate event of them being arrested is beneficial in the sense in the eyes of the
00:36:05 of the um the
00:36:15 um the activist but did that ever influence the management approach in your experience towards thinking that rather than being best avoided arrest was something that
00:36:29 best avoided arrest was something that the officers would benefit the officers in terms of enhancing their cover I I can't say
00:36:41 that they shouldn't actually be seeking to um improve their image within the group by getting themselves arrested that wouldn't be desirable at all but if they accidentally get swept up in the
00:36:52 up in the fra then yes it's a the would be that benefit in terms of his his status in the group being
00:37:07 his his status in the group being recognized so an incidental benefit rather than an aim correct in the animal rights field in particular did there ever come a time
00:37:20 particular did there ever come a time when you were on the unit when it was regarded
00:37:21 regarded as essential or important for an undercover officer to involve themselves in criminal activity to further their deployment no that could not be
00:37:35 deployment no that could not be encouraged at all it should be avoided at all
00:37:43 course was there not um a dilemma in the animal rights field in this sense that the purpose of a deployment into animal rights groups was primarily to get close to to
00:37:58 groups was primarily to get close to to people who were committing crime in the name of animal rights wasn't it correct So to that extent the deployment came closer to an evidential type of
00:38:09 closer to an evidential type of deployment than an intelligence gathering deployment would that be fair there is a risk of that happening yes and in order for an undercover officer
00:38:27 and in order for an undercover officer to get close enough to those committing the crime to be able to provide the intelligence about those crimes was there not pressure for an officer themselves to be involved in criminal
00:38:40 criminal activity well for my recollection and I'm quite clear on this they were aw were aware of the um provisions of
00:38:51 provisions of um agent
00:38:55 um agent provocator and they would not be encouraged to
00:39:12 encouraged to um to take this one step step further it would be crossing the line between what's acceptable and what is not what Azon provocator the concept it it the purpose of it is that a police officer shouldn't provoke or encourage another person to commit crime yes
00:39:36 commit crime yes correct my question is really aimed that whether or not an officer might involve themselves in criminal activity so not encouraging or provoking anybody else necessarily but showing themselves willing to commit crime in order to get close to the
00:39:54 close to the criminals as long as this action is not breaking the law but just being in the vicinity of the offenders of the activists
00:40:06 that would in the sense enhance his standing in the in the group but it doesn't mean to say that justifies him participating in what would be considered a criminal offense and therefore agent provocator they
00:40:28 and therefore agent provocator they fully understood the provisions of that legislation and I would expect them to involving themselves in criminal Acts as part of their deployment other than where they got caught up unexpectedly other than where they got caught up unexpectedly I wouldn't encourage them to go that far
00:40:44 wouldn't encourage them to go that far that is just a step too far it presented an officer in the animal rights field with a dilemma though didn't it of course it did yeah if they wanted to get close to the intelligence about those
00:40:55 close to the intelligence about those committing criminal acts standing Always by the side might mean they never got there might
00:41:05 and well that's up to and how they actually manage that situation it's a tricky situation as to how how far they can go before reaching that line of um
00:41:19 can go before reaching that line of um criminality if they are to observe they can still observe from not necessarily the margins but they don't necessarily have to put themselves in a vulnerable position where they are going to get
00:41:33 position where they are going to get arrested so they've got to have their RTS about
00:41:35 RTS about them if we could have a look at uh something you said to operation sparkler so you spoke to operation Hearn in 2012 and then operation sparkler which
00:41:50 2012 and then operation sparkler which was looking into the deams devices came to speak to you a bit later in 201617 and could we please have on screen um MPS 0736 832 it's your 8 uh A5
00:42:11 sir and these are the notes that sparkler officers took having had a conversation with
00:42:19 you sorry that's my error in fact we better do this it's better to do this through your witness statement I'm sorry that's my error can we have up on screen page 195 of your inquiry witness statement paragraph
00:42:33 339 because you were asked about this when you gave your witness
00:42:41 statement right starting at the bottom of that page and going over to the next page
00:42:49 please all right you say this in your witness statement by reference to those notes in an operation sparkler interview from 201718 I say that he could he that's Lambert could not have known about the incident
00:43:07 could not have known about the incident that's deams in advance because of these small cells which he could not have got into this remains my view for all the reasons I gave then to summarize those reasons it would be entirely out of character for him and it would carry an enormous risk with no conceivable
00:43:21 enormous risk with no conceivable benefit I want to ask about the first part of that paragraph your view that in relation to the deam incidents Robert Lambert could not have known in advance because of the small
00:43:33 small cells it it's right isn't it that certainly in the era when you were within the SDS action criminal action carried out in the name of the AL was often carried
00:43:51 in the name of the AL was often carried out by small cells of individuals acting apart from The Wider group or The Wider um activists that's my understanding and and that cell
00:44:07 understanding and and that cell structure was often was it not such that those outside the cell didn't seem to know much if anything at all about intended serious criminal action certainly that certainly appears to be the
00:44:12 the case and so for an officer like Lambert not being part of a cell at any stage would make it very difficult for
00:44:33 stage would make it very difficult for him to obtain intelligence about serious CRI activity wouldn't it I would say so yes did you discuss at any stage with Robert
00:44:41 Robert Lambert that dilemma that was presented to him how he would go about getting Intelligence on serious criminal activity without himself becoming part of an Alf
00:44:55 cell no I didn't did he ever raise it with you as a d dma not no not I remember not at all in fact I can be quite clear not it wasn't raced at all now did you at any stage have a
00:45:09 now did you at any stage have a discussion with him about what methods he was using to go about obtaining intelligence about serious Al activity no I
00:45:20 no I didn't did you have any understanding of what officers like Robert Lambert deployed into the animal rights uh groups or sphere were doing generally to get close to activists who were deemed
00:45:32 get close to activists who were deemed Al activists so willing to or committing
00:45:42 crimes no that kind of that level of information
00:45:55 no did it ever concern you what they might be doing what Robert Lambert might be doing to get close to intelligence about F activity no his his role after all is to obtain
00:46:04 obtain intelligence and to prevent crime but I'm asking about your consideration of the methods he might have been using to obtain that
00:46:17 have been using to obtain that intelligence I don't have an answer to that I don't
00:46:28 know could we have up on screen another paragraph of your witness statement please it's it's page 202
00:46:35 202 351 C it's still the section of your witness statement concerning deums page 202
00:46:50 351c I want to ask you about the final two
00:46:54 two sentences um of this I'll come back to the detail uh later this morning Mr McLoud but you said this I have been asked whether any thought was given at this stage that's after deams the deams devices had gone
00:47:08 devices had gone off um as to how Lambert would be able to obtain such intelligence that is intelligence about forthcoming attacks if he was not within the small cell
00:47:19 if he was not within the small cell described in an intelligence report and then you say this his tasking was precisely to insinuate himself as close as possible to the
00:47:32 as possible to the cell so did there come a time when you or perhaps Eric Docker or both of you tasked Robert Lambert to get as close to as possible to an Al cell to to
00:47:43 cell to to get as close as possible um that doesn't mean to
00:47:52 say actually participating
00:48:03 how how did you envisage Robert Lambert might get close to a cell without at the very least presenting himself as somebody willing to participate in its activities well he was obviously very active and uh and prominent within the
00:48:18 active and uh and prominent within the London Green Peace um and he's the type of individual who uh personality um he was obviously popular in his Target group um that information might have been obtained
00:48:37 might have been obtained um in in in casual um conversations he might have had with his activist friends but wasn't the point of the AL cell
00:48:44 cell structure that they weren't having casual conversations with a wide group about intended or already committed serious criminal activity they were keeping it within the cell weren't they
00:48:57 keeping it within the cell weren't they yes very likely and um but of course we don't know to what extent this may have been
00:49:04 been discussed beyond the actual cell itself where Bob lombert could have picked it
00:49:19 picked it up are you quite sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you no sorry are you quite sure that it was never contemplated that Bob Lambert might himself become part of an Al cell in
00:49:30 himself become part of an Al cell in order to gain Intelligence on serious criminal
00:49:35 criminal activity well we we we knew that he was close to the cell
00:49:42 cell um but beyond that whether or not there was
00:49:47 was participation we don't know I don't know and there was nothing to suggest that that was going to happen but clearly yes he he was privy to um
00:50:00 but clearly yes he he was privy to um what was going on within the cell but to what
00:50:01 what extent I would be hazarding I guess I'll come back to the detail of his participation or otherwise um
00:50:22 his participation or otherwise um shortly can I ask you first before I do that about a document that postdates your time in the SDS it's MPS 0730
00:50:29 597 and it's from 1993 so it's several years after you uh left um it's a document that was drafted um within the SDS could we turn uh
00:50:42 um within the SDS could we turn uh through the pages please just to the next
00:50:44 next page just so you can see the first page
00:50:55 there and we've got a contents sorry don't zoom in thank you we've got the date the 15th of January 1993 um there are a number of contents listed to the document including at three policy guidelines regarding participation in
00:51:13 crime and if we could turn please to page 16 where that is dealt
00:51:29 with the document I'll read these two paragraphs for you Mr McLoud 3.8 and 3.9 the document um says this about the SDS since those early years arrests have been relatively few and it is to the credit of the officers involved that on many occasions where involvement in crime was proferred excuses have been
00:51:47 crime was proferred excuses have been found to avoid involvement in the actual event the higher risk fields for involvement in crime are anti-fascist activity anarchism and animal rights
00:52:00 activity anarchism and animal rights in the last mentioned field so that is animal rights in order to gain full acceptance and Trust participation in illegal activities is
00:52:14 essential when you were in charge of the SDS as its detective Chief Inspector did you regard that participation in illegal activities in the animal rights field was in fact essential
00:52:37 if his participation in an illegal
00:52:46 activities which might result in serious harm or damage being done if if there's in danger of a serious offense
00:53:05 then it's a question of deciding just how close you may have got or being encouraged to get to
00:53:09 to and identifying the people responsible so it's again another moral dilemma as to whether or not um
00:53:24 to whether or not um the these decisions it's a it's a very fine
00:53:29 fine line so did you or did you not regard participation in illegal activity as essential for an officer in the animal rights
00:53:38 rights field again if you if you want to weigh it up with the on balance what it may achieve and preventing loss of life or injury to people or or serious
00:53:50 or serious damage it's it's the lesser of two evils
00:54:01 damage it's it's the lesser of two evils so you're saying there are circumstances in which you might have balanced considerations and come to the conclusion that it was in fact essential well clearly uh that's what I said there and I don't want to confuse
00:54:14 said there and I don't want to confuse I'm asking for your view at the time you were the detective Chief Inspector is that the approach that you took to illegal activity by undercover officers in the animal rights field well I have
00:54:25 in the animal rights field well I have to stand by that yes this is a document that dates your time this is not your document does that make any difference to your
00:54:31 to your answer
00:54:36 answer um I think we're in the same wavelength whoever wrote that um I can't disagree the document goes on to say this this
00:54:53 this this level is Progressive from inspections of premises where no criminal offenses are actually committed through the housing
00:55:06 actually committed through the housing of Li ated animals Ding and other minor damage to premises through to product contamination arson and the use of improvised explosive devices so the document appears to contemplate doesn't it that officers might be involved in anything
00:55:17 might be involved in anything from an inspection where no criminal offenses are actually committed all the way up to arson and the use of
00:55:29 way up to arson and the use of improvised explosive devices yes did you consider that there were circumstances in which an officer might be authorized to commit an offense as serious as
00:55:51 Arsen no I draw the line of that where in that Progressive list set out there would you draw the line only at arson would everything else be below that be considered potentially
00:56:03 that be considered potentially permissible well apart from the yes just the arson use of improvised
00:56:15 devices and clearly threat to individuals a threat to um a threat to life I think I I I would support that what about arson that was intended only
00:56:28 what about arson that was intended only to call C damage to property would that be potentially
00:56:32 permissible if that was the
00:56:43 a no I no that's not acceptable that's crossing the line in my
00:56:48 opinion
00:56:58 what with that in mind can I turn to ask you some detailed questions about Robert Lambert's
00:57:08 Lambert's deployment um starting um with events in November of 1986 when you were new to the unit to the SDS can we have a look please at an intelligence report MPS 07427 26 it's your b5a sir
00:57:32 and can we turn to the body of the intelligence report it's signed off by Mr Docker not by you so that that's clear Mr
00:57:33 clear Mr McLoud and if we can zoom in on paragraph 2 this report actually dated the 2nd of December but it's reporting events on the 28th of November
00:57:46 the 28th of November 1986 and it says this Al uh animal Liberation Front activists in North London carried out an attack on a vehicle belonging to a Bix Viv sector
00:58:01 vehicle belonging to a Bix Viv sector parked outside the company's laboratory in cannonbury Villas N1 when the car's Bodywork was attacked with paint stripper the vehicle concerned is understood to be a Ford Granada Saloon with a distinctive number plate
00:58:15 with a distinctive number plate featuring the initials SG which was mentioned as a likely Target in an earlier report do you have any independent recollection of what's reported here none what s
00:58:30 reported here none what s uh the inquiry has received evidence from the former activists uh from former activists suggesting that this attack was in fact carried out by Robert
00:58:47 Lambert did that ever come to your attention no it certainly did not this is the first I've heard of
00:59:00 it this would be in the list of uh potential criminal activities we saw in the document a moment ago a criminal damage attack less serious than arsam wouldn't it yes is it possible that Robert
00:59:15 it yes is it possible that Robert Lambert might have been authorized to commit an act like
00:59:31 this well well he shouldn't have been might he have been in order to ingratiate himself with those activists who were prepared to commit criminal offenses in the name of the
00:59:43 the name of the AL no I I don't think it's justified in these
00:59:46 these circumstances have you any knowledge as to whether Robert Lambert or any understanding as to whether Robert Lambert thought it appropriate to commit acts like this in order to ingratiate
00:59:59 acts like this in order to ingratiate himself with those committing criminal acts in the name of the ALF well Robert Lambert is well familiar with the law and would know that that is going one step too far in my
01:00:15 going one step too far in my view a moment ago when we were looking at the document from 1993 your evidence was that it was possible that there were circumstances in which it would be considered justifiable for an undercover officer
01:00:29 justifiable for an undercover officer yes to commit such offenses so how would he know which side of the line this would fall on it is indeed a very fine line I accept that
01:00:48 um no this is um Act of vandalism against um property I don't think it carries the
01:00:57 same the same risk as for example Landing a incendiary device or something of that like um I think we have to draw a line here and I think we draw the line or that but what confidence do you have
01:01:12 that but what confidence do you have that Robert Lambert would have drawn the line in that
01:01:22 place well there's no way of me knowing if he crosses that line um he he ought to be aware that and would have been aware that you know that a step too far but how would he have been aware of that because he didn't discuss it with him he understands what the aent provocator
01:01:38 understands what the aent provocator professions are Aon provocator is about encouraging or provoking others to commit crime isn't it yes this would be about him committing a crime as an undercover police officer so aant provocator doesn't necessarily help him
01:01:53 provocator doesn't necessarily help him does it that Doctrine well if not it it should have done but but how would the doctrine that's about provoking others to commit crime have
01:02:05 provoking others to commit crime have helped Robert Lambert to decide whether or not he should commit a crime well he he's he's a servant police officer he he should be mindful of the risks yes you got you we're almost
01:02:20 risks yes you got you we're almost splitting hairs here but not too far there is
01:02:22 there is um there is an inher risk
01:02:31 in taking this step too far on on on property as to compared with um where there's a more likelihood of harm being caused to human life
01:02:52 harm being caused to human life as as we mentioned earlier so possible that Robert Lambert might have seemed fit to commit this sort of act
01:03:01 and you wouldn't have known about it no I wouldn't have known about it in fact um this is the first have become become aware of this of course it's outside my time period anyway will you join the SDS as its detective Chief Inspector in
01:03:13 as its detective Chief Inspector in November of 1986 yes so by the date of this report on the 2nd of December you were the detective Chief Inspector in the right okay no I hadn't seen this before
01:03:41 conversation could we take that down please and turn to a report on the 9th of June of 1987 MPS
01:03:45 1987 MPS 074 88 it's your b13a
01:03:56 sir and can we turn to the body of the report
01:03:58 report please Mr McLoud so that it's clear to you this is another report signed by Mr Docker not signed off by
01:04:09 you and can we zoom in on the first paragraph to begin with
01:04:18 please I'll read it into the record for you Mr mlau between the 6th of January 1985 and the 20th of May this year 46 incendiary device attacks were carried out by members of the Alf and Other Extreme elements within the animal rights movement against targets deemed
01:04:33 rights movement against targets deemed to be involved in animal abuse none of the actions has resulted in injury to any person instead substantial Financial loss has been sustained mainly by the meat and fur trade the following information concerning the future of
01:04:44 information concerning the future of this campaign of economic sabotage has been received from a secret and reliable source paragraph two please
01:05:07 details emanating from recent secret meetings between leading Al activists in Manchester Coventry and London strongly suggest that the manufactur and use of timed incendiary devices will continue throughout 1987 it is also clear that the 11
01:05:22 1987 it is also clear that the 11 actions carried out so far this year are all the responsibility of the ALF even though they have not all been claimed and one was claimed by the Vermin Liberation Front future actions will apparently Follow The Familiar pattern of attacks on department stores selling Furs brackets incendies which are
01:05:33 Furs brackets incendies which are intended to activate the sprinkler system inside stores and cause damage by flooding and on meat trade depos l/
01:05:46 flooding and on meat trade depos l/ offices brackets incendies intended to ignite petrol tanks on vehicles or otherwise cause damage by fire so far actions have taken place outside the Metropolitan Police District although it now seems certain that that London will be included in this year's
01:06:07 London will be included in this year's campaign Mr Lambert has given evidence that he was at one of those secret meetings in Manchester were you aware that he was attending that sort of meeting by June
01:06:18 attending that sort of meeting by June 1987 no I wasn't aware does it cause you any concern that he was
01:06:24 was no would you have been discussing with Mr Lambert for example at the weekly meetings where he was going and what he was doing I would have been do you recall reporting from him to
01:06:42 been do you recall reporting from him to this effect that London it seems certain that London will be included in this year's
01:06:49 year's campaign that campaign being the use of timed incend devices including in department stores selling Furs I'm sure if he if he had told me that I would have remembered it well is
01:07:04 that I would have remembered it well is this the sort of report the significance of which you would expect to have been flagged to you for your attention oh absolutely yes do you have any recollection of that happening no I don't this is quite important intelligence for the Metropolitan Police Service isn't it that the ALF incendiary
01:07:16 Service isn't it that the ALF incendiary device campaign abut is coming to London
01:07:28 Y and you would want presumably for this intelligence to be disseminated so that the rest of the service could prepare itself for for the possibility of an IID attack yes potentially in a department store selling Furs in
01:07:50 London what assessment if any did you make it around this time as to whether Robert Lambert was appropriately or inappropriately close to those who appear to have been contemplating such
01:08:08 attacks when field field officers are expected to use their initiative once
01:08:17 again we have to allow a certain degree of
01:08:21 of latitude they are mature officers they know what they're doing um
01:08:25 doing um I would have expected something like that to been brought to our attention but I frankly wasn't aware of it unless Eric Docker was but I I certainly can't recall
01:08:40 recall this might you have considered that Robert
01:08:53 Lambert might himself have felt under pressure to obtain more intelligence about
01:08:56 the possibility of attacks in
01:09:03 London no undercover officer should feel as you say under
01:09:15 feel as you say under pressure um because that suggests that you might go above and beyond what is legally
01:09:17 legally acceptable so and did you take any steps to guard against officers like Robert Lambert feeling the need to go above and beyond what was acceptable no I I mean that's
01:09:35 what was acceptable no I I mean that's not something you expect to to do and he as I said before I mean he was a very successful officer he was he's a very intelligent
01:09:49 was he's a very intelligent man I would expect him to lose to to use common
01:09:54 common sense in his decision making when it comes to
01:09:59 comes to this Looking Back Now knowing what you know about how he did conduct himself particularly in regard to Jackie and the fathering of a son do you retain any confidence that he was able to
01:10:14 confidence that he was able to appropriately exercise common sense when making judgments about what was and wasn't appropriate in an undercover role well you you've said it all it's just totally and utterly unacceptable does
01:10:30 totally and utterly unacceptable does that cause you to reflect about whether he knew where to draw the line when it came to participation in criminal
01:10:37 activity I'm I'm not sure you
01:10:42 can compare the
01:10:51 two the these are moral judgment only he could
01:10:56 could make I I don't think we can complete the two between the um elicit relationship with this lady and the um Landing of
01:11:17 devices now there's a kind of dichotomy there between the two all right so just because he'd sailed Way Beyond the line in terms of his interactions with women whilst Undercover you don't consider that makes him more
01:11:29 you don't consider that makes him more likely to have sailed across the line in terms of what was permissible with criminal activity I don't think you can conflate this two could we have a look at paragraph five of this report
01:11:52 please sorry we have to go over a number of pages Mr McLoud there's a section of the report setting out various details about how incendiary devices are constructed
01:12:01 and then paragraph five says this recent arrests and charges made in connection with devices planted in department stores in South Wales earlier this year have reminded activists that police inquiries into these matters tend to be
01:12:13 inquiries into these matters tend to be thorough equally after the trial of Lee Smith Roger Yates and others at Sheffield Crown Court earlier this year they are under no Illusions about the level of sentencing to expect in the event of a subsequent conviction and
01:12:27 event of a subsequent conviction and here's the part I particularly want to ask you about it starts accordingly accordingly the use of incendiary devices is restricted to the most dedicated activists who are forced to observe strict Security even amongst their comrades in the animal rights
01:12:39 their comrades in the animal rights movement such activists always pay due
01:12:51 movement such activists always pay due regard to the prospect of surveillance and infiltration even though they may not always be expert at countering it this presented a significant challenge to an officer like Lambert didn't it activists were particularly strictly security aware yes at this stage and time okay do you remember
01:13:04 stage and time okay do you remember being aware of that at the time no I
01:13:15 being aware of that at the time no I don't I don't I can't recall any of this any discussion at allour with Lambert about what approach he might take to keep tabs on the potential use of incendiary devices in London no in the summer of 1987 no
01:13:27 and unless he shared that with with Eric again as I say I mean it's this is the first time I've been made aware of this if he had shared that information with Eric Docker your detective inspector
01:13:41 Eric Docker your detective inspector would you not have expected Eric Docker to have shared it with you given the significance of this intelligence I'm sure if he had that that information that he would have passed it on to me so
01:13:54 that he would have passed it on to me so makes me um it suggests that he probably was not aware either so not aware of the methods that Lambert was adopting
01:14:05 yeah this report is dated the 9th of June of
01:14:12 1987 and we know that the incendiary devices in various deam stores went off overnight from the 11th to the 12th of July 1987 so about a
01:14:23 to the 12th of July 1987 so about a month just in excess of a month after this report yeah the inquiry has been able to locate no further reporting about IID
01:14:41 further reporting about IID attacks after this report and before the deams iids went off do you follow so in that month or so an absence of any reporting from the SDS based on what the inquir has been able to find do you
01:14:54 inquir has been able to find do you remember at the time noticing an absence of further reporting from Lambert about this significant matter no I can't other than to say that he was he was quite a
01:15:08 he was he was quite a um he was quite a prolic um
01:15:10 um reporter
01:15:13 reporter his his uh intelligence was invariably good
01:15:25 good um so no I I don't think there anything I can add that so an absence of reporting might have been particularly noticeable from a prolific reporter like Lambert might it not yes I accept but
01:15:36 Lambert might it not yes I accept but you don't recall noticing that at the time no not at all does it strike you now as
01:15:48 now as odd that Robert Lambert might not have reported anything more about the incendiary device campaign between the 9th of June une M and the setting off of iids and deams around
01:16:09 London in July well all I can say is I haven't hadn't previously seen this so I can only speak for myself
01:16:13 myself um but I accept I accept
01:16:26 um but I accept I accept the the position you're talking about um I know I was I was never aware of this when you said a moment ago
01:16:28 ago that Mr Lambert's intelligence was good generally how did you measure whether or not his intelligence was good or
01:16:54 not well if you qu was it modate was it was it
01:16:59 was it accurate um we have to accept that that was
01:17:01 was his his judgment his opinion that he's gleaned from the people that he's working in the
01:17:21 from the people that he's working in the um within the target group all I can say was it was there were regular reports from from Bob lumbert um
01:17:28 and there was nothing in any of them that would make us
01:17:36 question the sort of validity of that
01:17:45 um and if there was if he did if he did have this information it wasn't shared um I mean that's just unfortunate we should have been aware of this in terms of being able to assess the the accuracy of his
01:17:56 accuracy of his reporting were you really in a position to do that so I'll take an example if Mr Lambert reported that person X was at a meeting in London on a particular day
01:18:11 meeting in London on a particular day but in fact person X was out of London on that
01:18:13 on that day you wouldn't have known that necessarily would you no so it could be inaccurate in reporting that person X was at a meeting in London and and you wouldn't be able to judge that no I
01:18:25 wouldn't be able to judge that no I accept so in terms of its accuracy you were heavily dependent in the absence of some other information to check it against you were heavily dependent on
01:18:36 against you were heavily dependent on Robert Lambert's accuracy weren't you
01:18:49 yes could we have a look please at your witness statement page 187 paragraph 327 d
01:19:05 in your witness statement Mr McLoud you said that there were no changes in the pattern and focus of Lambert's reporting in the six months preceding the deon's attack such that I had reason to doubt whether he was reporting all of the
01:19:18 whether he was reporting all of the information or intelligence that he obtained during this period I would point out that in paragraph six of his report dated in the of June 1987 that's the one we've just looked at he promises to report any
01:19:33 looked at he promises to report any planned attacks I would have had faith that he would do so do you stand by uh that paragraph of your witness statement I have no reason to question that otherwise so you don't recall
01:19:51 that otherwise so you don't recall noticing any change in the pattern so is in the does that mean the include the frequency of his reporting I guess the frequency but so he continued to put in
01:20:02 but so he continued to put in intelligence reports in such a way that you didn't notice any change and that would appear to be the
01:20:15 case and you say you would have had faith that he would have reported the um planned attacks did he in fact report the planned attacks to you in any format before they happened no
01:20:33 can we have a look at paragraph 327a just on the previous page I just want to clarify this with you Mr
01:20:46 McLoud paragraph a reads as follows he provided intelligence about the campaign that was not written down there would have been additional oral communication at
01:20:51 at meetings hot intelligence would have been recorded in one to one meetings it would most certainly have been
01:21:03 would most certainly have been documented could you clarify whether you received intelligence about the IID campaign from Mr Lambert that was not written
01:21:08 written down
01:21:14 down no no you did not receive no I did not receive so it's more accurate in the final sentence where it says it would most certainly have been documented yeah so to the extent that you received oral
01:21:28 so to the extent that you received oral reporting from Mr Lambert you would have ensured that that was committed to a written intelligence report yes if it was about something as significant as an IID campaign yeah were you receiving
01:21:41 IID campaign yeah were you receiving reports orally from Mr Lambert at around this time can you remember concerning the IID
01:21:52 campaign to divers in my recollection no but you have confidence that if you were that would have found its way into an intelligence report I would have I would have expected it
01:22:14 yes and bearing all of that in mind can you think of any reason why the inquiry has been unable to find on special Branch files any written reporting from Mr Lambert about the IID campaign between the 9th of June and the 11th of July of 1987
01:22:31 I can't explain that Mr Docker when he gave evidence suggested that Rob Bob Lambert might
01:22:42 suggested that Rob Bob Lambert might have been so busy gathering intelligence that he simply didn't submit reports during that period do you have any view on whether that's a plausible
01:22:58 explanation no I don't is it possible that he might have been so busy that he didn't submit reports on an IID campaign I coming to London I find that highly unlikely I
01:23:11 London I find that highly unlikely I would have expected that have been some written
01:23:18 written um report reports of that intelligence I would have expected it when Robert Lambert gave evidence on the 6th of December last year he
01:23:30 the 6th of December last year he recalled having regular meetings with his managers between the 9th of June report and the IID going off in July is he right about that regular meetings with you or Mr Docker or both of you well I I
01:23:41 of you well I I can't I can only speak for myself I can't remember that being the case I think had it been the case I would have
01:24:01 would have been I'd been would have been been more aware but I I I truthfully never um I wasn't aware of that he also told the inquiry on the same day that far from every discussion he had with his managers resulted in a
01:24:16 he had with his managers resulted in a printed a written intelligence report so suggesting that there would have been conversations that did not in fact result in a written intelligence report again is that something you consider likely
01:24:29 I would have thought if it's got time to write an intelligence report he
01:24:40 would he it wouldn't be in the form of a manuscript it would be a proper properly written um intelligence report I think Mr Lambert was suggesting that he might have conveyed information orally that didn't find its way into a written any sort of written or printed report
01:25:02 concerning this campaign yes well he it would be he who would be submitting it so you would have relied on him to complete the report of course yes did Mr Lambert do you recall ever mention
01:25:10 mention meeting with activists in parks in the run up to the incendiary device attacks on deams including Jeff Shephard meetings in Parks meetings in
01:25:27 Shephard meetings in Parks meetings in parks up discussions in Parks R up never heard of
01:25:33 heard of that in your witness statement you said that you would not be in the least bit surprised if Mr Lambert was meeting Mr shepher
01:25:49 shepher regularly um in general you would expect him to be meeting them I'll bring it up on the screen it's page 185 please paragraph 326
01:26:01 so you were provided when making your witness statement with earlier accounts from Mr Shephard from Jeff Shephard which included him recalling some of the meetings I had with Bob Lambert in the period before July 1987 were one to one and some were part of a
01:26:17 were one to one and some were part of a larger group the meetings were ad hoc in structure and I would generally listen more than talk the meetings began against a background of a wider campaign against stores which had first for sale in them and other options would have certainly been considered before the
01:26:28 certainly been considered before the decision was made to Target deams in that particular way but that particular plan became the focus and no other direct action arose out of these
01:26:45 direct action arose out of these meetings he also refers to meeting Bob Lambert in a park by which point decisions have been made to use incendiary devices to Target deams and who would make the devices and further meetings followed including to discuss targets so that's Mr Shephard's account
01:26:57 targets so that's Mr Shephard's account of what was going on and you said this I have no doubt I was aware at the time of Bob Lambert meeting Mr Shephard regularly on an individual basis Andor in a number of different locations I am
01:27:09 in a number of different locations I am not in the least bit surprised by it as I would expect him to be meeting targets and particularly those suspected to be
01:27:22 and particularly those suspected to be in an Al cell it was part and parcel of his role it is likely I found out through discussions at weekly meetings and then you go on to say I took no action in response to this information so you would not have been
01:27:36 information so you would not have been surprised if Mr Lambert was meeting in the run up to the deams
01:27:47 the run up to the deams attacks with somebody who formed part of the cell who carried out those attacks is that that would appear to be right yes sir I
01:27:53 yes sir I agree meeting with a member of the cell to discuss forthcoming attacks would indicate that Mr Lambert
01:28:05 Mr Lambert was possibly at least part of that cell wouldn't it he was certainly close to the
01:28:08 the center and that caused you no concern at all in terms of his involvement in planning for or committing criminal
01:28:25 acts no there's nothing to suggest if you could take that step too far Beyond obtaining the information that potentially there might be further attacks incendiary attacks if
01:28:38 be further attacks incendiary attacks if he was attending meetings at which those attacks were being planned so for example the selection of which stores would be targeted was under discussion would that cause you
01:28:53 concern had I known about it yes of course but you weren't told about that at the time Time by Mr
01:29:01 L do you recall whether Bob Lambert mentioned Helen steel at any stage in connection with the attacks prior to the devices going off in
01:29:16 deams no not to the best of my recollection no and Paul grait the same
01:29:31 could we have a look please at paragraph 331 of your statement page
01:29:52 191 and in this paragraph Mr McLoud you're responding to something that that Bob Lambert said when he was interviewed by officers from operation Hearn right so when you say in the same interview I am told he said you're referring to Robert
01:30:08 Robert Lambert in the same interview I'm told he said what really interested me was knowing that my friends on the surveillance team were on the case as well if I'm going to the pub with that group Paul grait Jeff Shepard Helen steel Andrew Clark I would see the
01:30:22 steel Andrew Clark I would see the surveillance team and they had exactly the same interest leading up to the attacks that took place in the two months leading up to that there's a lot of special Branch activity on this campaign and you said this in response
01:30:37 campaign and you said this in response as to this I find it hard to believe the surveillance team were deployed for two entire months before July if that is what lamb but meant to say which is not clear I base this view on my es Squad
01:30:48 clear I base this view on my es Squad experience um and then you mention that you can see from documents that they were deployed after the July attacks based on um information from Mr Lambert can I just explore with you putting to one side whether they were
01:31:05 putting to one side whether they were deployed for two whole months in advance of the July attacks or not are you able to say whether there was surveillance going on on this group of people including Bob Lambert in advance of the July
01:31:21 attacks I can't say with any certainty but having run the civilian team um previously for three
01:31:34 years I'm acutely or was acutely aware of the competing demands on the surveillance team from the other squads within the special branch that one should have spent that length of
01:31:45 length of time it's possible but it's it's possible that that was the
01:31:57 it's it's possible that that was the length of time that they did spend in it but it seems
01:32:04 inordinately lot of man hours spent on putting surveillance on these individ individuals unless it was H intelligence
01:32:19 individuals unless it was H intelligence that something was going to go up and in which case you would have um deploy the in the civilian team um to that with a view to arresting or thwarting any blanded attacks right so the purpose
01:32:33 any blanded attacks right so the purpose of deploying the surveillance team would be either to affect help to affect an arrest before anything happened yes or somehow to
01:32:44 somehow to thwart the plan yes you wouldn't expect them simply to be surveilling Bob Robinson as he was and his friends in the pub for the two months prior to the attacks
01:32:59 attacks from my experience I find that slightly implausible were you made aware at any stage of surveillance going on in that period that had captured Bob Robinson Bob
01:33:11 Bob Lambert I can't remember because the civilian team was run separately and I wouldn't have been aware of
01:33:21 aware of the the targets that they were dealing with at that time even if one of your undercover officers was perceived as a Target would you expect to be made aware of
01:33:37 of that well clearly he was you on this one occasion it appears the civilian team had been
01:33:38 had been deployed
01:33:50 deployed um and I mean if it's getting close to a possible attack being carried out yes you would expect us to deploy surveillance um and may have just been of short duration but the suggestion that was
01:34:01 duration but the suggestion that was deployed for two entire months it just as to say it's it's possible but my experience I think that's um size exaggeration because I
01:34:17 that's um size exaggeration because I know exactly how difficult it is to find Manpower for other operations that were happening in
01:34:29 specializ you had an undercover officer who on the 9th of June had reported that the IID campaign was coming to London we've seen that in the 9th of June report and that was that was Bob Lambert wasn't it yeah and in the SDS he was
01:34:41 wasn't it yeah and in the SDS he was your Source the one source as far as you were concerned who was in a position to report on what might come next yeah and he based on your evidence and your recollection he provided no advanced
01:34:51 advanced warning that there would be in iny devices attacks in branches of deums is that right yes no advanced intelligence
01:35:02 that right yes no advanced intelligence to suggest that the 11th to the 12th of July would be the date when incendiary device attacks would be carried out no intelligence to suggest that it would be stores in Len Harrow and Romford that would be the subject of
01:35:14 would be the subject of attacks So based on SDs intelligence alone the surveillance team wouldn't have had enough information to go on would they correct
01:35:29 you say elsewhere in your witness statement the next paragraph that you were not part of a discussion about any coordinated approach with special Branch with surveillance so you weren't involved in any discussions of that
01:35:42 involved in any discussions of that nature no I wasn't But Eric could have been
01:35:44 been um which is quite likely but no I
01:35:55 wasn't the inquire quiry has received evidence from Paul grait that on the 13th of June 1987 so 4 days after the report we looked at a benefit gig was held in
01:36:14 at a benefit gig was held in slow um which he helped to organize and which raised funds that were used in part to fund the deams iids do you follow so a money raising event in slow on the 13th of June and his evidence is that Bob
01:36:29 June and his evidence is that Bob Robinson Bob Lambert helped to arrange that fundraising event did Bob Lambert ever discuss with
01:36:44 event did Bob Lambert ever discuss with you being involved in raising funds for the AL no did he discuss with you a fundraising event in June 1987
01:36:51 1987 no if he was involved in arranging such an event would you expect him to have submitted a report of some kind about it yes and did he ever submit a report
01:37:04 yes and did he ever submit a report orally or written about involvement in that activity no what would your view have been if he had told you that he was involved in raising funds that were intended to go to ALF direct
01:37:21 action well there's nothing actionable there if the fundraising um as you would expect these organizations to do um there's nothing that would
01:37:32 that would significantly um guide management into taken any particular position it would be
01:37:44 would be recorded
01:37:45 recorded um but that would be as far as and what about if the purpose to which the funds were going to be put was an ID campaign yeah
01:37:57 yeah um well
01:38:03 um well I I hadn't been aware of that and that's again no
01:38:09 again no excuse um but thinking back I wasn't aware of this event taking
01:38:20 place would you have approved or disapproved of an officer being involved in raising monies for use and carrying out Al an Al incend device campaign I don't think I would have discouraged it I think
01:38:33 discouraged it I think the that that's the kind of activity you expect an intelligence officer to be participating in um so I don't have a a difficulty with
01:38:46 that um finally before um I'm going to suggest we take the morning break did Robert Lambert discuss with you at any stage reconnaissant visits to particular branches of deon's
01:39:00 branches of deon's stores no definitely not either by him or by others
01:39:15 no thank you and we'll then break for 15
01:39:22 minutes
02:17:19 e e
02:18:01 all right so if we look at the content of the report bearing in mind that it's signed off by Mr Docker not by you we see in the can we focus on paragraphs 2: 4
02:18:16 please uh we see that by the 24th of July
02:18:21 paragraph
02:18:25 three Andrew Clark appears to
02:18:35 have made it known that he will continue to manufacture incend
02:18:47 devices and so Lambert uh is able to report that that the manufacturer is going to
02:18:49 going to continue yep and then at paragraph four it says this Clark and his trusted comrades are agreed that debam should be given until the 1st of October 1987 to remove Furs
02:19:06 the 1st of October 1987 to remove Furs from all their stores in the meantime he plans to have devices ready for use against other retail outlets for the fur
02:19:18 against other retail outlets for the fur trade provisionally it would appear that the most likely targets will be hars of Knightsbridge and CNA in Oxford Street W1 so Lambert's in possession of information that Mr Clark will continue to manufacture incur devices and also about provisional
02:19:29 devices and also about provisional targets for their use do you recall Mr Lambert reporting such intelligence no I don't do you recall receiving or becoming aware of this
02:19:42 becoming aware of this intelligence about possible new targets no it would have been quite significant intelligence would it well of course it would but I'm just pondering as to whether or not I was
02:19:53 pondering as to whether or not I was still on man annual leave at the time but something like this would have come across my desk certainly and even if you had been away as at the date of this report it's likely to have come across
02:20:09 report it's likely to have come across your desk when you got back isn't it yes something of this significance yes indeed do you recall questioning how it was that Lambert was able to report less than two weeks after the deams attacks that Mr Clark was man
02:20:23 the deams attacks that Mr Clark was man manufacturing devices for use at herods and CNA
02:20:29 and CNA potentially yes I I guess well it was at that point there was no cause for me to to question it I suppose it was taken at
02:20:41 to question it I suppose it was taken at face value did it not seem surprising to you that an officer who appeared on the face of his reporting to have been entirely in the dark about which stores would be targeted on the 11th of
02:20:56 would be targeted on the 11th of July was two two weeks later able to say which stores would be targeted in Mr Clark's next intended attacks did that not strike you as surprising even at the time yes if i' read that if i' seen
02:21:11 this you don't recall discussing that with Mr Lambert no I don't or with Eric Docker for example and saying what do we think's going on no we didn't have that conversation at all
02:21:25 conversation at all any conversation any query or reflection on who Clark and his trusted comrades were who who referred to in paragraph
02:21:46 four put another way would you not have asked for the names of The Trusted comrades asked whether Lambert knew who they were if I seen this
02:22:00 report still no Jeff Shephard named in this report anywhere I noticed that do you have any recollection of discussing Jeff sheeper as a suspect in connection with the deams
02:22:13 connection with the deams attacks within two weeks or so of the attacks occurring yes I think in the aftermath of the the M attack
02:22:27 of the the M attack there there had been some discussion as to who the possible suspects were and
02:22:29 were and who what plans may have for future
02:22:43 who what plans may have for future attacks but I I can't write off to head who was who were who were referring to Clark um
02:22:54 I can't remember but the there would have been a conversation if Mr Lambert had reported orally to you that Jeff Shephard should be regarded as a suspect in connection with
02:23:08 with deams is there any chance that wouldn't have been committed to
02:23:20 writing no no I've agree I I would expect that to be in written form so you your deduction and I accept it's a deduction rather than a recollection
02:23:32 deduction rather than a recollection would your deduction be that the absence of Mr Shepherd's name is indicative of Mr Shepherd's name not having been mentioned to you
02:23:41 yes was Mr Shepherd's name or is it possible that Mr Shepherd's name was mentioned to you not as a
02:23:49 as a suspect but as Mr Lambert's source for the information and that wasn't written
02:24:02 down I mean it's possible but I I can't recall can't Rec collect but it is
02:24:11 possible if we can take that report down bear in mind that's the 24th of July this report that we've just looked at which says Mr Clark is going to continue to manufacture devices and provision most likely to Target harod and CNA if
02:24:25 most likely to Target harod and CNA if we take that down please can we have up MPS
02:24:28 MPS 0735 358 your b19 sir this is the same day Mr McLoud but it's a briefing note signed off by Chief in chief chief superintendent
02:24:49 sh and could we focus in uh on paragraphs one and two
02:24:58 please right so a briefing note that appears to be for the attention of Commander
02:25:00 Commander Ops um and Mr Short's briefing note reads as follows at paragraph one we discussed the information contained in this latest esquad report on the activities of Andrew Clark whom Source
02:25:14 activities of Andrew Clark whom Source has identified as being responsible for the manufacturer of incendiary devices used in the recent attacks we agreed to await developments and not search his and other activists addresses until
02:25:26 and other activists addresses until forensic examinations are complete and further investigations are made to establish a chain of evidence so echoing the uh report the note we saw of the 14th of July awaiting further investigations before searching
02:25:38 investigations before searching paragraph two this current information justifies that decision particularly as Clark's intention is to find an empty house in North London to manufacture further devices
02:25:50 further devices I am assured that the source should be in a position to establish that address at an early stage did you give an
02:26:04 stage did you give an assurance that Bob Lambert would be able to
02:26:05 to identify the address selected by Mr Clark for the manufacturer of incendiary devices no
02:26:16 manufacturer of incendiary devices no can you think who might have given that insurance to Mr short
02:26:34 um well whether it was Eric Docker or not I don't know who else would have given that um given that information
02:26:47 given that um given that information would it have been unusual or or not for Mr lamber to have spoken directly to Mr short would you expect that to have happened that could could have happened
02:26:58 yes all right thank you could we take that down that was the 24th of July so just under two weeks after the devices
02:27:11 just under two weeks after the devices had been used in deams and can we have on the screen please MPS 0735
02:27:12 0735 360 now the 7th of August of 1987 so about 12 or 13 days later almost two weeks later again and this uh note if we
02:27:30 weeks later again and this uh note if we can focus on the typed uh information on the left please as we see it on the screen thank you this note records a meeting on the 7th of August at which you are listed as
02:27:42 7th of August at which you are listed as an attendee do you see penultimate in uh entry there in the list is your name detective Chief Inspector McLoud yeah along with uh individuals Commander fing Commander Churchill Coleman from so13
02:27:53 Commander Churchill Coleman from so13 Chief superintendent Parker of s Squad Chief superintendent short from C Squad and a detective Chief Inspector from Arie now you say in your witness statement you have no independent
02:28:07 statement you have no independent recollection of this meeting is that right correct um so we'll we'll be relying on the document to tell us um what was
02:28:18 happening um and we see here um that it's been agreed that a surveillance oper operation would be mounted against Andrew
02:28:32 Clark um and in paragraph 2 it is said one of the main objectives was to pinpoint the address where it is suggested he that's Clark intends to manufacture further incend
02:28:47 devices the uh previous briefing note we looked at suggested that Mr short had been given an assurance that Lambert would be in a position to identify that address what we now appear to see is surveillance
02:28:59 surveillance starting um to help pinpoint the address do you remember discussions about the utility of surveillance versus the utility of Mr Lambert in identifying Mr Clark's
02:29:21 activities yes I can I can remember discussions taking place but I can't remember the content but I do recall was there any doubt about whether or not
02:29:36 there any doubt about whether or not Robert Lambert would be in a position to provide intelligence about where Mr Clark would manufacture
02:29:52 devices I think they would have known he would have known yeah he would have known and why why are you able to say that with with any confidence well not with particular confidence
02:30:04 just I I'm not ABS certain of on not point was the impression that you formed at the time from speaking to or communicating with Robert Lambert that he was confident that he would be able to find out that
02:30:19 that he would be able to find out that level of information yes he was from my recollection that that is all he didn't leave you with any doubt that he would be able to provide the intelligence about Mr
02:30:30 provide the intelligence about Mr Clark's plans for the future if I recall he I think he sounded quite
02:30:52 confident do you recall um at this stage the extent to Which special Branch was involved in any investigative activity connected with the deams attacks so special Branch as opposed to or as distinct from S
02:31:09 or as distinct from S so13 no the branch would undertake any investigations um the investigations will be carried out as should say by SO3 so
02:31:16 so the the
02:31:18 the the intelligence and the um day-to-day workings of the anti-terrorist band should be kept
02:31:36 separate and are you saying that because that was the normal position or because you recall that that's how it operated in connection with the deams incidents in particular that was a normal position if we just look at this
02:31:47 position if we just look at this document can we zoom in on paragraph two of the document please
02:31:56 thank you um about halfway down you see Commander Church Coleman agreed do you see where that sentence begins and Commander Church Coleman he was S3 wasn't he yes he agreed that a small
02:32:20 wasn't he yes he agreed that a small team under detective inspector gray will be made available to make any followup evidential inquiries yes was detect inspector gray attached to special Branch or or a special Branch liazon officer with SO3 the latter he was a
02:32:32 officer with SO3 the latter he was a special Branch officer um assigned to S so13 as officer So to that extent it appears that a special Branch officer the liaison officer with so13 was
02:32:48 the liaison officer with so13 was involved in making evidential inquiries with s so13 well he wouldn't be making he was the role of the inspector special Branch inspector uh in 1817 would be a conduit
02:32:59 inspector uh in 1817 would be a conduit through to the Senior Management in the branch he wouldn't have any proactive role in the um actual execution of the
02:33:13 role in the um actual execution of the um investigations SO3 be carrying out he was purely a conduit for information feeding back into back into the branch but do you see this note appears to suggest that he's going to lead a
02:33:32 team to make evidential inquiries yes he would have a a team of as with 13 officers that would include forensic investigation officers but it would be to oversee the
02:33:47 oversee the actual I can see where the this could become confusing he he was an so he was a special Branch officer um and the officers who were
02:34:00 officer um and the officers who were accompanying him at the dress would be as so 13 officers yes so there isn't a
02:34:17 as so 13 officers yes so there isn't a conflict there it's the special branch conju is was di gray and and it would that would be done quite routinely
02:34:29 that would be done quite routinely um to um ensure that the information obtained from the sees go back into special branch and and for the information of the operational squads s um C Squad and S sad so it doesn't
02:34:42 um C Squad and S sad so it doesn't strike you as unusual that the special Branch liaison officer in so13 would be leading a team making evidential inquiries
02:34:57 I I don't see any conflict there at all that was that was the role that that was normal for the role yes thank you all right can we take that document down please that's the seventh of a meeting on the 7th of August that you
02:35:13 meeting on the 7th of August that you attended that we've just looked at yes and can we have up on the screen uh please MPS 0735 383 it's your B24 sir and Mr McLoud this is an intelligence report dated the 11th of August 1987 so
02:35:29 report dated the 11th of August 1987 so 4 days after the meeting and you signed this report
02:35:36 right and if we could um look please first of all at paragraph
02:35:49 two this is reporting that Clark has revealed more details of his involvement in the sentury device attacks at deams in addition to manufacturing the devices he claims to have been responsible for
02:36:07 he claims to have been responsible for planting the devices at the Luton store where damage in excess of1 million was caused so first reporting that we see that not only did Mr Clark manufacture the devices but that he is claiming to have been responsible for planting the devices at the Luton store
02:36:24 do you agree that Mr Lambert must have been quite close by now uh to Mr Clark or to Mr Clark's Associates at the very least Close Associates to know that he
02:36:36 least Close Associates to know that he was claiming to have planted the devices in
02:36:41 Len well obviously he must have been very close in order to do that and did that cause you any concern about whether he was getting closer was
02:36:57 appropriate not at the time I didn't and now do you have a different
02:37:09 reflection no there's nothing to for me to suggest otherwise given the length of time involved in this
02:37:22 involved in this um it my recollection tends to be a bit blurred and not conveniently but genuinely so my my recollection was just
02:37:45 that Bob Lumber was in a position where he could obtain um
02:37:49 obtain um critical information so
02:38:03 critical information so they I can see whether could possibly be the conflict that you talk about um but that didn't that wouldn't have cost me any any concerns did you give any thought to what position Mr Lambert must have been in Vis A this cell to be
02:38:16 have been in Vis A this cell to be obtaining intelligence like this yes he must have been Clos the report goes on at paragraph two to say two close and trusted comrades were
02:38:28 say two close and trusted comrades were responsible for planting devices at the Harrow and Romford branches their identity is not known at
02:38:44 present again did it cause you any surprise that Mr Lambert was here on the 11th of August or thereabouts able to say that Mr Clark was responsible for planting one of the devices or was claiming to be responsible but he couldn't offer
02:38:58 responsible but he couldn't offer anything in relation to the Harrow or Romford
02:38:59 Romford devices was that surprising to
02:39:11 you
02:39:23 I yes I guess it probably is surprising this would have been quite significant information to the investigation of course course who was responsible for planting them yeah do you recall discussions with Bob
02:39:36 discussions with Bob Lambert about what efforts he might make to find out those names if he didn't know
02:39:38 know them I remember there being
02:39:49 them I remember there being discussions but um I I can't I can't recall the actual detail in menua but yes we did have conversations but trying to remember now what I said and I 40 odd years ago no my my recollection
02:40:06 I 40 odd years ago no my my recollection is is not good in that respect right can we have a look at paragraph three of this report
02:40:15 please um and
02:40:29 it asserts that he's read some publication called Without a Trace and is therefore acquainted with forensic science methods Police use in the investigation of serious crime in his own judgment a minute search of his bedroom might still reveal sufficient
02:40:40 bedroom might still reveal sufficient traces of manufactur to link him to the crime in particular he is aware that testing devices in his fireplace May well have left indelible marks however in Rel to the devices recovered by
02:40:51 in Rel to the devices recovered by police intact or in part at the three department stores he is confident that they will not provide any clues that's information that's intended to be useful to the investigators isn't it yes so
02:41:08 to the investigators isn't it yes so that they know where to go looking if they go into Mr Clark's address for forensic evidence of the manufacturer and that likewise would provide an evidential chain an evidential link between the devices and Mr Clark that doesn't require Mr Lambert's role to be
02:41:20 Lambert's role to be disclosed yes or to be or to be used evidentially I should say yes that's
02:41:31 possible if we could look at paragraph four of this report
02:41:48 please um the first sentence reports that Mr Clark is optimistic about avoiding detection and then the paragraph continues he is also aware that the next action carried out by his small cell will have to be planned and executed with an even greater regard for
02:42:06 security again this is quite clearly even based on Mr Lambert's reporting a very small group of people who are privy to this information isn't it yes and they are as this reports acting with a great regard for security
02:42:22 great regard for security yes did that cause you to reflect on how close Mr Lambert must have been to Mr Clark and his cell able to report all of this detail about the manufacturer of incendiary devices yes it does suggest
02:42:36 devices yes it does suggest that he he must have been mustn't he part of the cell to be able to obtain this information about forthcoming attacks
02:42:53 whether he was part of the cell or just an Insider who just happens to be in a position to obtain this kind of is gain the confidence of the of the activist
02:43:05 activist um yes he probably was very close I don't think there's any doubt about that but whether or not he went one step
02:43:23 but whether or not he went one step further um I'm I'm I can't be certain in that that but it's a possibility again yeah paragraph
02:43:31 five he's also able to report now a provisional date for the next incend device attack he gives 26th of September 1987 and he's confirming it won't be deams and a final decision as to the
02:43:51 deams and a final decision as to the precise Target will be drawn up during the next three weeks and if we look please also at paragraph
02:44:00 six Mr Lambert was also reporting that Andrew Clark was looking into manufacturing a different kind of device here described as a lethal Fireball which was to be delivered in a
02:44:15 Fireball which was to be delivered in a jiffy bag potentially put through letter boxes at night
02:44:26 again on reflection this type of information he knows the type of device the lightly date the potential targets have been reported and now Mr Clark also contemplating a second type of incendiary
02:44:43 incendiary device did you reflect at all on whether Mr Lambert was too close to the plans for future action
02:44:54 I didn't because at that point um there was no reason
02:45:00 to there was no re reason to question his um credibility in this um I agree
02:45:11 his um credibility in this um I agree that the way this is written he um he was very close to um the
02:45:20 to um the Clark whether he participated in that or not this a moot point
02:45:25 point um
02:45:27 um again in order to achieve some success for the um for the
02:45:43 achieve some success for the um for the uh for the uh investigators to follow up on he he must have he must have been pretty close to the action I mean that's stating the obvious I guess but
02:45:55 but whether he went a step further in encouraging or arranging the construction of these
02:46:09 arranging the construction of these devices of whether he might have been an onlooker um and a an ambitious adherent of the
02:46:15 of the cause um is anybody's guess I wouldn't like to
02:46:19 like to speculate on whether he did cross that
02:46:28 line This is a report dated the 11th of August of 1987 so it's a month on from the deams attacks yes and we've still seen no mention in any of Mr Lambert's written reporting that we've recovered of Jeff Shephard does that surprise
02:46:46 you yes I I suppose it does yes of course is your recollection as best you can manage that it was a whole month or more before Mr Shepherd's name came onto your
02:47:03 radar yes that is consistent with your recollection that it might have been as much as a month well it might mean I mean I can't I can't recall to be to be absolutely truthful right could we take that report down please and have on the
02:47:18 that report down please and have on the screen a report a week later on the 18th of August
02:47:19 of August it's MPS
02:47:21 it's MPS 0735
02:47:28 0735 382 b24b sir this is signed by Mr Docker and not by you Mr
02:47:36 McLoud and can we look thank you at paragraphs 2 and three to begin
02:47:48 with and I'll read this in it says on Thursday the 13th of August and Saturday the 15th of August 1987 an active London cell of the AL held secret meetings in north and east London only four people were
02:48:04 London only four people were present paragraph three Andrew Clark the cell's effective leader announced that he had given up his full-time gardening job with haringay Council in order to concentrate his efforts on the manufacturer further incend
02:48:15 manufacturer further incend devices consequently he considered it would now be possible to bring forward the date of the planned incent device
02:48:26 the date of the planned incent device attack on a leading West End store this was agreed and a date was set for Saturday the 29th of August 1987 the target was confirmed as hars of Knightsbridge with devices to be placed on four separate floors to cause maximum
02:48:37 on four separate floors to cause maximum fire and water damage as usual activists would aim to plant the fire bomb shortly before closing time on the Saturday afternoon do you agree this is very
02:48:53 afternoon do you agree this is very specific intelligence about Mr Clark's intentions for a forthcoming incenter device attack
02:49:03 yes the four people present at the meetings as quoting from paragraph two are not
02:49:08 named does that strike you as
02:49:15 odd yes it does Mr Lambert must have been one of them must he to be able to report this level of
02:49:22 level of detail yes I I I yeah I guess so and so it follows it appears doesn't it that he was at a meeting at which the
02:49:36 it that he was at a meeting at which the date and target for a forthcoming incend device attack were agreed it looks that way did that occur to you at the time
02:49:52 no I don't think it could have done reflecting now looking at this report does it cause you concern that one of your officers appears to have been at a meeting at which agreement on these details was reached yes obviously it
02:50:03 details was reached yes obviously it does yes because it appears doesn't it from this report if not the earlier ones that he is part of a small cell making
02:50:15 that he is part of a small cell making plans for incend planting incend devices that's what it looks like yes if we zoom out please and look at paragraph four of this
02:50:29 report we see a repetition of uh the issue of security so it begins considerate considerable attention was paid to sell security it was anticipated that at least one of the AL activists
02:50:47 that at least one of the AL activists used to plant the devices would not know Clark or have any firm knowledge of the origin of the devices this was seen as part of an essential move to towards separating the manufacturer from all other areas of Al activity whereas on the cell's Last Action Clark had taken an active role planting devices at deham
02:51:02 an active role planting devices at deham luten branch on this occasion he decided he would take no part once the manufacture was completed it was also agreed that he would be assisted in the process of manufacture by Jeff Shephard
02:51:13 process of manufacture by Jeff Shephard so this is where Jeff sheeper pops up in the intelligence reporting I'll carry on the same safe guard would apply to him once the devices were made shepher would take no further part in the action again this
02:51:27 further part in the action again this contrasts with the last action on the 11th of July 1987 when it appears shepher was responsible for planting two devices at the Romford branch of deams having earlier assisted clerk in the
02:51:38 earlier assisted clerk in the manufacturer at the latter's home address so this is the first point in time in the written intelligence reporting at which we see assertions that Mr she was involved in the
02:51:50 that Mr she was involved in the manufacturer of the deams devices and that he was the planter at the Romford Branch are you able to assist as to
02:52:04 Branch are you able to assist as to whether this was the first point in time when Mr Lambert ever mentioned Jeff Shepherd's role in the deams
02:52:16 attacks well um yes I I'm surprised that his name hasn't been mentioned earlier in this um
02:52:26 I can't explain why but I can see where you're coming from
02:52:35 from um it would be speculation on my part to to suggest that it was something um unto ESS and it might have been
02:52:45 that again he might have got so close
02:53:00 I I you know I I can't I can't add any more to it than that if I tell you that Robert Lambert's evidence to this inquiry was that he was obtaining his intelligence through Jeff Shephard from the beginning from the 14th of
02:53:20 the beginning from the 14th of July that may well bit the case would it surprise you in those circumstances in particular not to see any mention of Jeff
02:53:25 Jeff Shephard until late August yes it would surprise me
02:53:35 yeah can we just look at paragraph 5 before we leave this
02:53:49 report it goes on to say that for the same reasons of security it was agreed that only Clark and Shephard would discuss the detailed arrangements for manufacturer however it is known that Clark has ready cash available and both
02:54:03 Clark has ready cash available and both he and Shephard will commence purchasing component parts forth
02:54:17 component parts forth with so Robert Lambert is reporting that only two people only the manufacturers are going to be privy to the detailed arrangements for the manufacturer of these devices
02:54:23 it it's clearly a a cell with tight security in mind isn't it absolutely
02:54:35 yeah um just going back to the uh beginning of the report which states that four people were present at these meetings but doesn't name them in that first
02:54:43 first paragraph it seems likely doesn't it that two of the four were Andrew Clark and Jeff Shephard now that we've looked
02:54:54 and Jeff Shephard now that we've looked at the content of the report yes and you accepted when I asked you earlier that it seems likely that Robert Lambert was the
02:55:10 third can you think of any reason why the fourth person's name wouldn't have been included in the report if it was known can't I explain that we at all it would be helpful intelligence wouldn't it for say so13 yeah yes to know exactly who the four people were
02:55:25 know exactly who the four people were yeah there's no good reason in terms of assisting their investigation to leave those names out
02:55:32 okay have you any idea who the fourth person
02:55:36 was
02:55:50 no right can we take that report down that's the 18th of August that report is dated and can we have up please MPS
02:56:01 dated and can we have up please MPS 0735 361 it's B24 a sir and Mr McLoud this is a series of minutes it's a minute sheet from a file and if we look at minute 10 on the top of page one of this
02:56:19 document please thank you it it's from Mr sha detective Chief is superintendent short it's dated the 18th of August so the same date as the report we've just been looking at and it's covering the report that
02:56:34 at and it's covering the report that we've just been looking at it's covering folio 10A which is what we've just been looking at and so it's clearly come to the attention of Mr short on the same day that it's dated hasn't it he's seen it quickly after its
02:56:47 creation and he says uh he he notes that the times scale has altered significantly you'll recall that the report suggested that the date was being brought forward for the next attack so
02:56:59 brought forward for the next attack so he's noting that and his view was that evidential surveillance needed to commence as soon as possible against shepher initially who will lead us to Clark and establish where the manufacturing of incendiary devices will take place do you see that yes and he
02:57:21 take place do you see that yes and he wants to speak to Eric Docker it seems from paragraph two doesn't it yeah for to protect the source
02:57:28 yep are you able to assist you may not be given that he wanted to speak to Mr Docker but are you able to assist as to what uh steps to protect the source might have been in mind what
02:57:43 source might have been in mind what would the nature of the liaison have been between the SDS and Mr sh
02:57:53 the with SDS and Mr Shard so they're beginning a surveillance operation yes and they want to talk to the SDS about Source protection is that for example to keep Robert Lambert out of
02:58:07 example to keep Robert Lambert out of any surveillance operation so that he doesn't
02:58:16 appear I don't know what the thinking was behind that but um any recollection of you being involved in discussions with Mr short or someone from his team about Source protection I can't I can't remember being involved in this
02:58:34 can't remember being involved in this exchange at all um I don't know why not I see the Eric doer standing in for me um so I really don't have any um anything useful to add to this right I'll take that down can we have a look please oh sorry it's the
02:58:47 have a look please oh sorry it's the same document but minute 12 so over the page
02:58:48 page page two thank you at the
02:58:59 bottom you can't see it on the page but this minute minute 12 is dated the 24th of August yes so it's six days after the one we were just looking at yeah and that was a Monday in case that assists
02:59:17 you and the author of this minute is somebody who we are calling tn42 in case you want to check the side L before I
02:59:49 begin you got that so this is tm42 a minute that appears to be for the attention of of the assistant commander of
02:59:54 of operations and he is recording that uh Docker informed him that afternoon so the afternoon of the 24th of August that information had been received from a secret and reliable source which showed that Harris was no longer to be the
03:00:05 that Harris was no longer to be the target for the pro proposed Alf incend
03:00:16 target for the pro proposed Alf incend campaign that secret and reliable source will be lamb but won't it most likely coming from Docker I would say so I would speculate um and the minute records that it had been decided that Clark would identify and Recon three new targets during Monday and Tuesday the 24th and 25th of
03:00:32 Monday and Tuesday the 24th and 25th of August and then on Wednesday the 26th of August shepher would transport the necessary components to Clark's address where the two men would assemble four devices and arranged for them to be
03:00:45 devices and arranged for them to be planted by others unknown on Friday the 28th of August
03:00:51 so it appears doesn't it that by the 24th of
03:00:55 24th of August despite what was said in earlier reports about Clark and shepher uh discussing detailed Arrangements only between themselves that Mr Lambert is able to
03:01:08 that Mr Lambert is able to report that the target has changed and that the arrangements for manufacturer have also changed and will take place on the 26th of August with Shephard transporting components to
03:01:21 Shephard transporting components to Clark's address do you recall becoming aware of these changes
03:01:27 changes no the aware of the intended date for the next incend devices being brought forward no that doesn't ring any bells
03:01:38 forward no that doesn't ring any bells with you is it possible you knew at the time but you can't recall it now I'm pretty certain I didn't know at a time and can you think why you might not have been made aware of this at the time I can't there's no reason why I shouldn't
03:01:51 can't there's no reason why I shouldn't have been it may have been a good reason but I can't think
03:02:03 but I can't think of right if we could look um just before uh lunch if we've time to at the next minute minute 13 which is the same
03:02:20 day so still the 24th of August still tn42 and tm42 has apprised Commander Churchill Coleman of these
03:02:29 developments and I'll read at my suggestion he agreed that detective inspector gray so13 should now be briefed on the operation accordingly di
03:02:44 briefed on the operation accordingly di gray attended room 1824 at 6:30 p.m. and was briefed by me in the presence of detective Sant bills di Gray is now making the necessary Preparatory arrangements for search warrants to be obtained and executed sometime on Wednesday the 26th of August 1987 detective inspector black has been
03:03:02 1987 detective inspector black has been updated on the intelligence relevant to the surveillance operation and another detective inspector was making urgent inquiries to obtain a suitable observation post giving coverage of Shepherd's address so Bob Lambert's intelligence as relayed by Docker to
03:03:16 intelligence as relayed by Docker to tn42 appears to have prompted a number of actions to be taken gearing up for surveillance and potentially an arrest is that a fair summary of what we see yes happening in
03:03:29 summary of what we see yes happening in these minutes so13 being involved on the back of Bob Lambert's intelligence yes to get ready for arrest
03:03:37 correct all right thank you given the time I suggest we' go to the next document after lunch certainly we'll resume at two