Afternoon session examining DCI Malcolm MacLeod's 10-month tenure managing the SDS (1986-1987). Extensive questioning about his knowledge of and response to sexual relationships between undercover officers and activists, his management of problematic officers Mike Chitty and Stefan Scott, and the adequacy of welfare support systems.
00:09:58 e e
00:10:40 all working now I understand I understand the same could we go back to having paragraph 299 thank you on the screen um Mr McLoud I was in the middle of reading paragraph
00:10:52 of reading paragraph 299a so I will carry on doing that to assist your recollection so you're talking about the Buddy Buddy mentoring scheme and uh I'll pick up about halfway through the paragraph I can only remember hn 68 he
00:11:06 paragraph I can only remember hn 68 he would provide a shoulder for any officer who was going through difficult times h68 was an exceptional man in many ways when you get PE excuse me when you get people like that who have the respect of the troops you can be confident they
00:11:22 the troops you can be confident they will actually turn to him he was a very kind person they would have had a telephone number for him so other than having the telephone number for as it were a trustworthy and
00:11:35 number for as it were a trustworthy and respected former undercover officer did the Buddy Buddy scheme consist of anything
00:11:43 else not in not in the time that I was there and was the owners on the undercover officer to telephone hn 68 or was there an expectation that h68 would
00:11:55 was there an expectation that h68 would proactively intervene or make inquiries of the undercover officers
00:12:02 I think
00:12:09 um I'm not sure to be
00:12:19 certain other than again be careful not to use names but other than hn 68 do you remember any other officers acting in that role during the time that you were with the SDS no there weren't but would it follow that there may come have come a time when other officers took up that role I would expect them to yes and was
00:12:35 role I would expect them to yes and was there any assessment made as far as you were aware of the qualities of the officer acting in that mentorship role whether they were suitable to do
00:12:46 whether they were suitable to do so well I guess you'd only know that when they're in situe but let let's take an example given what's known now about the conduct of Bob Lambert whilst he was
00:12:59 of Bob Lambert whilst he was undercover and bearing in mind his admitted conduct not just what's alleged if he were to become a mentor to undercover officers might that not be a problem in the sense that he might be
00:13:12 problem in the sense that he might be perpetuating behaviors that you don't approve of I no I accept that but as far as you were concerned nothing was done to make an assessment in advance of
00:13:24 to make an assessment in advance of whether somebody would be a suitable Mentor or body no can I um um ask you about we I was
00:13:36 no can I um um ask you about we I was asking you I came to this whilst asking you questions about um looking out for officer
00:13:40 officer welfare and in your witness statement you also say that you would look for signs of stress amongst the officers do you remember saying that yes I do um and you would do that would you by observing them at the weekly
00:13:52 them at the weekly meetings yes that's the only opportunity I would have and so would you agree that it might depend on knowing the undercover officers quite well to be able to spot signs of stress in that
00:14:07 able to spot signs of stress in that way yes I think would and how did you feel how confident did you feel in your ability to spot signs of stress in the offices under your
00:14:22 offices under your command is is the thing is it's not that easy to
00:14:23 easy to detate and this is some manifestly OB vious Behavior there's no way of
00:14:34 vious Behavior there's no way of knowing you were only in post for about 10 months in total on the SDS yes that's right did you consider that that was long enough to get to know the undercover officers under your command
00:14:46 undercover officers under your command for the purposes of assessing stress or competence no I don't think it was long enough and so if you had to reflect on the tenure the the sort of
00:15:00 on the tenure the the sort of appropriate or desirable length of tenure for someone managing an undercover unit like that would you say that 10 months probably wasn't long enough
00:15:10 enough correct other than in relation to being able to spot signs of officers struggling with welfare issues was there any other respect in which your the
00:15:21 any other respect in which your the shortness of your time in the role you think impacted your ability to manage the unit
00:15:36 I can't see I can't see can I turn to ask you some questions about um Mike chitty I've mentioned him already today um if we could turn up please paragraph 297 of your witness statement page
00:15:53 171 um and you were shown when giving your witness statement um a psychiatric report postdating uh m chitty's deployment which described him as quote psychologically unsuited to this type of
00:16:04 psychologically unsuited to this type of work and you said this I agree with this observation though I find it difficult to substantiate now because my memory of him is so limited this was an observation that I had at the time and shared with Eric Docker we had some
00:16:16 shared with Eric Docker we had some concerns but I cannot now recall the substance I did not trust him but cannot tell you now why that was I did not provide him with any emotional
00:16:28 provide him with any emotional supervision Andor support during his deployment I am not sure whether Tony we did or not and then if we can turn please to par paragraph 305 page 176 to
00:16:55 77 you also said of him in your statement to the inquiry Mr McLoud this in my operation Hearn interview I describe how I did not feel comfortable in the presence of my chitty I find it
00:17:08 in the presence of my chitty I find it difficult to explain this see paragraph 297 above Paul that's the one I just read through to you um it's not something you can easily pinpoint the word Shifty comes to mind there are some people who you take a liking to and
00:17:19 people who you take a liking to and others you do not perhaps we can call this a Copper's
00:17:26 Instinct does it follow from all that I've read that at the time you were in post you found might chitty to be Shifty to use your word there
00:17:37 there yeah and in your statement you said there was nothing you can easily pinpoint does that remain the case yes so no incident that in particular that came to your attention that led you to that conclusion no just an
00:17:49 that conclusion no just an intuition did that intuition lead you to take any steps at all in relation to his supervision no I'm
00:18:04 supervision no I'm no on reflection might it have
00:18:09 have yes and at the time you were in post his deployment was coming to an end so he was withdrawing during the time that you were in post yes do you recall that that he was at that stage of his deployment
00:18:22 he was at that stage of his deployment yes did you take any steps for example to bring forward his withdrawal no I didn't was that because whatever your inition told you you weren't concerned enough to take those
00:18:37 weren't concerned enough to take those steps or because it didn't occur to you that you could take those steps didn't occur to me we could have taken these steps have he was coming to the conclusion of his of his tenure as posting we' have let it
00:18:57 run would it be fair to say that overall you didn't trust might chitty as an officer or was it not quite as strong as
00:19:09 officer or was it not quite as strong as that very if could put your finger on it it's
00:19:10 it's just the officer intu intuition I wouldn't put any stronger
00:19:22 intuition I wouldn't put any stronger than that but looking back I mean you've described the role that these officers performed they're out in the field they're relatively unsupervised aren't they compared to other special Branch roles indeed and so you had an officer who you felt was Shifty um and that you were
00:19:33 Shifty um and that you were uncomfortable around did it did it not occur to you to take any steps perhaps to make inquiries to see what he was doing in his deployment or or Implement any any closer supervision of him at
00:19:50 all now I suppose my my comments are based on what I was told about his
00:20:09 Behavior do you mean told at the time or told subsequently subsequently yeah so there's an element of retrospective analysis is there there is but nonetheless at the time you didn't feel comfortable in his presence is that still the case no that's a very common um so you've put together an intuition at the time and what you've
00:20:25 intuition at the time and what you've learned subsequently about his behavior to come to some conclusions is that is that right that's right you also say elsewhere in your witness statement that if chitty Mr chitty didn't get post- deployment counseling he should have done I can
00:20:36 counseling he should have done I can bring it up if it assists you would you like to see it on the screen yes please right paragraph 318 page
00:21:04 181 right so there's a summary of an interview Mr chitty had with operation Hearn describing that he received no after care or counseling and about halfway down there you say I cannot honestly remember if he got any
00:21:17 honestly remember if he got any counseling if he did not he should have do you see that yes what caused you to say that he should have received post post- deployment
00:21:25 counseling there must have been a very good reason for it but right now I cannot recollect are you able to assist as to whether that's something that occurred to you at the time or something which has occurred to you subsequently
00:21:37 which has occurred to you subsequently having leared about what he was doing in his deployment I think it's what he
00:21:50 retrospectively when you were the detective Chief Inspector of the unit uh do you recall whether officers were asked at the end of their deployment to return the documentation they held in their cover identi
00:22:10 identities that's a given I would expect that to be the case are you aware now that Mike chitty appears to have retained at least a driving license and continued to use his cover identity after his deployment had
00:22:22 after his deployment had concluded I only discovered that after the
00:22:23 the fact do you have any reflection on the fact that he appears to have either been permitted to or gotten away with retaining cover identity documents at the end of his
00:22:40 deployment yes I'm just shocked sorry I didn't catch that much I'm shocked that he did you're shocked that he did that he retained them or that he retained them and used them or both that he may have used
00:22:51 both that he may have used them did you take or put in place any steps to monitor whether or not officers returned their cover documents or was it it just assumed that they would do so I think it yeah I think it was assumed
00:23:05 think it yeah I think it was assumed that he would have done and even in the case of somebody like Mike chitty who
00:23:17 case of somebody like Mike chitty who your intuition told you to be a bit wary of if you was coming it was so close to his removal from the unit then probably not
00:23:34 can I ask you I'll come back to the specifics of um Mr chitty's deployment a little later can I ask you now about Stefan Scott I appreciate You' said your recollection of him is hazy um but I want to ask you about uh some specific
00:23:50 want to ask you about uh some specific documents from the time could we start please by looking at MPS 0746
00:23:52 0746 943 page four
00:24:09 and can we zoom in on the text at the bottom of the page please Mr McLoud this is an aqr so a review signed off by Eric Docker in April of 1987 so you were in post but this is not your
00:24:25 post but this is not your document um but you'll see there that Eric Docker uh wrote in April 1987 that Scott was a thoroughly sound and practical officer ideally suited to
00:24:38 and practical officer ideally suited to his present Duty where his qualities of initiative self-discipline and experience are put to excellent use and then consistently produces work of the very highest quality and in the second paragraph
00:24:50 quality and in the second paragraph there the conclusion is that he's an ideal candidate for higher rank do you see that yeah are you able to say whether those um sentiments those
00:25:03 whether those um sentiments those descriptions are ones that you agreed with or
00:25:08 not I'm not sure I would say
00:25:20 no and when you say no is that because of what you've learned subsequently or at the time you would have said you don't agree what I learned subsequently at the time do you recall disagreeing with Eric Docker about the assessment of Stefan Scott at this point in
00:25:36 time I can't honestly remember discussing this with Eric is it possible you might not have discussed it and left him to do this by himself I I think that's probably what happened I can't actually remember
00:25:58 this well let's take that down can we put onto the screen please ucpi 02463 it's your B7
00:26:11 sir can we zoom in on everything below the line the content of the letter so this is dated the 16th of July 1987 when you were in post Mr McLoud it's marked for your attention and dear
00:26:32 it's marked for your attention and dear malcol and it it covers a thank you note to to put it shortly from the security service to you for a meeting with hn
00:26:48 95 do you recall a letter of thanks being received from the security service in connection with a meeting with hn 95
00:26:55 95 no does it surprise you at all that they might have sent a letter of thanks in connection with his deployment
00:27:09 I don't know can we take that down please and put up on screen ucpi 022 281 so it's your B
00:27:25 33b and can we have page two please in fact sorry let's put on page one so that you can see Mr McLoud what it is we're looking at it's about a
00:27:36 it is we're looking at it's about a security service visit to the SDS on the 16th of September of 1987 and so that it's clear to you paragraph 2 records that you were not present at this
00:27:51 meeting right so Eric Docker handled the meeting on this occasion with the security service but can I just ask you about what's said at the bottom of page two there about H and
00:28:09 95 the very bottom thank you it records that he has two years to go and continues to do very well does that assessment of Mr Scott continuing to do very well Accord with
00:28:22 continuing to do very well Accord with what recollection you have of him as an undercover officer
00:28:35 no from my recollection um I'm not sure i' agree with that and again is that because of what you've learned subsequently rather than at the time I learned subsequently would you have agreed at the
00:28:49 time I don't know do you recall any issues with stepan Scott or his deployment during your time in charge of the unit
00:29:03 I remember there were issues but I can't remember
00:29:04 remember specifically what these issues were but do you recall those happening whilst you were the detective Chief Inspector of the unit yes do you agree certainly from
00:29:17 the unit yes do you agree certainly from the documents we've looked at the review in April
00:29:22 in April 1987 and the contact with the security service in July and September 1987 there doesn't appear to be any indication on on the paperwork from the time of there being any issues with stepan Scott's
00:29:44 deployment no I can't I can't
00:30:03 comment if we have a look at some other documentation from the first half of 1987 let's see if we can um jog any memory um that you might have ucpi 02463 0 it's your B8
00:30:13 sir and if we could look at the first paragraph uh to start with Please Mr McLoud this is a a security service note of a meeting that took place between
00:30:28 of a meeting that took place between them and hn 95 and you um on the 13th of February 1987 do you see that
00:30:39 yes could we look first of all at paragraph two and
00:30:50 three I'll guide you around this because there's some redaction here Mr mlau but in short what we see at paragraph two is that Stefan Scott who's a 95 here had
00:31:03 that Stefan Scott who's a 95 here had been invited to work in part of the swp center dealing with computers and word
00:31:11 processing and the security service described the invitation there at the end of the paragraph As a unique honor in view of the brevity of his membership of the
00:31:21 of the party do you recall him being invited to work at the swp center
00:31:32 C no I can't recall would you agree that if he was so invited it it was proper to regard it as a unique
00:31:46 honor whether I would describe it as a unique honor or not
00:31:51 um I don't know if I could put that
00:32:00 I don't think I I've got sufficient information to make that decision do you recall at any point
00:32:11 decision do you recall at any point thinking that Stephan Scott was doing particularly well in his deployment and what I remember I think it been
00:32:17 satisfactory um the same
00:32:27 document sorry can we have paragraph three enlarged again thank
00:32:46 you the same document records um this in essence there was discussion of a practical difficulty uh regarding Scott taking up the role um and then it reads as follows the other objections were more on
00:32:57 other objections were more on principle the AC felt that the raise on De of the SDS was primarily the discovery of Law and Order intelligence which would not be better served by Scott who has done Sterling work at whopping in recent months working in the
00:33:08 whopping in recent months working in the center the AC was also concerned that if Scott became a full-time employee of the S swp he would be at their disposal and could be moved to any part of the
00:33:26 could be moved to any part of the country at their behest he felt that the SDS could through no fault of their own lose control both of the operation and of Scutt
00:33:28 of Scutt himself so it appears that whilst the security service were in favor of him
00:33:39 security service were in favor of him taking up the role it was vetoed by the Metropolitan Police Service by special branch do you remember that
00:33:57 situation no I can't would it be fair to say looking at this as an example that ultimately the Metropolitan Police Service retained control over how officers were tasked rather than the security
00:34:14 service yes I mean special special Branch other payroll pay pay masters
00:34:23 masters um I would have been concerned if this had
00:34:24 had been if this had been sort of handed over to the security service this is a this is a police operation and although they have a vested
00:34:38 they have a vested interest I'm not sure that I would be comfortable with them
00:34:48 dictating what on issues like this what should or should not be done the concern expressed towards the end of that paragraph about the risk of losing
00:35:00 paragraph about the risk of losing control both of the operation and of Scott
00:35:02 Scott himself do you recall sharing a concern about losing control of the
00:35:23 officer I can't remember that conversation was there generally a concern that it was possible that management might lose control of officers deployed on long-term infiltration such as this I can't recall ever having a conversation with anybody in management or further up the chain um on this issue
00:35:41 um was there ever a concern that officers might become too ensconced in their undercover roles too far removed from
00:35:50 policing I think that would be a that certainly would be a concern yes can we zoom out please and go back to the first paragraph of this
00:36:06 note um we know from this note that Stefan Scott attended the meeting before
00:36:19 Stefan Scott attended the meeting before you and the first paragraph records that he arrived before you so hn 95 arrived before McLoud do you see that yes and was able to share with us the disappointment raised by the refusal of his Masters to allow him to take up the job in swp administra ation which he has been
00:36:36 offered were you ever made aware at the time of Stefan Scott's disappointment at the decision not to allow him to take up the
00:36:51 the offer no I can't recall so you didn't speak to him about that at any stage that you remember no I no I
00:37:00 didn't how usual was it in your experience for individual undercover officers to meet and speak with the security services in this manner as is recorded
00:37:13 here not not that often does it surprise you to see recorded here what appears to have been a conversation between Stephan Scott and the representative of the security service before your arrival concerning his deployment
00:37:24 his deployment yes if you had known that he had had that conversation at the time would you have spoken to him about it yes and what what might you have said to
00:37:42 him is what we would say to the security service rather than him and what would you say to the security service that they come through us so you don't regard it as appropriate that they had a as it were a side conversation with him that didn't involve you
00:37:58 correct um I think you know from having seen documentation subsequently that about a year after this Mr Scott came to be removed from the unit you were no longer in post at the
00:38:19 unit you were no longer in post at the time but knowing that he was do you have any reflection on how he was handled in regard to this offer of employment at the
00:38:25 the swp no I can't I can't recall there may have been Eric might have had information but I didn't do you recall whether Stefan Scott seemed bitter or annoyed that this opportunity of employment had been
00:38:42 employment had been refused frankly I can't recall what his reaction
00:38:43 reaction was
00:38:51 um no I I I can't I can't recall I want to take that down now please and ask you about another meeting between Stephan Scott and and the security service with the caveat that you were not present at the meeting but I just want to show you the document
00:39:03 I just want to show you the document it's ucpi 022 317 it's your b14 sir and this is a meeting in July of 1987 so the meeting I've just asked you about was
00:39:14 meeting I've just asked you about was February and now we're jumping forward to July 1987 right so four months later
00:39:26 to July 1987 right so four months later at Mr Scott met again with the security service but this time with Eric Docker present
00:39:33 and I want to ask you about paragraph three in
00:39:41 particular which reads as follows at 1:15 there was a break for a sandwich lunch laid on by F4 hn 95 held forth on how boring were the people in the swp the women were ugly and there were few individuals who were inclined to make
00:39:56 individuals who were inclined to make jokes or tell funny stories they spent all their time thinking along narrow ideological lines one could not watch football for example because it was considered ideologically
00:40:08 unsound did Eric Docker ever report back to you that at a meeting with the security service Stephan Scott had uh to quote this note held forth on how boring were the people and said that the women were
00:40:23 were ugly no it wasn't privy to any of that if you had been privy to stepan Scott describing those he was reporting on in that way what would your reaction have
00:40:34 been I'm pretty disgusted with
00:40:54 language did he Express those sorts of sentiments or opinions to you or in your presence do you recall so away from the security service no he didn't
00:41:07 if we take this uh down please C can we look at another Security Service note ucpi 022
00:41:23 350 and Mr McLoud this is another note by the security service arising from the February 1987 meeting with Mr Scott at which we know from the other document you were
00:41:37 present and if we uh turn to page five please this is a more detailed note about what Mr Scott told them about this swp and if we zoom in please at paragraph
00:41:50 paragraph 16 um if we could do the whole of 16 if we can please
00:42:02 the security service appear to have been asking Mr Scott about particular individuals within the swp and it is recorded that his
00:42:14 swp and it is recorded that his description of the individual at Point H was that she was the girlfriend of somebody fat and
00:42:20 ugly again do you recall Stefan Scott using those sorts of descriptors about women
00:42:31 descriptors about women I'm sorry this page here can can you tell me what page
00:42:39 you oh it's on sorry it's on a separate page
00:42:42 page um thank
00:42:55 you yeah can you yeah I think that's disgraceful what more can I say are you sure it didn't come to your attention at the time that Mr Scott was
00:43:07 attention at the time that Mr Scott was using this sort of language to describe women in the swp well I mean that was too long ago I
00:43:24 swp well I mean that was too long ago I mean he might I mean it's even at that I think I'd be pretty disgusted if I been present with that kind of behavior um
00:43:32 no I I can't say that that information is
00:43:43 correct is it possible Mr McLoud that that sort of language to describe women was commonplace at the time and so it didn't stand out to you common place in the SDS well I don't know how the judge come in
00:43:55 in place well did you hear it with some level of frequency within the well that's the thing I may may have done may not have done I'm inclined to eror on the side not to have
00:44:07 the side not to have done that just I mean it's that kind of language is just unnecessary apart from anything else um and I think we would have picked up on this I mean it really
00:44:27 is but you don't recall picking up on it is that right no I didn't because I I can't remember I can't remember him seeing seeing this I mean it's so long ago it may well have done I mean
00:44:47 I'm I'm TR to R my mind back that far I hly can't remember all I can tell you is I would find that language unacceptable no matter whether it was that many years ago or not it's it's pretty disting
00:44:58 pretty disting disgusting it was no proper part of an undercover deployment for these officers to be assessing the attractiveness of
00:45:10 to be assessing the attractiveness of the women they came across was it it's what can I say it's just unacceptable does it cause you any concern in terms of his attitude towards or how he viewed women that he appears
00:45:24 or how he viewed women that he appears Mr Scott repeatedly to have commented on their
00:45:25 their attractiveness when reporting
00:45:36 back I I can't remember reading any of that I'm just struggling here to to
00:45:38 to to recall but looking looking back on it now if that had come to your attention at the time whether whether you recall it or not would it have caused you to question the officer's attitude towards
00:45:55 question the officer's attitude towards women if they were repeatedly reporting on the women's attractiveness yes of course would and do you recall that ever happening that you were you ever had cause to think on that yes if it was it
00:46:08 cause to think on that yes if it was it wasn't that frequent that you was using this kind of language to Des describe
00:46:17 women all right can I turn now to some more General points about the relationship with the security
00:46:27 service um and can we start please by just going back to a document we were looking at a moment ago ucpi 022 317 your b14 sir and Mr mlau this is the July meeting with Scott that you
00:46:38 the July meeting with Scott that you were not at but but Eric Docker went to and can we look please at paragraph uh
00:46:56 two just want to ask about your awareness of something that was conveyed at this meeting by Mr Docker so the the security service note records at Mr Docker reporting somewhat apologetically to F4 that detective Chief
00:47:07 to F4 that detective Chief superintendent Ray Parker of esquad had commanded recently that henceforth requests for meetings between Security Service officers and SDS agents were to
00:47:22 Service officers and SDS agents were to be directed to him in writing before any Arrangements were made F4 wondered what had brought about this alteration in procedure but Docker professed not to know and said he could only obey
00:47:34 know and said he could only obey orders gentle probing by F4 elicited the information that a tightening up of procedures was underway in mp uh Metropolitan Police Special Branch Docker insisted however that these measures were totally unrelated to our
00:47:46 measures were totally unrelated to our service Docker concluded lamely that he had been given to understand that originally matters had been conducted in the manner now prescribed by Parker but the system had relaxed over the years questioned further Docker said
00:48:00 years questioned further Docker said that he imagined Parker would require a letter putting forward a request for a meeting together with a brief outline of the
00:48:10 the objective F4 considered this information but did not make a fuss about it to Docker do you recall at what is recorded here namely
00:48:21 recall at what is recorded here namely that detective Chief superintendent Ray Parker commanded that meetings request for meetings between the security service and individual SDS officers should go through
00:48:30 him yes I knew that
00:48:42 anyway yes anything like that would be channeled through the chief superintendent the suggestion here appears to be that the system had relaxed to use the words uh from this document over the years and that
00:48:55 document over the years and that detective Chief superintendent Parker was attempting to read in state the process which required all requests to go through him do you remember that tightening of procedure no I can't but I can
00:49:07 procedure no I can't but I can understand Ray Parker's position of course that's the right thing to do otherwise the security service would
00:49:22 otherwise the security service would be be allowed to take up running the show so no I don't see I don't see there's
00:49:29 there's any there's an issue there well right so you would agree with what Mr Parker was trying to achieve there yes of course and you see it as a way of controlling the security services access to the SDS
00:49:41 the security services access to the SDS precisely were you conscious before this tightening up that the SDS had been organizing meetings between its officers and the security service without going through the higher level of supervision
00:49:58 through the higher level of supervision I only became aware as a result of this this
00:50:03 hearing as to the general uh relationship between the security service and the SDS can I ask that we
00:50:14 service and the SDS can I ask that we look at please at a couple of passages in your witness statement firstly at paragraph 109b page 49 please
00:50:33 if we could just have the whole of 109 that would be sorry thank you so you were being asked questions Mr McLoud about the responsibility for targeting of SDS
00:50:45 targeting of SDS officers um you say that the responsibility for the final decision lay formally with you
00:51:06 but you acted in conjunction with the security service and Senior Metropolitan Police Service officers up to the level of Chief superintendent of es Squad I'm sorry what page are we on here uh page it's page 49 of your witness
00:51:17 uh page it's page 49 of your witness statement you should have up paragraph 109 oh yes yes sorry
00:51:48 and in the second half of paragraph B you suggest that Given that special Branch's role was to assist them being the security service they had the primary re
00:52:00 service they had the primary re and the commensurate amount of influence to go with
00:52:12 it my question is to to what extent in your experience was the security service influencing the tasking of officers during your time as detective Chief Inspector I don't want you to answer in regard to any individual officer I'm asking for your recollection in general
00:52:31 the security service might well have attempted to
00:52:42 influence the targeting by the um undercover officers but I would be very uncomfortable and I share bra
00:52:55 uncomfortable and I share bra Parker's view on this this ought not to have happened
00:53:12 so what the security service ought not to have been responsible for targeting undercover officers is that what you mean yes were they in practice influencing the SDS to that extent I think they
00:53:30 probably I'm I'm not I'm not aware of there having been too many meetings with the security service Whenever there wereare meetings
00:53:46 service Whenever there wereare meetings would be in the company of myself and or Eric and what would you assess to have been their influence on decisions about tasking of undercover officers
00:53:59 well I think the tasking would be to ensure that in so doing on behalf of the security service that the field
00:54:14 officers what were not
00:54:28 likely they they should basically the field officers should not primarily be influenced by the um the sorry the undercover officers should not be
00:54:38 be influenced not should not have been influenced by conversations or briefings by the security
00:54:57 by the security service they should not have been in your view but to what extent do you think that they were in fact it's difficult to no very difficult to know if we turn over to look at what you say a bit further down paragraph 109f please over the
00:55:20 page you say this the security services priorities influenced where uos would be deployed as I have stated already they had a significant degree of influence that bordered on control this influence uence manifested itself both formally
00:55:31 uence manifested itself both formally such as through the annual requirements meetings and the assistance role described in the home office guidelines and
00:55:36 and informally in terms of their informal influence the security service actively tried to maintain good relations with the SDS management including by
00:55:51 the SDS management including by providing corporate hospitality and then you mention an example of a document that records a pu lunch do you stand by that description a significant degree of influence that boarded on
00:56:05 control I think that was probably true
00:56:20 yes Eric Docker gave evidence to the inquiry a couple of weeks ago and his evidence was to the effect that he perceived that the flow of information was largely One Way namely the police least we're giving the security service information rather than anything much coming back the other way
00:56:34 anything much coming back the other way do you agree with that I didn't know was true yes from my
00:56:45 recollection all right thank you can we take that down and I'm going to move um to a different topic now Mr uh McLoud that topic being um the existence
00:56:57 McLoud that topic being um the existence the conducting by undercover officers of intimate and sexual relationships and their undercover
00:57:11 deployments can we start by having a look at what you said um in your witness statement about officers who served under your command it's page 142 paragraph
00:57:24 252 um and you said this I wish to say at the outset of this section that I feel I owe it to those uos who worked in the SDS when I was a manager to assist the inquiry I felt a duty of care to them and I do now they made enormous
00:57:39 them and I do now they made enormous sacrifices to work in a very difficult environment and they made a valuable contribution to policing and the needs of the state as those needs were then perceived to be the majority of officers were stalwart professionals and I feel
00:57:51 were stalwart professionals and I feel strongly that their achievements should not be retrospectively underappreciated or overshadowed by the misconduct of a few but when you referred there to the
00:58:04 few but when you referred there to the misconduct of a few does it follow that you accept that engaging in deceitful sexual relationships in their undercover identities was
00:58:16 misconduct well it certainly was misconduct
00:58:30 um you you say in the next paragraph that if you were asked to make a moral judgment you would be disapproving of such conduct is that right if that's what I said at the time that's
00:58:46 that's right could we have a look at what you said to operation Hearn in 2012 MPS
00:58:49 2012 MPS 0726 640 it's your A4 sir and Mr McLoud we're going back to the notes that operation Hearn took when they spoke to you before they drafted
00:59:02 they spoke to you before they drafted your statement and can we turn please to page
00:59:03 page four of that
00:59:20 document thank you and can we zoom in on the paragraph beginning although McLoud did not specifically and sorry the the line immediately below that thank you
00:59:33 and this is what was recorded by operation Hearn I'll read it to the into the record although McLoud did not specifically say that sexual relationships between field officers and their targets were permitted he made it quite clear that they went on and to
00:59:45 quite clear that they went on and to some degree were a part of the job in summary he stated that if a field officer had a close relationship with a Target and a sexual relationship was a likely progression of that relationship
00:59:59 likely progression of that relationship and the officer refused or made excuses then this could have caused unwanted attention and possibly lead to the officer being identified as a police officer and then in quote the closer a field officer got the be the better end
01:00:12 field officer got the be the better end quote McLoud said that his objective was to get the intelligence not to make moral judgments yes that's regrettable I withraw
01:00:25 that sorry did you say you withdraw that yes
01:00:29 yes and what part precisely do you withdraw all of
01:00:38 it did you say to operation Hearn or did you make clear as they have recorded it that relationships sexual relationships went on and to some degree were a part of the job if I said that
01:01:06 it's regrettable but I might have said that yes and if you said it does it follow that it was true that you understood that relationships did go on between undercover offices the trouble
01:01:17 between undercover offices the trouble is I didn't know what was going on with the uh
01:01:18 the uh relationships I only I only sort of became aware of the relationships only just if you like quite
01:01:30 just if you like quite recently I wasn't aware of that when this um statement was made well when this statement was made operation Hern are recording that you were making it clear that such
01:01:41 were making it clear that such relationships had gone on and to some degree were a part of the job so that
01:01:52 degree were a part of the job so that suggests you were aware in 2012 doesn't it I have no knowledge of it going on
01:01:56 on hypothetically have I said that and it's not right so you may have said that to operation Herm but it it was inaccurate when you said it yes can you think of
01:02:08 when you said it yes can you think of why you might have told operation Hearn that relationships went on and to some degree were part of the job if that was not your state of knowledge when you managed the unit no it's not the state of knowledge
01:02:22 unit no it's not the state of knowledge I had so why would you have said that to operation Hearn then
01:02:29 tell that was yes 2012 I've
01:02:44 mentioned I can't I can't be I can't be sure do you maintain that you did not know that relationships between undercover officers under your command were going on no I didn't
01:02:58 know the operation her note from 2012 goes on to record you saying that if a field officer had a close relationship with a Target and a sexual relationship was a likely progression of that
01:03:10 was a likely progression of that relationship and the officer refused or made excuses this could have caused unwanted attention and possibly lead to the officer being identified as a police officer so you seem to be suggesting
01:03:26 officer so you seem to be suggesting that circumstances could arise during a deployment in which officer felt as it were
01:03:27 were compelled to to to uh conduct the relationship in order to maintain their cover I had no knowledge at the time if I said that then that's regrettable but
01:03:43 I said that then that's regrettable but I had no knowledge of it going on at the time as I said earlier the the fact that relations sexual relations had taken place um I I
01:04:02 sexual relations had taken place um I I wasn't aware of at the time I and it was only subsequently I realized the extent of it did you have an appreciation at the time that you managed the unit that there was a risk that officers might engage in sexual relationships
01:04:18 undercover I think there may have been a
01:04:29 misplaced judgment that that would necessarily have impacted on the undercover officers ability
01:04:44 on the undercover officers ability to carry on the work of intelligence gathering that wouldn't necessitate sexual
01:04:49 sexual relations in order to do that totally unnecessary can I just make sure that that that evidence is understood you saying that at the time it may have been
01:05:07 saying that at the time it may have been judged that circumstances could arise in which officers would feel compelled to enter into a sexual relationship to maintain
01:05:12 maintain cover well it may have done but that's not to
01:05:14 not to say that does mean to say I was
01:05:27 approving but did you appreciate that there was a risk of officers entering into such relationships at the time
01:05:31 well I suppose those always a
01:05:46 risk and did you whilst you were the detective Chief Inspector of the unit take any steps to guard against that risk eventuating no I
01:05:55 didn't if we take down that document which is the no notes that operation Hearn made when they spoke to you and
01:06:06 Hearn made when they spoke to you and can we have up on the screen the witness statement you signed thereafter MPS 0726
01:06:08 0726 827 it's your A2 sir and this is a statement dated in November uh 2012 Mr
01:06:19 statement dated in November uh 2012 Mr McLoud and can we turn please to page so before we do we see you signed it there on the 21st of November 2012 at the top of the first page and can we turn please to page
01:06:46 five um and um can we zoom in please one two the third full paragraph in fact three three four and five please so starting in terms of relationships thank
01:06:58 you well this is what appeared in your witness statement Mr McLoud I'll read it for you in terms of relationships between a field officer and their compatriots within their target groups it is obvious that The Closer a field
01:07:11 it is obvious that The Closer a field officer got to the key people the better the intelligence was likely to be there may be occasions where relationships formed with women within
01:07:22 relationships formed with women within the group and sexual relations followed this is not something a field officer would discuss with his supervisor vising officers but it has to be accepted that such Liaisons will
01:07:39 form do you agree that that appears to suggest that you appreciated that there was a real risk that such leaon as they described there will form there supp that always the inherent risk that that will
01:07:54 risk that that will happen when men and when women are thrown close together um in in these circumstances it doesn't mean to say I'm approving I'm just State the fact that these things do
01:08:17 happen and you go on to say there it certainly wouldn't have surprised me if it had occurred do you see that in the single line paragraph just below although I was never aware of any sexual relationships between any of my field officers and a weary it certainly wouldn't have surprised me if it had
01:08:36 occurred well it wouldn't by the very very nature of the work that we were doing doesn't mean to say that I'm approving of it not at all I think it's
01:08:49 approving of it not at all I think it's a question of facing up to reality that these things do happen in the world um
01:08:54 um so yes however important that may seem I think
01:08:56 think it would be naive to presume otherwise that they're thrown close together over periods of time so it wouldn't it wouldn't have
01:09:07 time so it wouldn't it wouldn't have surprised me that doesn't mean to say necessarily that I'm approving that at
01:09:18 necessarily that I'm approving that at all understood but if the situation is that it wasn't something that you approved
01:09:22 approved of and you appreciated there was a risk of it happening did you not consider consider it part of your role as the detective Chief Inspector to take steps to try to prevent it
01:09:41 to try to prevent it occurring up until that point and well until the Expos the occurred to um [Music]
01:09:42 [Music] 20 Whatever Whenever is when carine
01:09:54 20 Whatever Whenever is when carine Lucas made the statement the commons and exposed the whole until then it it wasn't
01:10:02 it hadn't been an issue was I surprised perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised something that this would happen let me just clarify I had
01:10:18 happen let me just clarify I had understood your evidence before now to indicate that you appreciated at the time you were the detective Chief Inspector that there was at least a risk of such relationships occurring is that right cor so whether or not you knew
01:10:30 right cor so whether or not you knew that they were happening you appreciated that they might occur is that right that's correct and so my question was aimed at whether in those
01:10:41 aimed at whether in those circumstances you did anything to guard against sexual relationships occurring between the officers you managed and the people they were mixing with
01:10:52 people they were mixing with undercover i' would like to know how I would go about managing that because people are so minded to form these close relationships it doesn't matter what anyone might think or do
01:11:11 any any kind of attempts to disuade the officers from they're just going to deny any participation in this kind of behavior so I think it's it's it's not
01:11:26 it's not that I think we just got to face it's a unpalatable fact but um this is this is what happens when you put
01:11:40 is this is what happens when you put people in this kind of proximity to each other I'm not saying it's inevitable shouldn't be inevitable maybe there should be ways of actually maybe in retrospect looking like um there should
01:11:51 retrospect looking like um there should be ways in which we might have been able to maybe prevent or counter that from happening we didn't there lots of things we got wrong in us all the way through so might it have been an idea
01:12:06 through so might it have been an idea for example to tell officers when they were
01:12:10 were recruited that sexual relationships with those they were mixing with were considered a complete no was where but might it have been an idea to make that very clear to the officers I think it
01:12:22 very clear to the officers I think it was made clear from my recollection I'm sure Eric will vou for that so do you recall telling officers explicitly that sexual relationships were in your view totally inappropriate I didn't specifically but there was the the
01:12:35 specifically but there was the the manual in the um in the back office which outlined will it did outlined the risks of
01:12:46 risks of um sort of um
01:12:50 um um extra marital relationships so you saying that the binder that consisted of the experiences of former undercover
01:13:02 the experiences of former undercover officers yeah contained guidance warning officers against sexual relationships and their undercover identities from my recollection yes and do you recall whether that came from a particular officer or was repeated within the
01:13:14 officer or was repeated within the binder don't use any nam I I can't remember it's just one of those things that picked up
01:13:26 that picked up and I found all all of the information in the folder very helpful given I'd never been um I'd never been an undercover officer and it was just
01:13:39 undercover officer and it was just interesting just to get the full Lowdown on um what advice had gone before and essentially it was it was a
01:13:53 essentially it was it was a folder or chter I can't remember what but it was all the experiences of previous undercover ofice just Bits of Paper just notes as to what what the pitfalls were but do you have a firm recollection that amongst the pitfalls
01:14:08 the pitfalls described was having a sexual relationship whilst
01:14:14 undercover was that acknowledged as a as a
01:14:15 a possibility no no it
01:14:24 didn't I suppose it's always the possibility but but the question is aimed at whether you recall seeing guidance written guidance to undercover SDS officers
01:14:35 guidance to undercover SDS officers about avoiding sexual relationships whilst deployed I believe if my memory s right there was in the uh in that hand
01:14:53 right there was in the uh in that hand in that book in that J so it must have been appreciated not just by you but also by others that that was a risk during a long-term underc cover deployment is that fair yes and did you as the officer ultimately um with daytoday command of the unit do anything to
01:15:15 the unit do anything to reinforce that such a situation would be inappropriate no there there had never been any cause for me to to make that statement or to
01:15:25 no you say going back to your Hearn witness statement uh
01:15:32 here at the bottom of that first paragraph on the screen this namely relationships is not something a field officer would discuss with his supervising
01:15:44 supervising officers but it has to be accepted that such Liaisons will
01:16:01 form as the detective Chief Inspector of the unit did you not consider that the onus was on you to prompt discussion with the officers deployed with the field
01:16:02 field officers to guard against these relationships happening rather than assuming that they would or wouldn't come to speak to
01:16:13 come to speak to you well given that most of these officers were recruited um into the into the unit before my time so was
01:16:29 unit before my time so was only to three new recruits onto the unit the time I was there which is a relatively short time
01:16:44 um there would be no reason for me just partic especially to single out I would have expected this all to have been clearly
01:16:48 clearly understood it was in the manual I mean it's how much do
01:16:55 you how far how far do you go and try to preach to individuals what they should and shouldn't do I have thought Common Sense would have kicked in but did you not consider that that was part and parcel of the role of being the
01:17:07 parcel of the role of being the detective Chief super inspector to set the
01:17:08 the boundaries for the officers that were deployed but it it hadn't been flagged up the all of this has just come about as a result of the
01:17:25 as a result of the um 2015 orever it was um exposed it this this was not something that was regularly discussed or even in fact it was seldom discussed if at all I mean we're having this discuss
01:17:37 all I mean we're having this discuss this right now as to have this could
01:17:51 this right now as to have this could happen no I can't remember any dialogue going on I can't remember reading the the the um the folder but apart from that now I can't remember um there being I need to raise this issue about relationships given
01:18:09 relationships given that the majority of these officers had been recruited before my time whatever advice
01:18:19 advice the then serving Chief Inspector or inspector might have given them um I can only say it's
01:18:28 individual I I never picked up an AR maybe I should have done
01:18:32 done um no that's um it wasn't it wasn't like a something
01:18:43 um it wasn't it wasn't like a something that came came up regularly or there was a reason to discuss
01:18:54 discuss reproach or in any other way um address this
01:18:55 this issue with the officers because the question would be why you asking me this question
01:19:02 question now and most of them have been serving
01:19:13 now and most of them have been serving for four three or four years before her so I think it's and fair just to um point to
01:19:24 um point to the individuals who did engage in that kind of behavior and all of this came out in the world wash um it's only then that this whole this whole garut of relationships has come to the
01:19:36 of relationships has come to the four it it hadn't been high in the agender um at any time in my 18 months where it came up or need to be
01:19:53 discussed so even though the risk was appreciated you didn't consider it necessary to raise it is that right yes
01:20:06 but we're discussing this retrospectively after after this major event occurred and they're all looking for answers to these questions of course there's a lot more
01:20:21 questions of course there's a lot more that could have been done maybe things were
01:20:23 were done in l l but I think for the best part
01:20:35 um that was really as far as as far as it went in terms of overseeing and monitoring the behavior of the offices and don't let's not forget that these
01:20:48 forget that these behaviors were of a minority when you look at the size of the the um of the unit over the years so
01:21:00 the the um of the unit over the years so it's relatively small and this issue I'm not trying in any way don'tplay the seriousness of it of course not what I'm what I'm saying is it wasn't something that came up on the agenda at um
01:21:12 agenda at um um and see of his meetings so no it's SE to say we should have done this that and the other and I totally
01:21:22 totally agree but um
01:21:29 that that's um it's just unfortunate that's the way it worked out and that is not in any any shape or form me
01:21:38 form me condoning his relationship far far from
01:21:48 it if if as you suggest there in your witness statement this wasn't a topic that the field officers would discuss with supervising
01:22:01 officers did you not consider that the onus was on you to guard against the risk by speaking to them if there was if there wasn't a reason
01:22:16 reason to and I can't call her being a reason for doing
01:22:21 for doing so then of course we rais the question and you know
01:22:34 it's in circumstances is it's really really difficult to defend the
01:22:41 indefensible and I'm not sure that we would necessarily have got the answers we're
01:22:53 necessarily have got the answers we're looking for because the officers if they were so engaged would be the last ones to admit
01:22:55 to admit due the
01:23:05 behaviors so I've got quite a way to go on this topic but I see the time I wonder if we ought to take a short break now and conclude with a shorter session for the day certainly and um we'll rise then for 15 minutes and you anticipate
01:23:17 then for 15 minutes and you anticipate finishing approximately wedes today um I'll be guided to some extent by feedback in terms of Mr Rec Cloud's ability to continue but certainly no later than half past 4 I is that reassuring yes thank you sir
01:23:53 good
01:38:22 e e
01:38:59 yes thank you could we have back up on the screen please MPS 07
01:39:13 the screen please MPS 07 266 40 it's your A4 sir and Mr McLoud this is just going back to the notes that operation Hearn took that we started this section with page four
01:39:16 four please and the third and fourth paragraph starting although McLoud did not
01:39:29 thank
01:39:39 you and I started by asking you about this Mr McLoud which you said you wanted to um
01:39:42 to um withdraw um and that it was
01:39:56 regrettable can I ask you about the single line that says this McLoud said that his objective was to get the intelligence not to make moral judgments does that fairly sum up your attitude as the detective Chief
01:40:07 attitude as the detective Chief Inspector of the SDs that your primary concern was that the officers under your command obtained useful
01:40:21 intelligence no
01:40:25 did you say that to operation Hearn
01:40:42 nonetheless I can't remember could we take that down and have up please paragraph 255a of your inquiry statement it's page 145
01:41:01 so at the bottom of the page please
01:41:16 255a this is um a section of your statement in which you were responding to things said by undercover officers in their statements to the inquiry
01:41:28 their statements to the inquiry and firstly hn 25 if you want to consult the cipher list again please do without saying the
01:41:59 name so H and 25 I've joined the SDS in around May 1987 when you were in post he didn't deploy until October so just after you had left the unit so he would have been in the back office whilst you
01:42:10 have been in the back office whilst you were in post you follow yes he said this in about sexual relationships there was nothing Direct in place as to not conduct such practices as this was prior to Ripper there was there were no clear in directions to work
01:42:25 in directions to work to um we were essentially intelligence gatherers we were under pressure to deliver most of the time we worked under extremely loose
01:42:39 guidelines firstly do you agree with um hn 25's assertion that officers were under pressure to deliver most of the
01:42:55 time well I would have yes I guess were under pressure to
01:43:07 deliver I think it's inher in the work did you give any signal to the undercover officers under your command that the primary consideration was the Gathering of intelligence as opposed to their conduct generally was
01:43:19 opposed to their conduct generally was deployed no I think in rest respect they should have found it other way around at the
01:43:31 um do you mean in relation to sexual relationships they should have found another way around it is that yeah I've understood correctly do you agree with hn 25's
01:43:43 correctly do you agree with hn 25's assertion that the officers worked under extremely loose
01:43:51 guidelines I suppose it's always been the case since the operation ever started the they operated and fairly loose
01:44:07 loose guidelines um I think it was only in more recent times with Ripper it was long after I retired or left the unit
01:44:21 left the unit um so yes I suppose the were loose loose guidelines
01:44:30 are you sure that in your style of management of the unit it wasn't a case of officers being expected to go out and gather
01:44:43 expected to go out and gather intelligence and management were willing to turn a blind eye to things like relationships if they
01:44:50 occurred as I said before I don't think these relationships was was prominent or even known
01:45:01 was prominent or even known about in the um within the management team I certainly wasn't aware of the these relationships were going on it's all news to me and
01:45:16 me and furthermore even more so in recent times extent of
01:45:19 extent of it could we go back please to the witness statement that you gave to operation Hearn in 2012 MPS 0726
01:45:28 0726 827 your A2 sir and paragraph five that we were looking at sorry page five that we were looking at
01:45:45 earlier and the paragraphs that begin in terms of relationships down to the next subheading
01:45:58 the final paragraph of those three there Mr McLoud I didn't read to you earlier but it says this the field officers all knew the boundaries and were left to use their common sense when deployed extra marital relations occur in all walks of
01:46:13 marital relations occur in all walks of life and field offices are no exception I do not believe that we should be setting a moral code for one specific group of police officers to the exclusion of others this has to be a personal judgment by the
01:46:41 officers did you consider that the question of whether or not to enter into a sexual relationship whilst undercover was a matter for the personal Judgment of the officers as opposed to your oversight role yeah
01:46:50 um no I don't think they I should really create that
01:47:00 and what would you correct it to then knew the
01:47:08 boundaries left to use the common sense when
01:47:10 when deployed and then talking in general terms extramarital relations to cans of life and field officer no exception I don't
01:47:27 yeah you can't really conflate the two
01:47:33 two um we should be setting the mor cord for one
01:47:34 one specific no
01:47:46 I that that is not a good choice of words right well well let let's break it down was it your view at the time you served that the field officers knew the boundaries and should be left to use their common sense with regard to sexual
01:48:00 relationships well I think that's how it had to
01:48:01 had to be
01:48:06 be because they're working in isolation and these you said early on these relationships are bound to bound to happen
01:48:19 happen um you know no matter how unpalatable we may find it um
01:48:29 know it's the the choice of words are not no good what about extra marital relations occur in all walks of life and field offices are no exception it does that accurately and
01:48:41 exception it does that accurately and fairly represent your view well I mean
01:48:54 fairly represent your view well I mean it's stting the obvious exal relations car all walks of life and field and police officers generally and no exception
01:49:00 um do you consider that there is any material difference between a person conducting an extramarital affair in their real identity and an undercover officer
01:49:12 identity and an undercover officer conducting a sexual relationship in their cover identity yes there is a distinction relationships to occur see but in
01:49:23 but in relationships with the um activice um brings a whole new dimension because of the nature of the if you like the
01:49:35 the deceit the woman isn't free freely consenting or doesn't know with whom she's really consenting to have sex does she
01:49:51 she no and so that makes it quite different from Simply an extra marital Affair doesn't it yes
01:50:01 so when that statement to Hearn says I do not believe that we should be setting a moral code for one specific group of police officers to the exclusion of others on reflection do you in fact see that it it's quite a different situation and there may be scope there may be an
01:50:16 and there may be scope there may be an argument for setting a some sort of code or some sort of disciplinary rules for under cover officers yeah I agree totally do you stand by the assertion then that this has to be a personal judgment by the officers or do you resile from that on
01:50:36 reflection yes I think
01:50:41 um it can't be left to
01:50:50 them are you quite sure Mr McLoud that during the time that you served as the detective Chief Inspector of the SDS you didn't know or suspect that any
01:51:01 didn't know or suspect that any relationships were going on between deployed
01:51:02 deployed officers and uh those they were mixing with I had no idea none at all none at all not even a rumor gossip banter
01:51:17 all not even a rumor gossip banter anything to alert you to them going on that was the last one to know what makes you say you were the last one to
01:51:34 last one to know well if the if I'd become aware of it then the secret would be out and wouldn't want to um admit to having any extral
01:51:48 relationship do you mean you'd be the last person they would tell yes
01:51:58 would there be any truth in this suggestion that um you disapproved of field officers entering
01:52:09 disapproved of field officers entering into deceitful relationships you've said that and that you suspected or knew that there was a risk that they might happen but that you closed your eyes and ears to that risk
01:52:30 well a lot of us have risk happening it's not a question of closing your eyes and ears it's not always so patently
01:52:43 obvious did you close your eyes and ears acknowledging the risk but not wanting to know if it was really going on no don't agree with that don't agree with that
01:52:53 because I can't
01:53:02 recall during the time I was on unit there was never any I never had any information of anything un like that
01:53:13 information of anything un like that during my time so I can't really I'm not going to admit to I have that I should have known I didn't know simply because when
01:53:27 if if they wanted to keep their um secret secret there's no way that they're going to share that secret with me no matter how
01:53:37 how much you um you try to elicit information of because they know very well that that could spell the um the
01:53:53 well that that could spell the um the end of the time on the SDS so they're mindful all the time so no I I I couldn't possibly be expected to know um who is having a relationship with
01:54:05 with whom Robert Lambert has given evidence to the effect that he thought or he considered that there was tacit acceptance by management that these
01:54:19 acceptance by management that these relationships would go on so he told he says detective Chief Inspector in fact he thought he told detective inspector Barber detective Chief Inspector wake recalls hearing from Lambert that he'
01:54:32 recalls hearing from Lambert that he' had at sex with a woman and thought she might be
01:54:35 might be pregnant and he considered that there might be tacit acceptance from management he wasn't removed from the squad having told detective Chief Inspector wait that information well I never had any of that
01:54:54 never had any of that information um that's what makes me very cross I was the boss I would
01:55:02 I would be I had a right to know but again I was a very last one to find out what was going on and this is this is over a period of many years we're talking about what happened in 1970 1987
01:55:12 1970 1987 whatever
01:55:15 whatever um and then fast forward to the expos in 19 in
01:55:28 19 in 2011 I became aware that there had been
01:55:51 relationships
02:10:20 e e
02:10:59 thank
02:11:07 you after you forgive me for a moment may I just say these problems have occurred with almost every witness who's given lengthy evidence like you so please don't take it hard I'm relieved to hear that
02:11:18 to hear that sir after you left your post as the detective Chief Inspector of the SDS you retained some contact with the unit
02:11:30 retained some contact with the unit didn't you in your subsequent role say again I didn't after you left your position as the detective Chief Inspector yeah you retained some contact didn't you with the SDS in your subsequent role on C squad on C Squad
02:11:44 subsequent role on C squad on C Squad yes correct did you hear at any stage after you left the SDs that Helen steel was making attempts to track down John dyes the man she knew as John Barker I heard that yes and did
02:12:03 as John Barker I heard that yes and did you hear that it started in around 1992 her attempt to track him down did you hear about it around that date so
02:12:08 date so 1990s early 1990s I would have thought earlier than
02:12:17 92 because I think it would known to be SC as a cheap then so it would have been 90
02:12:22 90 81 if I should tell you the evidence the inquiry has suggests that her attempt started around 1992 all right okay does that assist you think it could have been as early as 1991 I thought it was early
02:12:38 as early as 1991 I thought it was early that do you recall hearing that she had um visited his parents in London his real
02:12:40 real parents no but what I did
02:12:49 he gondan must have moved to Australia because she tracked him down uh so you heard about that happening I heard about that but I don't know what
02:13:01 heard about that but I don't know what timeline that we're talking about here did you hear anything before missil managed to track down John dyes in Australia did you hear anything about her attempting to track him down no so that was the earliest event that you
02:13:12 that was the earliest event that you heard of correct are you sure about that I'm
02:13:13 I'm certain but Bob Lambert whilst he was the detective inspector in the SDS in the early to mid 1990s he was aware from based on documents
02:13:29 he was aware from based on documents we've found he was aware that Miss steel was attempting to track down John D in the early to mid 1990s did he ever make you aware that that was going
02:13:48 on no he didn't make me aware I I think I think Eric made me aware Eric Docker yeah somebody told me that he she Trac him down to
02:13:57 Australia and at the time that that was brought to your attention was there any discussion of why Miss steel may have gone to such lengths to track down the man she knew as John Barker no no
02:14:12 man she knew as John Barker no no no you seem very certain about that have you a clear recollection of there being it's fairly clear no discussion I can't I going you just recap the dates because I'm not sure whether just can we just clarify
02:14:24 clarify that I can't clarify it immediately on my feet but I it may not matter much the dates in the sense that are you confident that the first you heard was
02:14:35 confident that the first you heard was when Miss steel tracked John D down in Australia and not earlier because then
02:14:48 Australia and not earlier because then we can fix the sequence of events yes I yes I I can be sure that but I can't remember what date that was what time what time up but my my question was aimed not so much at the date but at your level of knowledge at the time you heard she had tracked him down in
02:14:59 heard she had tracked him down in Australia or your understanding of why she had gone to such lengths was there for example any suggestion that it was
02:15:11 for example any suggestion that it was because the two of them had been in a an intimate relationship whilst John dyes was
02:15:13 was deployed that's my understanding that there had been a relationship was that your understanding at the time you heard that Miss steel had him down in Australia as
02:15:28 Australia as well I think so I remember yes I think I such a long time ago I'm just don't want to give any misleading responses but I do think around that time I was aware and and how did you become
02:15:45 aware and and how did you become aware did somebody tell you yes I'm not for certain it's Eric somebody told me I won't ask you to cast around for names just in case they're covered by restrictions but one of the possibilities is that Eric Docker told
02:16:00 possibilities is that Eric Docker told you that his understanding was that John dyes had had a relationship with Helen steel I'm not sure if it was Eric but I was aware if it wasn't Eric Docker was it another former SDS officer or
02:16:20 manager I honestly don't know but I do recall
02:16:22 recall having been told that she had tracked him down in Australia
02:16:36 um and I I I you know my my first thought is that well the only person would tell me this is Eric nobody else that was that close to on the SDs that they would
02:16:49 on the SDs that they would have brief me on this but but this time I was back con see squ
02:17:00 so I'm again I can't be I can't be absolutely certain but I'm aware of the deficit she made the fact that she tracked him down and um but any other information around that I'm sorry but I just can't I can't help you but how
02:17:15 just can't I can't help you but how confident are you that you learned of the existence of their intimate relationship at the same time as learning that Miss steel had Tracked Down John D yes it was at the same time I was
02:17:40 over I'm going to move to another officer I won't be able to finish this topic within five or 10 minutes so I
02:17:50 topic within five or 10 minutes so I wonder whether it's better to pick up in the morning um very much in your hands do you would you like to stop now um perfectly content to if you say yes otherwise this particular topic can be finished in the next 10 minutes or so is that
02:17:58 that continue I'm happy for us to continue now thank you you're sure of that yeah absolutely fine in which case we'll try and finish this topic and then we'll break I'm very good
02:18:15 good can I move on to ask you about hn 87 if you want to remind yourself without saying the name who that is please do
02:18:47 yes thank you and can we have on the screen please your witness statement at paragraph 258 D page 151
02:19:04 one sorry it's my fault could we start with paragraph 258 on the previous page otherwise Mr McLoud may not know what I'm talking about thank you so this is a section in which you were asked about extracts from hn 87's witness statement Mr McLoud in which he has admitted to
02:19:19 Mr McLoud in which he has admitted to engaging in sexual activity during his deployment and he deployed between May 1987 which was when you were in post
02:19:32 post um and on to December 1990 after you had left the
02:19:37 left the unit and you were asked if we go to paragraph
02:19:38 paragraph 258 uh
02:19:41 258 uh D about what he had said and in response you said this management did not give officers the impression that unserious sexual activity was not something about which
02:19:56 activity was not something about which they needed to know any sexual activity in an uco's undercover identity was something of which managers should have been made
02:20:09 aware right and if you want to see if we go back sorry to jump around but if we go back
02:20:10 go back to uh paragraph B sub paragraph B you were responding to what hn 87 had said which was I do not
02:20:23 what hn 87 had said which was I do not think that I told management at the time about any of the above incidents I managed the situations as well as I could in the circumstances I did not think it was necessary to tell them I would have
02:20:35 necessary to tell them I would have informed them if anything had become more serious which I would not have allowed anyway or anybody had continued to pursue me once I had told them I was not interested but this never
02:20:50 not interested but this never happened right so you were responding to that to say management did not give the impression that unserious sexual activity
02:20:52 activity was not something about which they needed to
02:21:07 know are you quite sure that the impression was not given to officers that sexual activity that they didn't regard as
02:21:21 didn't regard as serious would be overlooked or would not be no action would be taken no I
02:21:30 don't and if undercover officers weren't told that they should declare sexual activity in their undercover identities H how did you expect them to know to declare
02:21:52 it I really don't I remember this but I can't
02:22:00 um no I can't I can't I can't
02:22:07 remember if we could look please at paragraph
02:22:20 258e and to set the context Mr McLoud hn 87's evidence to the inquiry is that the sexual activity that he engaged in occurred when he was staying with activists in houses or accommodation with activists in beds with them and you said in your witness
02:22:32 them and you said in your witness statement that you cannot recall whether you were aware that hn 87 would stay at other activists houses overnight the uos were in such close proximity to activists that it does not surprise me to hear it I would have expected the
02:22:47 to hear it I would have expected the office to be informed if not in advance then at least afterwards does that you stand by that evidence you weren't aware that he would stay at other activist's houses overnight but it
02:23:00 other activist's houses overnight but it doesn't surprise you to hear it yeah and you would have expected the officer to inform the office if they had stayed in those circumstances great did you ever discuss with hn
02:23:14 discuss with hn 87 that he was spending time in squats he was spending time in accommodation with activists including overnight he can't remember do you recall whether he ever spoke to you about sharing beds with women in those
02:23:33 circumstances no I can't remember including young women women far younger than he
02:23:41 was no did he ever speak to you about any form of sexual activity with women whilst
02:23:48 undercover no other than in connection with this inquiry did you do you hear anyone else speak of hn 87 engaging in sexual activity whilst
02:23:59 undercover no do you agree that if it's not surprising that undercover officers were staying at activists houses for the night activist
02:24:15 homes then the risk of sexual activity must have been fairly high for them
02:24:31 well I can't comment on that because basically I don't know but another way if an officer stays overnight with an activist does that not increase the risk the opportunity for them to engage in sexual
02:24:46 activity well I suppose you you could say yes it's an opportunity it doesn't take account the fact there may be other people in the flat as well and it may not always be what you imagine it to be but if
02:25:06 be what you imagine it to be but if they're two people together yes I guess the um NIS Temptation will be for some interesed to take place why would you have expected the office to be informed if a if an undercover officer was staying over nights at activists
02:25:22 homes I I don't really I don't don't have an answer for that because I'm I can't see the point with your your statement that's on the screen says I would have expected the office to be
02:25:33 would have expected the office to be informed if not in advance then at least afterward well yes that's what I meant afterwards you should notify the
02:25:43 um you should be notified obviously it can't be done at the times it's could to be the next day but why would you expect to be notified of that is it because there's a risk if an officer is staying
02:25:54 there's a risk if an officer is staying overnight with activists that they might be engaging in sexual
02:25:59 activity well it's very difficult to know what the if it was just one individual what the threat would be I can't you I don't really have an answer for
02:26:08 for that so you can't explain why you said you would have expected the office to be informed
02:26:18 informed no because I know much the office can do about it and what's the
02:26:32 point you were aware weren't you that officers including h87 might be drinking alcohol whilst in their cover
02:26:47 identities no I I wasn't aware if we have a look at paragraph 258 f to assist
02:26:57 you you said in your witness statement that you were aware that hn 87 would drink with members of his Target group this was and is a common way to socialize so that suggests that you had some awareness that hn 87 and perhaps
02:27:08 some awareness that hn 87 and perhaps other undercover officers would drink alcohol commonly whilst deployed is that right
02:27:17 right yes did you consider that drinking alcohol and staying in activists homes the combination of those two things might give rise to a higher risk of
02:27:29 might give rise to a higher risk of sexual activity between officers and those they were mixing with oh for
02:27:41 sure and is your position that you still took no steps to guard against that or warn the officers against doing so
02:27:58 by that time they had to committed themselves to this engagement
02:28:05 um and to intervene and to tell
02:28:28 them to give an instruction not to get involved possibly could affect their cover story if they all of a sudden disappear at an earlier hour and whatever
02:28:39 and whatever the indiv what what the activists might think if it's female about leaving a party
02:28:42 early and if there was a
02:28:48 relationship now I I just
02:28:59 um once again we come back to this I mean this really is something that should be left to the individual's judgment and if the judgment is flawed
02:29:15 judgment and if the judgment is flawed but I mean you couldn't expect the DCI to take action late at night if there was some intimacy going to take place I'm not suggesting necessarily you would know to intervene in the very moment but as a matter of generality
02:29:26 moment but as a matter of generality Might it not have been a good idea to
02:29:37 Might it not have been a good idea to warn these officers I know you might be drinking alcohol I know you might be staying at activists homes but it's really
02:29:38 really important that you take all the steps you can to avoid getting yourself into this sort of situation because I don't want you having sexual relationships could you not have said something like
02:29:52 could you not have said something like that to them you could could but us to say they're going to obey it you wouldn't
02:29:53 wouldn't know is it not the case that whenever you give an instruction or guidance as a supervising officer you have no idea really whether the officer is going to obey the instruction I I think that
02:30:09 obey the instruction I I think that would apply to all but it's not a reason never to instruct or guide no no accept that so did it never occur to you that you might give instruction or guidance on this particular topic no given what you knew about officers drinking alcohol and stay at activist's
02:30:22 and stay at activist's homes no I can see I can see where you come from but no I wouldn't have thought that would be it would be something you would pick up the next
02:30:34 up the next meeting um but did you ever pick it up at the next meeting no I didn't because if I didn't
02:30:50 no amongst the relationships entered into by Bob Lambert in his undercover identity was one with a woman the inquiry is calling Jackie if you want to consult the cipher list in case it's a name known to you please do means nothing to me and with Jackie
02:31:08 do means nothing to me and with Jackie Bob Lambert in his undercover identity fathered a child that the inquiry is calling TBS born um in the Autumn of 1985 the evidence the inquiry is heard is that Bob Lambert in his his
02:31:23 is that Bob Lambert in his his undercover identity continued to act as father to that child throughout the time that you were the detective Chief Inspector of the
02:31:36 unit what awareness did you have first of all of Bob Lambert's relationship with
02:31:36 with Jackie
02:31:42 Jackie no and of the son born to Jackie and Bob Lambert in Bob Lambert's cover identity no at any stage during your time on the SDS did you hear anything about Bob
02:31:56 SDS did you hear anything about Bob Lambert having fathered a child Noone it has been suggested I'll be corrected if I'm wrong I think by Mike chitty that Bob Lambert bragged on occasion about having fathered a child whilst undercover did you ever hear him speaking about it
02:32:10 speaking about it no did you have any awareness during the time you were the detective Chief Inspector of Bob Lambert traveling frequently to the dagnam area in East
02:32:22 London no did you have any awareness of him making payments to Jackie in respect of his son with her
02:32:29 TBS
02:32:37 no did you monitor the use by undercover officers of accounts or monies given to them in their undercover
02:32:53 identities give money to the activist yes so if Robert Lambert the evidence the inquiries heard is that he used money he had money in his undercover identity and he gave that money to Jackie to support their son
02:33:06 Jackie to support their son TBS I was we of that did you have any way of monitoring what undercover officers did with monies they had in their undercover identity
02:33:18 their undercover identity no so you remained entirely unaware of his ongoing relationship with his son TBS throughout the time you were the detective Chief Inspector totally does it surprise you looking back that you remain totally unaware of this going on under your nose effectively yes if you
02:33:32 under your nose effectively yes if you want to put that way yes because how how otherwise would I have learned if he's not going to share that information with me nobody else on the unit is going to tell me and I think
02:33:44 unit is going to tell me and I think that's probably why I was kept in the dark for so long with that very reason the inquiry has heard evidence from some um of the those who were activists reported on by Bob Lambert at
02:34:01 activists reported on by Bob Lambert at the time that on occasion he brought his son TBS along to events with him as Bob Robinson did you become aware of Bob Robinson his undercover Persona bringing a child along with him to
02:34:11 events extraordinary no I didn't
02:34:23 can I ask you about something you told operation Hearn in connection with Robert Lambert please it's I'll bring the document up MPS 0726 640 it's your A4 sir okay we have page five Mr McLoud
02:34:37 sir okay we have page five Mr McLoud these are the notes taken by operation Hearn again we've looked at them a few times okay
02:35:02 and can we look at the section headed Bob Lambert
02:35:10 please the whole of the three paragraphs thank you
02:35:23 what you told Herm was that at that stage you had last seen Bob Lambert at Bob Lambert's retirement reception in
02:35:34 2007 and then you went on to say that you believed that Bob Lambert quote outed himself as a UC due to the fact that he lost two children to a rare congenital condition and as he Bob Lambert bore a child from
02:35:47 and as he Bob Lambert bore a child from a relationship whilst a field officer he wanted to contact the mother of the child in in order that the child could have tests for the condition can I ask where when and how
02:36:00 condition can I ask where when and how did you form the idea that Bob Lambert had outed himself as an undercover
02:36:08 officer well up with 201 11 of
02:36:19 201 11 of when just after Caroline Lucas made an announcement to the um of parliament
02:36:26 um that that was the first the first I became aware of it and when you attended Bob Lambert's retirement reception in 2007 are you quite sure that you didn't know
02:36:40 quite sure that you didn't know then that he had fathered a child was undercover didn't know
02:37:02 um can move on um to another relationship entered into by Bob Lambert um this time with a woman it's her real name Belinda Harvey he the evidence it is to the effect that he met her in April 1987 so whilst you were the detective Chief Inspector of the
02:37:16 Inspector of the SDS at the time he met Miss Harvey she was 24 years of age and he was was in his real identity 35 so a 9year age Gap but he represented himself as being younger than he really was in his
02:37:27 younger than he really was in his undercover identity so she thought it was a 5year age Gap do you follow yes were you aware that undercover officers in their cover identities were
02:37:41 in their cover identities were representing themselves as younger than they really were no you were not aware of that
02:37:53 of that no did Bob Lambert say anything to you around or after April of 1987 about commencing a relationship in fact another relationship as it
02:38:05 another relationship as it was no did it come to your attention at all that he was spending a lot of time at an address in Forest Gate in East London around that time yeah the evidence the inquiry has received is that he was spending either a few nights or several nights each week at with Belinda Harvey at the address she lived
02:38:21 Belinda Harvey at the address she lived at in Forest Gate you knew nothing about that at all no would you have expected to have been aware if one of your officers was staying not at his cover address but at the address of of a woman yes I would have expected him to to have told us but he didn't tell you is that
02:38:37 told us but he didn't tell you is that your evidence no did you hear anything at all to suggest that he had entered into a new relationship whilst you were the detective Chief Inspector of the SDS no did you ever see surveillance
02:38:49 no did you ever see surveillance photographs in which Bob Lambert was captured in his cover
02:38:58 identity no I can imagine why I would have
02:39:04 have seen surveillance photograph and what the circumstances in which the photographer was found I'm not suggesting there necessarily were I'm asking whether that was something that happened so for example in the runup to the deams attacks in July 87 or in the
02:39:18 the deams attacks in July 87 or in the aftermath were you aware of there being any surve
02:39:20 any surve which captured Bob Lambert's
02:39:28 activities no
02:39:30 no um no I
02:39:32 um no I wasn't I wasn't aware but I I'm trying I'm trying to think back to the events surrounding the deums
02:39:44 deums shooting
02:39:47 shooting when when the s so13 arrest team search team went into his
02:39:59 his flat I understand there was a photograph of Bob Lambert which also showed um a woman now I don't know who that is that is Bob
02:40:11 I don't know who that is that is Bob Lambert's evidence to this inquiry is that what you're referring to or you referring to an independent recollection that's what them were you uh aware of a photograph
02:40:22 them were you uh aware of a photograph being found when his flat was searched in September 1987 of him with a woman it's only what I've held recently in this inquiry not aware at the time no
02:40:38 no Looking Back Now and knowing what you know namely that whilst you were the detective Chief Inspector of the unit Robert Lambert was supporting a son in his undercover identity financially and
02:40:50 his undercover identity financially and in terms of spending some time with him and also starting and continuing a relationship with Belinda Harvey and maintaining contact with Jackie the mother of TBS certainly do you maintain the position
02:41:06 certainly do you maintain the position that no more could have been done by you to root out this type of behavior well given that I only became aware of that and in recent times um there's not much I could have done if it wasn't aware do
02:41:20 I could have done if it wasn't aware do you think there are any steps you ought to have
02:41:21 to have taken to make yourself aware or to inquire about whether this sort of behavior was going on or what Bob Lambert was spending his time doing
02:41:33 Lambert was spending his time doing undercover well I dare say there's a lot more that could have been done probably more than just Bob lumbert that we could have done
02:41:41 have done better in any sense of what steps you think you might have taken we perhaps could have been a bit more vigilant and pro
02:41:50 pro proactive um but there wasn't the basis in which to do that at that point what I remember all of this has come out
02:42:03 remember all of this has come out retrospectively and as I say it's um as it was at the time there was nothing I certainly wasn't aware of any of their
02:42:18 wasn't aware of any of their relationships let alone one and I wasn't aware that he had fathered a child all of this came out in um 200 whenever it hit the Press when he was
02:42:30 was outed just finally for today the inquiry has also heard evidence from an officer we know as hn9 if you want to check the cipher list please do don't say the name which is restricted
02:42:57 he gave evidence to this inquiry back in the
02:43:01 the summer and he said that in around the Autumn of
02:43:03 Autumn of 1985 he attended a talk or a presentation at the security at a security service premises with Tony Wade the then detective Chief Inspector at which Tony we made what has been
02:43:21 which Tony we made what has been described as a joke in poor taste about one of the DS officers having fathered possibly fathered a child um so hn1 19's evidence is that that that was
02:43:32 said are you quite sure that nothing was said in your presence within your hearing even a joke or be it in poor taste to suggest that one of the officers that you were going in to manage had fathered a
02:43:46 child what can you say
02:43:51 did you hear anything to that effect
02:44:11 no thank you that a natural break in the yes question um so that um uh Mr McLoud uh and everybody can have some idea of how long he's likely to be required tomorrow are you able to give a public estimate um it won't be much shorter than today but a little
02:44:23 than today but a little yes but it will finish tomorrow yes within normal hours rather than um extended hours yes yes I hope that comes as a reassurance SS certainly does so good thank you for your
02:44:37 perseverance all
02:44:48 right
02:45:47 e e