Opening Statements - Mark Jenner and Carlo Infiltration

Full transcript

00:14:05 good morning everyone and welcome to tranche one phase one of the undercover policing inquiry my name is jacqueline persa and i'm the hearings manager for those of you in the virtual hearing

00:14:16 for those of you in the virtual hearing room please remember that unless you are invited to speak by the chairman please switch off both your camera and microphone i will now hand over to our chairman sir john mitting to formally start proceedings chairman thank you we are now i think going to

00:14:28 thank you we are now i think going to hear the opening statement of dave smith speaking directly to him if i may i ask first of all if you have recovered from the attack of covid that you had uh last week

00:14:42 week um i'm uh thank you very much uh yes i'm on the mend thank you um of course if at any time during the delivery of your statement you want a break uh i will readily understand and agree to it without question

00:14:54 agree to it without question please ask if you need to okay um as you know i had a hearing uh earlier in which um i indicated that i would ask those who

00:15:08 indicated that i would ask those who were otherwise minded to mention the real name of hn 104 carl carlo whether they would undertake to me not to do so

00:15:18 to do so and i understand that you've been told about that uh hearing and its outcome and that you have been asked for such an undertaking am i right that's correct

00:15:30 that's correct do you give me that undertaking yes i do i accept it please continue thank you

00:15:34 thank you um

00:15:36 um uh thank you yes uh my name's dave smith i'm a uh blacklisted construction worker um

00:15:47 um and uh i'm a core participant in the union strand of the um

00:15:51 um of of this inquiry and i'm speaking on behalf of the

00:16:04 and i'm speaking on behalf of the blacklist support group uh which is a campaign that was set up in 2009 after it was discovered that multinational construction companies uh were were spying on us and blacklisted us because of our trade

00:16:16 blacklisted us because of our trade union activities when we first talked about blacklisting uh

00:16:19 uh for us as trade unionists uh the authorities dismissed us as conspiracy theories uh theorists uh repeatedly we were told that this doesn't happen uh in the uk uh but blacklisting isn't a

00:16:31 the uk uh but blacklisting isn't a conspiracy theory it's conspiracy fact and it's a conspiracy of which not just multinational companies but the police uh

00:16:49 uh political policing units that are part of this inquiry are uh colluded with trade unions uh first appeared in in this country at the time of the industrial revolution and the british empire the

00:17:02 the at the same time that the ruling class was making just dynastic uh you know fortunes out of the slave trade um

00:17:14 fortunes out of the slave trade um parliament the uh the sole preserve of the uh uh the original wealthy at the time uh was passing the combinations acts uh which made being a member of a trade union illegal uh and against the law um and and ever since that time um

00:17:29 law um and and ever since that time um this colonial mindset uh this this this uh anti-union hostility uh which also sort of molds in with uh you know mixes in with uh institutional racism and institutional sexism has become

00:17:49 institutional sexism has become uh part of ingrained uh in the uh in in in the uh establishment mindset uh within the uk my uh my good friend lord hendy uh has already highlighted the case of the toll paddle martyrs in 1834. i don't really expect to go

00:18:04 in 1834. i don't really expect to go over there but but there was another um another less well-known uh example uh happened in the exact same year uh which in in 1834 there was a meeting of the master

00:18:15 there was a meeting of the master builders uh in landgate hill in london in which all of the major employers in the construction industry had a meeting and then decided that what they would introduce was this thing called the

00:18:28 introduce was this thing called the document it's notorious within the trade union movement um where uh everyone applying to get a job on one of their one of their building projects was false every craftsman was forced to sign his document to say that they would never

00:18:40 document to say that they would never become a member of a union they weren't a member of the union and if they were a member of union they were sacked uh or weren't given the job um and in a period before the welfare state clearly um you

00:18:53 before the welfare state clearly um you know the the impact of this uh on their families was destitution um you know we're moving on from that um in

00:19:07 you know we're moving on from that um in 1919 um there an organization called the economic league uh was set up set up by captains of industry x naval intelligence officers uh and conservative mps um and in their own words the purpose of the economic league was to wage a crusade uh for capitalism

00:19:25 was to wage a crusade uh for capitalism that that was what it was uh that's what i said it was for but what it actually did of course was blacklist uh union

00:19:36 did of course was blacklist uh union activists left-wing union activists stop them getting jobs uh not just in the construction industry but across engineering uh pharmaceuticals the mining sector the public sector uh across wholes way for the british economy uh and the uh from

00:19:52 the british economy uh and the uh from its inception uh the the economic leader both formal and informal links with the police

00:19:59 police and the security services um the economic league was closed down in the early 90s and in 1993 colin mcalpine a director of sir robert mcalpine limited bought

00:20:13 mcalpine limited bought part of the uh economic league's um blacklist

00:20:21 blacklist and set up a new organization called the consulting association uh which carried on the work of blacklisting uh trade

00:20:31 on the work of blacklisting uh trade unionists in the uh in the construction sector and look at the companies were involved in that uh were balfour b i mean 44 of the biggest construction

00:20:45 mean 44 of the biggest construction companies in the uk were involved in it but but the biggest ones the household names are the likes of balfour beatty lang o'rourke costines skanska kiyas vinci bam amik uh and amy this this organization uh one of the ex economic league employees uh ian kerr

00:21:01 economic league employees uh ian kerr was set up as the chief executive of the consulting association um and his job

00:21:13 consulting association um and his job was to collate files on the uh on union activists like myself and like other core participants in this uh public inquiry um the uh in in 2009 the information commissioner's office raided the offices of the consultant association and found files

00:21:26 files for secret files that the employers were keeping uh on union activists um and the uh that the files include people's name their address their national assurance number uh sometimes their

00:21:44 assurance number uh sometimes their telephone number their car registration number uh photographs of themselves um sometimes their medical records uh information about their families um uh

00:21:50 uh certainly if if people once you were blacklisted if you uh ended up getting elected as a shop steward that would be reported on your blacklist file if you're involved in a protest uh or you

00:22:10 you're involved in a protest uh or you complained about health and safety that would be reported uh on you on your blacklist file um and uh the um the the the the consultant association didn't have spies on every single uh building site uh what it had was main context what they call main

00:22:25 was main context what they call main contacts from each of the uh the major construction companies very often at

00:22:35 construction companies very often at director level of the companies and what would happen is a manager on a building site would feed up the information to the director the director would then feed the information into the uh to encourage put the information uh on the blacklist file um but they didn't just keep the blacklist files just for the sake of curiosity

00:22:47 sake of curiosity what they used it for was to stop us getting work so um what would happen is any worker reply to get a job on on one of the building sites ran by these major construction firms would send in a list of names to

00:23:03 firms would send in a list of names to the consultant association your name and your national insurance number will be checked against this this centralized uh blacklist

00:23:08 blacklist and if it came up if your name come up you'll be sacked uh or or refused work and

00:23:17 and every time they checked a name it cost two pound twenty in the last set of invoices uh sir robert mcalpine limited who built the olympic stadium their last set of invoices was 28 000 pounds

00:23:34 invoices was 28 000 pounds this isn't managers having a chat this is systematic industry-wide black listing

00:23:35 listing of union activists the impact of this was that during the middle of building boom when the uh when the economy was crying out for skilled labor it was a blacklisted construction world you

00:23:49 blacklisted construction world you couldn't get a job um when other workers uh were were taking their kids to disneyland we were defaulting on our mortgages um you know there was long periods of unemployment which affected not just us but our families um the

00:24:00 not just us but our families um the wives of blacklisted workers have talked about getting two or three jobs in order

00:24:13 about getting two or three jobs in order to uh pay the bills uh you know not been out to send the kids on on school trips uh not being out of kick by the kids trainers and one of the wives of a blacklisted worker has spoken about the decision that they took not to have a second child because of the financial hardships of

00:24:24 of the financial hardships of of being unemployed uh because of the blacklisting um i worked on the jubilee line in the 1990s when they built the jubilee line extension i was a union safety rep on

00:24:35 extension i was a union safety rep on the jubilee line while i was there there was a dispute about uh

00:24:41 about uh fire extinguishers uh and fire alarms not

00:24:45 not existing in in london bridge station a number of people uh who participated in that dispute ended up being put on the blacklist some of those workers who were blacklisted have committed suicide

00:25:00 blacklisted have committed suicide i'm not saying blacklisting is the sole reason for their you know for for that family tragedy but it's absolutely clear that long periods of unemployment that family disputes and tensions which inevitably happened

00:25:12 tensions which inevitably happened because of this cannot be cannot be beneficial to somebody's mental health

00:25:25 beneficial to somebody's mental health um you know blacklisting has contributed uh to people uh dying um and and not just people dying who are on the blacklist

00:25:36 who are on the blacklist i was a safety rep and i was dismissed numerous times and those sackings are recorded in my blacklist file if you've got a sector where safety reps are supposed to be protected by law are repeatedly dismissed and actively sold out by the

00:25:47 dismissed and actively sold out by the employers and and dismissed because of their role of highlighting asbestos or unsafe electrical works then that sends out a message to

00:25:58 works then that sends out a message to every other worker on that building site if the safety rep can be sacked then everybody else if you want to complain about health and safety you better keep your head down because you might lose your job uh as well um black listing of safety reps is a

00:26:13 um black listing of safety reps is a contributory factor to the appalling uh death rate fatality rate in the construction industry which is which is the historically the worst in any sector in the in the uk um

00:26:22 um parliament was so outraged by the consulting association scandal when it broke they introduced new legislation the blacklisting regulations 2010. there was a select committee uh

00:26:34 there was a select committee uh investigation into blacklisting that produced seven separate reports uh uh which called the blacklist in a real life conspiracy uh there was a high

00:26:49 life conspiracy uh there was a high court uh uh case uh which ended up being settled at the last minute where the major employers paid considerable damages and made a public apology uh in in in the high court but

00:26:58 but and this is the point blacklisting and surveillance of us as union activists wasn't just carried out by the employers it was also carried out by the police

00:27:09 police and the political policing units that are central to this uh public inquiry operation hearn which is the police his own internal investigation

00:27:20 investigation uh into this has concluded and i will quote this uh paragraph 4.2 of operation hearn says

00:27:31 paragraph 4.2 of operation hearn says police including special branches and the security services supplied information to the blacklist funded by

00:27:44 information to the blacklist funded by the country's major construction firms the consultant association and other agencies operation hearn finds this allegation is proven it goes on further and says in paragraph 13.1.2

00:27:52 13.1.2 special branches throughout the uk had direct contact with the economic league public authorities private industry and the trade unions

00:28:05 the trade unions at the very start of this inquiry council for the inquiry uh made the following statement the reporting of undercover officers refers to trade unions and to trade union activities of some union members there

00:28:19 activities of some union members there are concerns about why such information was recorded what it was used for and particular in particular whether it was passed to those who blacklisted workers

00:28:35 passed to those who blacklisted workers that is something that we can agree with the council the inquiry on we're very concerned uh about that um already the uh in some of the disclosed documents for the inquiry uh it shows that uh spying on left-wing union activists was part of what the sds did uh the special

00:28:51 what the sds did uh the special demonstration group uh did uh the uh the 1972 building uh worker strike and the 1972 minor strike is mentioned uh in the sds uh annual reports as as an area that they were

00:29:05 reports as as an area that they were interested in gathering intelligence for um

00:29:06 um but um

00:29:12 but um sds intelligence how it worked was once the sds gathered the intelligence once the undercover officers covered the intelligence what it was done it was placed uh on what is known as special branch registry files you know once once the information was pla once the

00:29:30 the information was pla once the intelligence gathered by the undercover officers was placed on the special branch registry file this

00:29:31 this registry file became available to anybody within special branch and as we've heard already from previous evidence anyone from mi5 and the security service as well the

00:29:42 and the security service as well the special branch registry files acted as like a central uh database if you like uh for information uh about spying on activists and also union activists uh

00:29:55 activists and also union activists uh lord hendy has already in his opening uh uh statement highlighted uh a conference that the s that was on the special branch registry files from 1970

00:30:08 branch registry files from 1970 in which various trade unions clearly have got

00:30:10 have got individual files individual special branch files about particular trade unions i don't need to go over them all again he's mentioned that but not just particular individual trade unions but

00:30:24 particular individual trade unions but specific industrial disputes had their own special branch uh files the shrewsbury pickets which i'll come back to later the pentonville five a group of uh dock workers uh who were

00:30:35 uh dock workers uh who were sent to prison uh the comec dispute the bryant colors uh works dispute these are strikes they had their own uh uh special branch files and even a rank and file

00:30:49 branch files and even a rank and file union group called the liaison committee for the defense of trade unions had its own special branch file um this inquiry will find

00:30:56 will find that in 1970 special branch set up the special branch industrial unit um and to quote from operation hearn uh the purpose of the

00:31:12 operation hearn uh the purpose of the industrial unit uh the aim of it was uh monitoring of trade unionists from teaching to the docks as well as that um the special branch industrial units set up a a what they

00:31:23 industrial units set up a a what they called a network of well-placed contacts uh within uh british industry this include the directors of multinational companies but also according to true spies the true spies documentary that has been referred to many times

00:31:42 has been referred to many times including general secretaries uh of tuc affiliated uh trade unions um the um

00:31:46 the um the the special branch industrial unit even had

00:31:51 even had uh an official liaison officer with the economic league they would that would that that's in economic that's in in in operation hearn um all of the intelligence gathered by

00:32:10 by sds undercover officers was available to the industrial union and the industrial unit was having meetings uh with these uh

00:32:11 uh uh well-placed industry contacts um basically and they're exchanged sharing two-way exchange of information you know these this went on for for for a number

00:32:25 these this went on for for for a number of years uh this this two you know both formal meetings uh and

00:32:35 um there is a considerable overlap between the work of you know the the the target groups uh of the special demonstration squad and the special branch industrial units um and hardly surprising some of the uh sds officers either before you know

00:32:49 sds officers either before you know working for the sds or after leaving the

00:33:01 working for the sds or after leaving the sds uh went on uh to to work for for the industrial union one of these officers uh gave evidence yesterday which is hn336

00:33:03 hn336 um

00:33:04 um um and in his evidence hm336 identified uh the former head of sea squad uh of the uh of special branch um

00:33:15 um who we now know is chief superintendent uh herbert guy lauren laurenson known as uh bert laurenson um the that the head

00:33:26 uh bert laurenson um the that the head of special branch c squad at the exact same time that the sds was set up uh and who personally signed off some of the uh vietnam solidarity campaign reports

00:33:41 vietnam solidarity campaign reports when leaving special branch he went off and joined and started working for the economic league um astonishingly operation hearn which was supposed to be looking into the links uh between special branch and uh the economic

00:33:54 special branch and uh the economic league does not mention the fact that bert lawrenson went off and worked uh for the uh economic league operation hearn does however mention

00:34:16 operation hearn does however mention that there's a dedicated liaison officer from the special branch industrial unit with the economic league um you know basically you've got people in the in the industrial unit who use lawrence and used to be their boss pearl lawrence and trains them he then goes off and works for the economic league and you've got someone in the

00:34:28 and you've got someone in the industrial union who's the official liaison officer there is a relationship there

00:34:34 there between the economic league and special branch industrial unit that needs to be uh investigated uh by this uh inquiry sorry

00:34:53 as well as the special branch registry files um the uh the political policing units in the uk have another centralized database

00:35:01 database of of of activists that they spy on which is known as the national domestic extremism uh database um originally was

00:35:14 extremism uh database um originally was set up uh uh and and compiled by another police unit the national public order intelligence unit which is also uh one of the main

00:35:31 uh one of one of one of the main units uh looked at by this inquiry but another political policing unit was also

00:35:32 was also uh

00:35:33 uh responsible for collating and adding information to the national domestic extremist database and that was uh netku

00:35:47 extremist database and that was uh netku netsku stands for the national extremism tactical coordination units um and they are also gathering information and and adding it to the domestic extremism database the diversity extremism database

00:36:00 database has information on thousands of british citizens

00:36:02 citizens you know the vast wave of them who have committed no crime uh whatsoever um the net coup uh who were helping compiling

00:36:18 net coup uh who were helping compiling it there the head of netku uh the person in charge of necca was superintendent steve pearl at the time uh and and a few years ago he gave a uh an

00:36:30 and a few years ago he gave a uh an interview to the daily telegraph and our quote from the daily telegraph he said the the the purpose of uh netku was to take over mi5's covert role watching groups such as the campaign for nuclear disarmament trade union

00:36:41 nuclear disarmament trade union activists and left-wing journalists

00:36:53 in october in october 2008 detective chief inspector gordon mills from nexco gave a powerpoint presentation to one of the secret uh meetings held by the consulting association these consulting association meetings

00:37:06 these consulting association meetings were held once every three months and were organized by its chief executive ian kerr

00:37:13 ian kerr the uh

00:37:14 the uh golden mills gave a powerpoint presentation which on the powerpoint presentation flags up that left-wing activists could be emerging threats trying to get jobs uh with these

00:37:28 trying to get jobs uh with these construction companies and that the the construction companies needed strong vetting processes to ensure that these

00:37:39 vetting processes to ensure that these left-wing activists didn't get jobs uh on on their uh on on their companies bear in mind he was speaking to uh a meeting of blacklisting organization that had been secret since 1993 i think they had a pretty strong vetting system in place already uh ian kerr the chief

00:37:55 in place already uh ian kerr the chief executive of the consulting association gave a witness statement to the high court trial it was never used in a high court trial because it but i've got a copy of it in which he said and i quote netcoo wanted an output for

00:38:10 and i quote netcoo wanted an output for their information i gave them the email addresses of the contacts in the construction industry and they would feed them uh the information um

00:38:22 um both the special branch industrial unit and necco have now been disbanded um uh that doesn't mean to say that their work doesn't still exist what's happened is the people working there

00:38:35 happened is the people working there have now been abs absorbed into so15 uh at the metropolitan police so15 is counter terrorism command and spy on trade unionists is now considered uh

00:38:52 trade unionists is now considered uh he comes under counter terrorism um the liaison uh element uh with uh industry context hasn't stopped either the liaison element of

00:38:57 of the special branch industrial union and mexico carries on to this day by uh opera what is known as operation fairway and forgive me this is a bit of a mouthful another group

00:39:09 mouthful another group another political policing group known as

00:39:10 as the national domestic extremism and disorder intelligence unit industrial liaison set section

00:39:22 um the inquiry will also find that in 2010

00:39:26 2010 the national coordinator for special branches uh suggested that special branches needed to be more proactive in giving special branch briefings to industry and and academics

00:39:38 industry and and academics and i seriously have to ask

00:39:44 when when an employer is brought to a briefing and special branch tells them about about individual uh workers activists that are on a domestic extremism

00:40:01 that are on a domestic extremism database seriously what do they think is going to happen to us you know you know is it going to be neutral or is the employer going to do something uh with that information um clearly it's affected

00:40:12 affected us as trade blacklisted trade unionists but equally um because they're giving this information to public authorities and to universities as well it could affect

00:40:26 universities as well it could affect other people who are not trade unionists about getting into university access to university it could also affect uh campaign groups and their funding streams uh potentially uh for fighting anti-racism that has

00:40:39 uh for fighting anti-racism that has been flagged up earlier on um and now i now want to move on and concentrate on uh on on the core participants uh in this inquiry uh and and free of the uh uh particular concentrating on three

00:40:50 uh particular concentrating on three particular uh undercover police officers uh

00:40:58 uh peter francis uh mark jenner and the officer known as carl o'neary um so

00:41:01 so first of all i start with mark jenner um

00:41:08 i knew mark jenner back in the 1990s when i knew him his name was mark cassidy

00:41:12 cassidy um he was a member of the construction union yukat um

00:41:15 um he claims to be a joiner uh a carpenter um he uh was a member of hackney branch uh of uh

00:41:26 hackney branch uh of uh of of the construction union ucat which is my union um his

00:41:32 his his union subs were paid by a um

00:41:36 um bank account set up by special branch um

00:41:37 um uh after attending meetings hidden this man attended meetings um we've been told uh by his partner at the time um uh the after coming back from

00:41:49 um uh the after coming back from meetings you would come back with pages and pages uh of handwritten notes which would then be typed up from from about what different people said uh at me is uh mark jenner also spied on a campaign

00:42:04 uh mark jenner also spied on a campaign group in in east london called the colin roach center which which carried out multiple tasks one of the one of the uh organizations based at the college roach center was

00:42:15 based at the college roach center was the hackney trade union results center which meant that lots of trade union meetings took place at the uh at the center and lots of trade union campaign groups uh held their meetings at this at

00:42:28 groups uh held their meetings at this at the center one of the or two small trade union groups uh existed and at the time at the center was the building workers safety campaign um and the brian higgins uh defense

00:42:46 um and the brian higgins uh defense campaign uh mark jenner didn't just attend these meetings some of the meetings he shared the meetings we've actually got letters that the undercover police officer sent out

00:42:54 out to various different trade union branches

00:42:55 branches across london introducing himself

00:43:08 across london introducing himself as a uh construction worker fighting for for safety uh on on building sites and trying to glean information from a variety

00:43:13 variety of uh trade union branches uh in in in london at the time um two of the core participants in this public inquiry brian higgins and jon jones were both leading members of the

00:43:27 jones were both leading members of the two uh campaign groups that uh that mark cassidy mark jenner uh infiltrated both

00:43:39 cassidy mark jenner uh infiltrated both of them have got information about those uh campaign groups and about the colin roach center on their blacklist files [Music]

00:43:53 jenna acting and posing as a trade union activist in a construction industry also turned up on uh events organized by the joint sites committee which is a group that brings together uh trade union activists across various different unions in in in the london

00:44:05 different unions in in in the london area um i remember him on a picket line in walter low about unpaid wages i also remember him being particularly disruptive at meetings uh

00:44:19 disruptive at meetings uh if i'm honest uh uh he also became into uh contact with with other core participants at the time frank smith a uh a core participant is a bricklayer

00:44:32 bricklayer heavily blacklisted since the 1990s a ucat branch secretary and and steve headlee uh also uh core participant appears on the uh who appears on the blacklist steve headley

00:44:46 appears on the blacklist steve headley is now the assistant general secretary of the rmt rail union um uh and uh and uh mark cassidy mike jenner was was spying on us as well at one point um the colin roach center and

00:44:59 one point um the colin roach center and the hackney trade union resource center organized a trade union delegation to visit northern ireland as part of the peace process uh at the time steve headley was one of the people

00:45:14 steve headley was one of the people on that delegation as was the undercover police officer mark cassidy mark jenner who actually attended that and while he was there stayed at steve headley's family home uh in in northern ireland um

00:45:29 i want to move on trade union activism isn't just about terms and conditions isn't just about wages uh and and safety

00:45:41 trade unions are also proud to be anti-fascists and anti-racists you know it's not something to be ashamed of it's something we're proud of uh that we're opposed to uh um

00:45:52 um fascism um in the period of these undercover officers deployment uh british national party thugs and their paramilitary terrorist

00:46:10 terrorist wing combat 18 uh were terrorizing uh the streets of east london uh racist attacks uh skyrocketed at the time uh family uh homes uh were being uh petrol bombed um union offices uh were being attacked

00:46:27 union offices uh were being attacked including at the um london bar of tower hamlets when uh the the union offices there were smashed up all the computers were smashed up and swastikas were doped uh uh all over uh the walls uh

00:46:42 uh uh all over uh the walls uh um you know the the increase in racial attacks um coincided uh with the uh with with the atrocious murders uh of of stephen

00:46:54 atrocious murders uh of of stephen lawrence and ricky real um which you know

00:47:01 know it just puts it in context about what was going on uh at the time those tragedies it's hardly surprising therefore

00:47:02 therefore the trade unions uh and labor movement uh campaigns especially around election time often asked for for union people to come and steward uh their uh their

00:47:14 come and steward uh their uh their meetings against tax from uh the uh the fascist thugs and trade unions from the construction industry were invited a lot

00:47:26 construction industry were invited a lot uh to to provide stewarding to defend uh uh you know uh electioneering and uh outside counts and that kind of stuff um and and uh some of the activists who are core participants in this group were

00:47:44 core participants in this group were part of those stewarding things and one of the sort of ad hoc networks that we were talked about was called the away team um

00:47:46 team um we were all spied on because of our involvement with the uh away team uh as well um finishing with mark jenner i just want to say one thing um for the record

00:48:02 for the record we accuse mark jenner and through mark jenner the british state of deliberately interfering with the internal democratic processes of an independent trade union

00:48:16 independent trade union by con covertly joining the union by

00:48:20 by participating in debates uh within the union by voting on motions that were sent to uh national conference and to

00:48:33 sent to uh national conference and to the regional council by participating in executive council elections by actually uh

00:48:37 uh distributing material arguing for a ucat convener to be sacked uh and being disruptive in the meeting causing a

00:48:43 causing a division within the union that is how they have interfered uh with uh the the the democratic processes of a an independent trade union this is in

00:48:57 an independent trade union this is in direct contravention of international law that has been ratified by the uk specifically ilo convention 87 and the european convention of human rights article 11.

00:49:08 article 11. um

00:49:09 um one

00:49:10 one one more trade unionist i need to to mention uh that jenna uh spied on uh was of course alison uh who he had a

00:49:22 of course alison uh who he had a five-year relationship with who's also a core participant in this inquiry uh alison was a a national union a teacher activist uh during all this period oh oh alison

00:49:35 alison you've heard from allison's lawyer already um when jenna's deployment uh come to an end another police officer uh turned up to spy on virtually the same activists

00:49:46 to spy on virtually the same activists uh and and and this one was the officer that went under the name of carl o'neary um

00:49:54 um on more than one occasion carl o'neary um encouraged at core participants uh frank smith and dan gilman

00:50:07 dan gilman and another uh trade union activist joe bay who hasn't been granted core participant uh status to firebomb a

00:50:19 participant uh status to firebomb a charity shop um the undercover officer claimed that the charity shop was run by a

00:50:20 by a italian fascist by the name of roberto fiore who was the leader of the italian fascist party known as forza nuova

00:50:46 fascist party known as forza nuova who was on the run from italy uh after being wanted by the italian police in connection with the bologna uh train station bombing of 1980 uh where 85 innocent people were killed um

00:50:51 for the record we accused

00:50:56 carl o'neary of being an arjun provocateur he deliberately set out to entrap those trade union activists and to get them sent to prison for the record

00:51:08 them sent to prison for the record uh the trade union act of it these people trade union activists and anti-racist campaigners they completely refuse to have anything to do with it because they're not terrorists and never have been terrorists despite how the

00:51:27 have been terrorists despite how the undercover officer tried to uh entrap them um carl o'neary also had a long-term relationship with uh another core participant or a number of core participants uh in this public inquiry specifically a friend of mine donna mclean

00:51:38 donna mclean towards the end of the deployment carl o'neary uh manufactured a split from uh donna mclean and

00:51:47 and and and when he claimed to be homeless actually moved in with steve headley uh into his house as as as a lodger

00:52:01 into his house as as as a lodger in 2004 steve headley was dismissed uh because of a dispute on the channel tunnel rail link at the time where there was a big campaign to get him reinstated uh and carlo mary the undercover police

00:52:13 uh and carlo mary the undercover police officer turned up on the uh picket line to to spy on the uh union activist there no one no doubt

00:52:28 there is a restriction order which says i am not allowed to use the real name of carl o'neary during this during my opening statement but i am allowed to say

00:52:46 but i am allowed to say that i personally have known carlo near his real name for more than five years as a group of activists and with the undercover research group we found out that he was a police officer more than five years ago

00:52:57 five years ago when i published a book in 2016 um

00:53:04 um we decided not to publish his real name out of respect uh for the family um

00:53:11 um but for the last 18 months carlo really near his real name has been in the public domain uh

00:53:14 uh last week

00:53:16 last week i heard

00:53:17 i heard um

00:53:18 um rajiv menon qc be told that it would be silenced if he asked the question that the chair to the inquiry uh did not like

00:53:32 inquiry uh did not like um or did not think was appropriate i'm not a queen's council i'm a construction worker who's looking to get the truth uh for for me and my friends about how it was spied on by the

00:53:44 friends about how it was spied on by the british state but i will not be silenced four weeks ago i wrote an article for tribune magazine

00:53:58 i wrote an article for tribune magazine about the bill going through parliament at the moment the covert human intelligence source bill uh which uh uh would allow um

00:54:03 um would allow for undercover officers uh in future complete immunity from prosecution for committing any crime including rape murder and torture in order to highlight this um

00:54:14 in order to highlight this um i cited carl o'neary's uh incitement to commit arson as part of the article and the article published carla really near his real name um

00:54:26 um neither i

00:54:33 neither i nor tribune magazine by publishing that had breached the restriction order but inside this inquiry i'm not allowed to mention uh carl o'neary's uh real name this same

00:54:42 this same this

00:54:49 this you know the the public inquiry was set up to get to the truth uh uh alex you know uncover what was going on but inside the inquiry uh i'm not allowed to mention it on sunday night

00:55:00 mention it on sunday night i watch bbc tv like millions of other people i watch the uh uh philip pullman's his dart materials uh drama uh on on tv and actually coming into this

00:55:15 on on tv and actually coming into this public inquiry seems like stepping into an alternate universe um you know and just to be clear it's the alternate

00:55:27 just to be clear it's the alternate universe that's a bit sinister where the uh magisterium uh cling on to uh power by holding on to an outmoded view of the world uh denying uh people to be able to see the truth and

00:55:38 people to be able to see the truth and and deciding what people are allowed to know uh and what they're not allowed to know

00:55:42 i'll move on

00:55:48 the state did not just spy on us as trade unions the evidence that was gathered the intelligence that was gathered by by the sds officers uh was passed on to the

00:56:01 sds officers uh was passed on to the black list i will give some examples one glaring example

00:56:13 glaring example uh comes from uh the deployment of peter francis uh during the uh uh early 1990s um peter francis has uh

00:56:17 uh admitted that he was part of it was sent in one of the people he was sent into spy on was frank smith the blacklisted uh core participant i've already mentioned uh and uh and uh

00:56:29 uh and uh and and his uh girlfriend at the time lisa torture so

00:56:32 so um

00:56:47 peter francis said he has admitted that he was the person who opened a special branch registry file on uh on frank smith and that there's information on the special branch registry file that talks about frank smith's role in the away team uh and his relationship with uh lisa torcher

00:56:59 uh lisa torcher frank smith's blacklist file um from the consultant association and i'll read it now and i quote

00:57:15 and i quote says frank smith is under constant watch officially and considered to be politically dangerous peter francis has said this virtually mirrors the language that is on his special branch file what i would like to know

00:57:26 what i would like to know and and what the core participants in the union strand would like to know is how could the blacklist organization possibly know that frank smith was being spied on by the state

00:57:39 the state and kept under surveillance by the states if that information wasn't provided by the by the security services and special branch uh somehow

00:57:50 and special branch uh somehow um peter francis also inspired uh on uh and opened a file on lisa torcher uh that she was a leading figure in the anti-racist campaign youth against

00:58:01 anti-racist campaign youth against racism in europe he was also tasked by the home office to look into lisa toish's immigration status because she's an american citizen uh and for seven

00:58:15 an american citizen uh and for seven years during that period um lisa toish's passport was taken from her and held by the home office uh while uh her

00:58:27 the home office uh while uh her that she went through an appeal because uh indefinitely leave to remain was going to be removed lisa teresa describes as traumatic uh at the time um

00:58:33 what we also find is that lisa tysha despite never having worked in the construction industry ever has got a consultant association blacklist file and what does it say in the consult

00:58:47 and what does it say in the consult blacklist file two things number one that she is the girlfriend of frank smith

00:58:53 smith and number two that she's been involved in several marriages uh of convenience once again similar virtually similar to the stuff that was reported uh that peter francis says he put on uh lisa teuce's special

00:59:07 says he put on uh lisa teuce's special branch file once again we ask how is it possible that a manager on a building site who is the normal route of feeding up information to the blacklist files would possibly know this you know this information has clearly come

00:59:27 information has clearly come from a special branch or the police somehow let me be clear no one is suggesting that peter francis or any of the individual special demonstration squad officers has personally handed over the this information to the uh

00:59:47 information to the uh to the consultant association uh or the economic league that was not their job the job of liaising with industry contacts

00:59:48 contacts was

00:59:52 was was from the special branch industrial unit that was their role and and and and neko whose job was liaison with industry

01:00:03 liaison with industry it was through those uh mechanisms that the information got on to those processes those meetings that the information got into the blacklist files another glaring example

01:00:20 another glaring example was uh that appears on a blacklisted file is an incident in the uh the cenotaph uh in 1999. um

01:00:21 um every year the national front lays a reef at the cenotaph on remembrance sunday that a fake a racist and anti-semitic

01:00:33 fake a racist and anti-semitic organization that whose members have been involved uh in in sort of fascist violence is allowed to lay a reef at the cenotaph

01:00:44 cenotaph on remembrance sunday has always been controversial but they do it every year um in 1999 there was a counter demonstration

01:00:58 there was a counter demonstration and three uh core participants frank smith dan gilman and steve headlee participated in the uh canada demonstration operation hearn has already admitted that their participation in uh on that

01:01:14 that their participation in uh on that demonstration is reported and recorded on special branch files um

01:01:17 um literally within days of it appearing on the special branch files the the same information also appears on their

01:01:24 on their blacklist files um

01:01:34 um once again we're not suggesting that an individual police officer on the day passed over the information to the blacklist

01:01:37 blacklist this comes from through liaison with industry contacts the information about the cenotaph and the information about on frank smith's steve headley's and dan gilman's uh

01:01:49 steve headley's and dan gilman's uh information comes is recorded as coming from the company costing the main contacts for costing uh the construction company costane are known to

01:02:00 are known to have

01:02:03 have had relationships with special branch officers

01:02:04 officers um i will name them dudley barrett uh who's now retired and gail burton who is now a senior executive on the job

01:02:15 is now a senior executive on the job working for the jockey club the only possible plausible explanation for how the information about the cenotaph

01:02:26 the information about the cenotaph incident ended up on the blacklist files is if someone from special branch told one of these uh costumes managers that about it that's the only possible way the uh any other suggestion about how

01:02:39 the uh any other suggestion about how we've got on there quite honestly he's laughable

01:02:41 laughable um

01:02:42 um for you know i i keep coming i'm gonna come back to this if the purpose of spying on us which has been dressed up all the way through this is to stop public disorder and serious criminality

01:02:54 and serious criminality then we've had free undercover police officers spying on us for over 10 years why were none of us arrested why have none of us have been you know why none of us been charged with these serious

01:03:09 of us been charged with these serious disorder offenses that supposedly uh we were we would be inspired on that's because in reality police spy in the sds spying political policing in this country that's what it's about

01:03:23 country that's what it's about it's not about stopping public disorder it's about spying on people that the british states uh consider uh to to to be uh inconvenient to them and that

01:03:34 be uh inconvenient to them and that means you know left wing trade unionists the

01:03:35 the you know we accuse special branch intelligence unit uh industrial union and net coup have supplying information to the employers and to the blacklist

01:03:47 and to the blacklist um you know the ideological mindset behind special branch spying on

01:03:59 mindset behind special branch spying on us as left-wing union activists and the blacklist spying on us as a left-wing trade union activist is absolutely identical there's there's actually you know we've we've got special branch people going off and working for the

01:04:10 people going off and working for the economically the mind the ideological mindset is identical it's hardly surprising that they they shared uh information uh with each other despite what the designated lawyers said uh on

01:04:24 what the designated lawyers said uh on on the first couple of days the police are not neutral in this you know uh the british state is not neutral in any major dispute between big

01:04:35 neutral in any major dispute between big business and trade unions that the state is on the side uh of of of of of the major uh companies um the uh the the special demonstration squad is not a road unit

01:04:48 squad is not a road unit uh you know the supply of information to the blacklist isn't some aberration it's standard operating procedure for how the british state will work and link and

01:05:03 british state will work and link and liaise uh with uh with big business um core participants in this strand you know demand to know what went on we want to know the mechanics we want to know the justification behind this this isn't a trial we expect

01:05:22 behind this this isn't a trial we expect a narrative verdict to explain what what went on and how our information was passed on

01:05:23 passed on there are eight core participants in this public inquiry have been spied on uh in the union strand but we were not the only union members who were spied on uh by the undercover police there are

01:05:40 uh by the undercover police there are seven million union members uh in the uk to this day we're still the biggest civil uh uh

01:05:51 civil uh uh uh society uh voluntary organizations um and to police or try and dress it up as oh we weren't we were just spying on individual members not trade you know

01:05:54 you know being a trade union a trade union member isn't a business relationship a contractual relationship with you the members are the union that's how it works you know we're not something separate um there's a there's a saying

01:06:06 separate um there's a there's a saying in the trade union movement an injury to one is an injury to all you know it doesn't matter to us what someone's race is what someone's gender is uh you know what someone's classes or what their

01:06:18 what someone's classes or what their political orientation is if someone's in trouble we help them that's called solidarity um and seven million trade union members seven million members of the british public want to know

01:06:31 the british public want to know whether their union branches were infiltrated they want to know whether information was passed on about their trade union uh reps um you know um the

01:06:44 to dress it up as anything else if they're spying on union members they're spying on trade unions uh to dress it up as anything else is complete smoke uh and mirrors and there is

01:06:55 and mirrors and there is uh there's an explicit requirement in the terms of reference for this public inquiry to look into what the per what was done with the intelligence gathered by these sds officers not just

01:07:07 gathered by these sds officers not just what they did when their own deployment but what happened with the what the intelligence was used for uh afterwards yes

01:07:18 yes it's time for the it's time for the police to come clean on this um yes we want to know the cover names of the undercover officers yes we want to know the the 1000 groups that were spied on but we want to know much more than

01:07:34 on but we want to know much more than that you know which other union members lost their jobs because of information passed on uh to them uh by by police liaison officers we want special branch industrial unit to name the key

01:07:51 the key industrial contacts and the companies that were provided with information about trade union members um and and

01:07:52 and uh

01:07:53 uh and if as it said in the true spies program if any of those key industrial members were union officials the blacklist support group wants the union officials uh to be named uh as well in

01:08:09 officials uh to be named uh as well in construction we've found our blacklist it's been discovered um but there are plenty of other blacklists as well in the north sea there's a system called not required back which is effectively a

01:08:24 not required back which is effectively a blacklist for anyone who complains about safety uh in the north sea in the bbc for many years uh there was a uh an mi5 officer actually literally based in uh the bbc off uh buildings they had something called a staff transfer register uh for left-wing activists

01:08:37 register uh for left-wing activists left-wing members were working for the bbc um during a thatcher period um there was a a blacklist set up called the subversion in public life blacklist

01:08:47 blacklist which was provided information by the security services in the retail sector there's a blacklist called the national staff dismissals register which was actually part funded by a million pound

01:09:08 actually part funded by a million pound grant from the home office and we expect these to be looked into you know if the police have provided information and just to be clear in 2002 when the tv bbc documentary true spies came out uh one of the uh special branch officers in the programme

01:09:24 officers in the programme uh talked about a blacklist uh uh talked about special branch being given a list of names by fold motor company uh for at

01:09:37 of names by fold motor company uh for at their household how old plant factory in liverpool and i quote from uh basically for special branch to check the names for when people are applying for jobs and the officer says this and i quote it was very very important that trade unions were monitored we were expected to check these lists

01:09:54 we were expected to check these lists you can call it blacklisting and that's what it was in any war there are going to be casualties seriously in any war this is a this is a special branch officer that you know he says a trade

01:10:06 officer that you know he says a trade union is meant to be the enemy within you know the flatness support group needs to know if any intelligence from any of these undercover units was passed on to any of these uh blacklists um and for the record we don't think

01:10:20 um and for the record we don't think these are the only blacklists we believe that blacklisting in some description takes place in in every sector of the uk economy but it's often hidden um as is the police involvement in it um i'm getting close to the end

01:10:38 um another important aspect for us is about what happens to the undercover officers or the police spies after they left working uh for for the police i've

01:10:55 left working uh for for the police i've already mentioned uh the head of sea uh squad in special branch bert laurenson who went off to work for the economic league but there are others assistant chief constable anton settle who was the head of uk

01:11:10 who was the head of uk political policing between 2004 and 2010 upon retirement he went off to work for llano rocks as their head of security lango rocks was one of the blacklisting uh companies um superintendent steve pearl who i

01:11:22 um superintendent steve pearl who i mentioned before from netco he went off to work for a company called agenda security uh barry gaine the deputy head of mi6 he went off to work for an organization called fret response international

01:11:40 international all both organizations both companies that are engaged in spying on uh activists for corporate clients another company that spies on activists for corporate clients angie employs ex-state spies is an

01:11:53 employs ex-state spies is an organization called control risks um it's been in the press that control risk had a 59 000 pound contract with crossrail a publicly funded body to spy on union

01:12:05 publicly funded body to spy on union activists uh applying for work uh in there on on that project um one of the activists spied on his name was frank

01:12:19 activists spied on his name was frank smith uh sorry sorry to start again one of the activists spied on was a shop steward

01:12:22 steward unites the union shopshirt called frank morris he was the first ever shop steward elected on the project literally within days uh he was sacked uh from the job um

01:12:34 job um what we want to know is

01:12:35 is all of these ex-police spies and managers in these units who've gone off to work for the private sector are they using their influence to garner information

01:12:48 information for their for their corporate role but more than that because of mass privatization that has happened across the entire uh public sector

01:12:55 sector has

01:13:00 has state spying that was previously carried out by the police has any of that been privatized they've privatized the role of the army you know we've got security contractors privatised security contractors working

01:13:15 privatised security contractors working in iraq and afghanistan has the british state privatized uh any of this this state spying because if that is

01:13:23 is who they given the contracts to how much taxpayers money have they been getting and are they exempt from freedom of information and public scrutiny

01:13:36 of information and public scrutiny because it's very difficult to say where where that comes from um uh you know for this to work then we have to be skeptical and we have to go for this inquiry to work we have to

01:13:44 to actually go in and find find out this uh information but unfortunately you know far from far from the police providing us with this

01:13:56 the police providing us with this information step every step of the way they have stopped uh giving us information and tried to stop it um one of the core participants in this public inquiry

01:14:09 inquiry uh in the in the union strand is an electrician called steve acheson um

01:14:18 um steve agerson stood on a picket line for three years up in manchester along with two other electricians in order to expose the blacklist eventually a whistleblower came forward and told us about the consultant association gave a witness statement of steve acheson's employment tribunal it's steve agerson

01:14:30 steve agerson and other activists in this inquiry who have exposed the blacklist have exposed what's going on with the undercover police not the police in fact at every

01:14:41 police not the police in fact at every step of the way the police have tried to stop uh the truth getting out when the blacklist support proof first

01:14:52 when the blacklist support proof first put in a complaint about police spying uh being provided to the uh uh

01:14:55 uh the blacklist uh we put a complaint in 2012. the met police refused to even accept the complaint refused to accept it um the it was only after uh an appeal by imran khan and partners

01:15:09 an appeal by imran khan and partners that it was passed on to the independent police complaints commission and within a few days the ipcc said uh it is likely that all special branch were involved all special branches were involved in

01:15:25 all special branches were involved in providing information about prospective employees almost immediately her

01:15:26 her chief constable mick creeden who is in charge of the herding report said that no such evidence exists we now know this to be simply untrue the evidence does exist but once again it's

01:15:38 evidence does exist but once again it's an example of how the police have tried to obstruct this uh inquiry um you know another example is netku come back to netku netku has specifically set up

01:15:50 netku netku has specifically set up um the organization that was that gave the powerpoint presentation uh at the uh consultant association million that was specifically set up um outside of the remit of the police um

01:16:05 um outside of the remit of the police um even though everyone working in it was a serving police officer even though it was funded by the home office um it was under the remit of the association of

01:16:18 under the remit of the association of chief police officers which means it's exempt from freedom of information requests and i've put in freedom information quests to netco to find out about the woodstock at the meeting that

01:16:30 about the woodstock at the meeting that the uh that necro gave to the consultant association and we have been told repeatedly that no documents from necco exist that they have all been destroyed this is a

01:16:42 they have all been destroyed this is a police unit that existed for seven years that the officers work in it had meetings with industry over a seven year period they produced reports they sent

01:16:57 period they produced reports they sent emails they sent correspondence um they did powerpoint presentations and we're meant to believe that not a single document exists that every single netco has now been subsumed into the metropolitan police but we're now we're meant to believe that all of these documents have now been destroyed and

01:17:08 documents have now been destroyed and not one of them was worthy of carrying over to what these police officers doing for seven years if not one of the documents was worth was worth carrying

01:17:19 documents was worth was worth carrying over when we are told that all of these documents have been destroyed and none of them exist anymore i'll go out on a limb and say that is a blatant lie we're being lied to that some of these documents still exist and some of these

01:17:30 documents still exist and some of these documents are still being accessed uh by by the police now now we've got a choice here we either believe that the police are capable of lying or we've got to believe that everything the police tell

01:17:45 believe that everything the police tell us is absolutely the truth you know ask the families of the football fans who died at hillsborough asked the fam asked her miners who were falsely imprisoned

01:17:56 her miners who were falsely imprisoned uh at all grief asked the birmingham six whether the police lie okay they the police lie this is not name calling like the

01:18:02 the lawyers for the metropolitan police service uh suggested at the beginning these are political policing units that we are being investigated during this public inquiry you know these police

01:18:14 public inquiry you know these police units lower they've been trained to lie for you know we need this inquiry needs to be skeptical uh about this unfortunately um the skepticism you know

01:18:28 unfortunately um the skepticism you know the benefit of that seems to be given to the police time and time again we were told we've been told by the police that throughout its 40 years of this

01:18:42 of this investigation only one police officer actually joined a trade union was a member of a trade union um we had a meeting in 2018 with the inquiry team and you the chair

01:18:55 inquiry team and you the chair reinforced this that the police had said that only one police officer during the entire 40-year period had actually joined uh a a trade union look i'm not a lawyer

01:19:02 lawyer but i imagine that when barristers you know meet each other at a social event that they talk to each other about what you know what chambers they when you

01:19:13 you know what chambers they when you know they're at or or what posh school they went to in the trade junior movement we don't do that in the labor movement we talk to each other we ask each other which union you're a member

01:19:25 each other which union you're a member of um any undercover police officer who was spying on any kind of long-term deployment who was spying on union

01:19:34 deployment who was spying on union activists who wasn't a member of a trade union would stick out like a sore thumb you know so you know i do not for one minute believe that there's only one police officer uh in this inquiry that joined a trade union the other thing is to do about police files um

01:19:45 um all of the car participants you know we wouldn't be car participants unless the police had told us that that we were spider and that we had uh police

01:19:58 we were spider and that we had uh police files i have applied to get a copy of my police file and like other corps participants i've been told the police can neither confirm nor deny whether they hold any information on me not just about me but even about the blacklist

01:20:10 about me but even about the blacklist support group they can neither confirm or deny whether they hold any information on us and the reason they give is national security so much for transparency so much for transparency um we had a meeting

01:20:22 we had a meeting with

01:20:23 with you

01:20:27 you as the chair of the uh this inquiry in july 2018

01:20:32 july 2018 and during that meeting we specifically asked

01:20:37 asked if two core participants brian higgins and jon jones could be provided with their uh police files because both of them

01:20:51 them were seriously ill and both of them are in their late 70s and we were given insurances given assurances that as much as physically possible that would be hand that would be handed over to those people

01:21:10 two years later those part those files police files have still not been handed over to jon jones and brian higgins brian higgins passed away in june 2019 seriously what possible national security

01:21:20 security threat can there be that a dying man isn't allowed to see a

01:21:32 that a dying man isn't allowed to see a copy of a file that the police produced on him wrote about him in the 1990s i am in

01:21:37 i am in touch with brian higgins family and i'm putting it politely by saying that they're not very happy with the way that they've been treated either by the police or by this inquiry

01:21:58 those are not the only documents that the blacklist support group haven't been allowed to see the only evidence from trench one that we've been uh disclosed to us so far are the special demonstration squad annual reports and

01:22:13 demonstration squad annual reports and the operation hearn uh investigation um sorry this um

01:22:20 um this inquiry starts in 1968. blacklisted workers

01:22:21 workers represented by the blacklist support group um have got files that go back to the early 1960s um

01:22:29 um there are you know so we feel we're entitled to see these documents but the only ones we've seen

01:22:43 documents but the only ones we've seen are operation hearn and the sds reports just quickly want to mention operation heard if they're going to be core documents in this inquiry operation hearn was the internal investigation set up by the police to look into allegations that they supplied information to the

01:22:56 they supplied information to the blacklist what is noticeable in it is the use of language all the way through it talks about alleged victimization supposed blacklisting that was going on this is despite the fact that the officers

01:23:12 despite the fact that the officers compiling it had full access to the full consulting association blacklist database

01:23:16 database despite the fact that parliament passed legislation directly because of this blacklist despite the fact there's been numerous uh employment tribunals where the written judgment condemned the

01:23:27 the written judgment condemned the blacklist and there was a high court trial in which all of the employers admit doing it and uh made a public uh apology

01:23:34 apology there are 74 appendices in the uh operation hearn including an interview

01:23:45 operation hearn including an interview with the special branch liaison officer with the economic league the blacklist support group hasn't been shown any of those appendices whatsoever all we've got is a heavily redacted uh version of the uh

01:23:56 the uh of

01:23:57 of the um

01:24:03 reports um what i will say because it'd be you know be rude of me not to is thank you very much to the officers because one of the things that they do

01:24:16 because one of the things that they do highlight these is that the book that uh myself uh and investigative journalist phil chamberlain wrote and published in 2015 the police describe it as the most comprehensive collection of material uh

01:24:31 comprehensive collection of material uh on the subject thanks very much we'll be using that in a marketing from now on but what it also demonstrates is that

01:24:33 is that at testimony from the activists what the activists have found out is going to be just as comprehensive as the stuff that the police have found out and actually the activist testimony

01:24:47 and actually the activist testimony should be given just as much if not more weight uh than the police um i'm literally in the final furlong so forgive me um the

01:24:58 um the in addition you've got the uh sds annual reports

01:25:02 reports now look we've seen these annual reports we're meant to see these as like the uh like key evidence uh in these documents in this inquiry

01:25:14 in this inquiry i'm a i'm a i'm a shareholder in various blacklisted construction companies and every year i get a sent an annual report when it comes up to their agm you know and what it does is it tells you what

01:25:25 and what it does is it tells you what the company's been up to where they're earning money where they're you know where where around the world they've been involved but anyway never mentions it never mentions how many fatalities they've had on their building sites it never mentions when they've been

01:25:38 never mentions when they've been prosecuted for human rights abuse i would have been prosecuted for for health and safety violations not once have i seen it mentioned uh that they were involved in blacklisting or they

01:25:50 were involved in blacklisting or they paid out millions of pounds uh a high court uh trial or did a republican policy and i don't expect it to because what that document is what the annual report for the corporations are are pr exercises to give them to

01:26:01 are pr exercises to give them to shareholders to to to make sure they've got a guaranteed funding stream to carry on uh in the future and that's what the sds reports are as well there are pr exercises sent to people

01:26:15 there are pr exercises sent to people who are going to provide the sds money in the future and they should be viewed in exactly the same way they are not a full and transparent review of what the sds actually got up to

01:26:32 sds actually got up to during that period having said that even the heavily redacted versions we have got do flag up the that there's information relevant to trade unionists and the union strand you know one of the things that they identify is that one of

01:26:50 things that they identify is that one of the organizations infiltrated by the sds was the shrewsbury ii defense campaign um the shrewsbury 2 was related a campaign related to rick des warren and ricky tomlinson the shrewsbury pickets who were sent to

01:27:01 shrewsbury pickets who were sent to prison after the 1972 construction uh workers strike notorious miscarriage of justice uh in which the police and the security services colluded

01:27:12 services colluded to get these two construction workers sent to prison 50 years

01:27:19 50 years after the case more than 50 years after the case the home secretary still refuses to release the government files relating to the shrewsbury uh pickets

01:27:30 relating to the shrewsbury uh pickets because of national security uh reasons this is screaming of a establishment cover-up absolutely screaming of it one of the blacklisted workers

01:27:40 workers who used to speak on behalf of the blacklist support group his name was mick abba he was a scaffolder um his blacklist file starts in 1964.

01:27:53 blacklist file starts in 1964. he was one of the key leading members of the shrewsbury 2 defense campaign and his blacklist file was covered with information relating to his campaigning on behalf of the shrewsbury

01:28:06 the shrewsbury um if the police were spying on the shrewsbury defense campaign it's almost implausible that they weren't spying on uh on mick abba mikaba also passed away um he

01:28:18 abba mikaba also passed away um he passed away in 2014 so once again we'll never know um the the other thing that the annual reports uh mention is

01:28:25 is the 1972 construction workers tried building workers strike um being an important uh element of what the sds were interested in at that point um

01:28:42 the blacklisted workers from that period they're literally the people who led the disputes

01:28:51 disputes they are you know their blacklist files are covered with stuff relating to the 1972 uh builder strike um it's implausible that if the sds was spying on

01:29:02 on the the building workers strike in 1972 that the blacklisted workers that we represent were not spied on uh as well um

01:29:09 um as it is at the moment the blacklist support group has been denied access to all of the trunchwine evidence which also means that our lawyers haven't been able to to ask questions of any of the uh uh

01:29:23 any of the uh uh of any of the other um uh witnesses um you know far from being um far from being transparent and getting to the truth uh

01:29:34 transparent and getting to the truth uh what we've got in this public inquiry so far are barriers what we've got at the moment are restrictions um you know to to i've got as as you're aware i've test deposited for covid

01:29:47 aware i've test deposited for covid the only way i can see the public the only way it's possible to view what's going on in this inquiry is to register my uh

01:30:00 my uh to said i want to come and see it online if i'm selected i have to travel during a covered lockdown to a hotel in london to watch the inquiry via a tv screen um something that i cannot do

01:30:14 something that i cannot do when the police officers are giving oral evidence well you can't even see that what we've got is a some kind of sick

01:30:26 what we've got is a some kind of sick it's like going back to the 80s guys see facts of watching the inquiry via cfax where you've got a typed transcript coming uh coming up uh you know which literally doesn't work it doesn't work and if you know rather than taking my word for it um let's take the uh the

01:30:41 word for it um let's take the uh the home the home affairs correspondent for the bbc

01:30:49 the bbc um who's the lead correspondent for the bbc uh for this public inquiry dominic cassiani

01:30:53 cassiani who has tweeted the following and i quote

01:30:54 quote um relating to the uh the trend the live transcript which is the only way supposedly to follow it

01:31:05 the only way supposedly to follow it this is what the the chief correspondent for the public inquiry for the state broadcaster says it is virtually unusable for reporters trying to follow

01:31:20 unusable for reporters trying to follow it remotely the words are appearing via a fast scrolling video feed that can't be paused or can't be rewound this basically means from a practical perspective as a working reporter that a public inquiry becomes largely impossible to report

01:31:33 in the last few days i've heard you chair state at the beginning of the hearings that members of the public are entitled to hear the same public evidence as i

01:31:49 to hear the same public evidence as i will hear and you know entitled to reach your own conclusions about it i say simply in all practical senses that's not true most people find out what's going on from the public inquiry from the media

01:32:00 from the media um

01:32:01 um even if i wanted to i can't go to this hotel and find out this because of the restrictions that you that you as the chair uh have imposed it would be easy

01:32:17 chair uh have imposed it would be easy to allow the public a simple thing would allow the public to be able to follow this and for the media to be able to report it properly and that would be to live stream all of the evidence that is what is happening in the grenfell tower public inquiry at the

01:32:32 grenfell tower public inquiry at the moment but that is not what's happening in this public inquiry from where i'm standing at the moment instead of being transparent and open what this looks like is we're watching a good old-fashioned

01:32:43 old-fashioned establishment cover-up uh unfolding uh before our eyes in conclusion this is my last

01:32:56 this is my last couple apparently my last paragraph also blacklisted workers have our experience of the british legal system doesn't give us optimism that the british state

01:33:10 that the british state investigating wrongdoings of the british state is necessarily going to come up with justice 700 blacklisted workers uh were claiming civil trial and the multinational

01:33:22 civil trial and the multinational companies were literally allowed to buy themselves out of a trial that is not justice

01:33:30 justice we do not expect this public inquiry to provide justice our participation in this inquiry is with a slim hope that that we've done through the process more and more evidence will become

01:33:44 more and more evidence will become uncovered that will come to light about this the

01:33:46 this the anti-union hostility of the upper echelons of the british secret political policing units they have a mindset which is still back in that colonial period

01:34:07 is still back in that colonial period mindset which you know of you know and institutional racism institutional sexism

01:34:08 sexism working class hostility hostility to trade unions we do not expect justice

01:34:19 trade unions we do not expect justice our participation is we will shake the tree as much as possible and see what comes out we want to expose what these police units have been doing in the name of the british taxpayer

01:34:31 taxpayer so that is exposed keeping it hidden does nothing for for justice but also does nothing

01:34:44 for for justice but also does nothing for the british public who are meant to be uh you know reassured uh after you know we get to the truth in this the police lawyers

01:34:46 lawyers will argue that the undercover police officers were doing what they were doing in order to protect democracy

01:35:01 to protect democracy when they're spying on trade unionists when they're providing information to blacklist

01:35:04 blacklist organizations stops a trade union activists getting jobs that is not defending democracy that is defending big business and capitalism and for the avoidance of all doubt

01:35:17 and for the avoidance of all doubt capitalism and democracy are not the same thing thank you

01:35:20 thank you i'd just like to send solidarity greetings to all of the other core non-state non-police corps participants

01:35:34 non-state non-police corps participants it's been an honor working alongside you for the last few years and an injury to one is an injury to all thank you very much

01:35:39 thank you mr smith um i'm delighted to see that you are in

01:35:46 i don't know your state of health but in full vigor

01:35:51 thank you very much and and thank you for allowing me to go over my time a bit not i apologize um

01:36:02 um we will resume at 22 with the um procedural hearing uh in which i'm going to hear submissions from council for two of the non-state core participant side and

01:36:13 side and which will also be attended by the the metropolitan police lawyers and the designated lawyers 20 to 12.

01:36:21 20 to 12. thank you

01:36:25 thank you thank you very much everyone we will now take a short break until 2012. please can you move into your breakout rooms

01:54:05 welcome back everyone i will now hand over to the chairman to continue proceedings chairman thank you very much can i ensure first of all please that um everybody who needs to be here is here miss brenda

01:54:20 yes i'm here sir mr mellon

01:54:25 mr mellon yes i'm here too sir mr sanders

01:54:31 and mr skeleton yes sir thank you good

01:54:33 good um

01:54:35 um i asked

01:54:46 i asked all of you to appear well i asked miss brandon and miss mennon to appear and your presence mr skelton and uh mr sanders is also necessary to consider um what was brenda said to me about the participation of non-state

01:54:58 about the participation of non-state corps participants in our evidential hearings

01:55:00 hearings she

01:55:01 she stated and i am delighted to accept that

01:55:10 that those that she represents and the non but non-corp non-state corps participant group more widely

01:55:15 widely do wish to participate actively and constructively in the hearings

01:55:24 hearings and i want to try and see if there is a means by which they can do it i therefore want to go rather more widely than miss brenda's written helpful written

01:55:36 helpful written document that she submitted before this hearing

01:55:41 hearing and to begin if i may by asking everybody

01:55:42 everybody whether

01:55:47 whether it would now be sensible to resume ordinary

01:55:51 ordinary procedural hearings that's to say procedural hearings at which all necessary parties were represented which were conducted in the usual way albeit perhaps nowadays over television screens

01:56:02 television screens with everybody having their say in the presence of everybody else and thereby assisting me to get to a sensible solution

01:56:14 solution miss brenda is that something that you would welcome uh well so i perhaps need to understand a little more about what you're proposing um when you were talking about ordinary um proceedings i thought perhaps you were talking about in a

01:56:27 perhaps you were talking about in a physical courtroom um which would seem maybe wouldn't facilitate access for more people than already able to attend the

01:56:32 the um the hearing rooms at the amber hotel you then mentioned television screens so i'm not sure then whether you're talking about

01:56:43 about allowing those who have core participant status to have a live link to the proceedings uh if it's the latter that that is certainly something that we would support

01:56:54 would support let me explain myself a bit more clearly i was hoping not to have to go into ancient history but here i go

01:57:02 when we had the original anonymity open hearings i had hoped that they would eventually smoothly become procedural hearings so

01:57:17 smoothly become procedural hearings so that we would have traditional preceding hearings long before the kobe troubles in a largish courtroom or hearing room at which everybody would express their views i would be able to test them and i would then

01:57:30 and i would then produce at the end of them a written decision

01:57:33 unfortunately when the

01:57:41 open anonymity hearings came to an end for reasons which we're all aware of and i won't repeat uh

01:57:49 i decided that we should proceed as we did by having face-to-face meetings between the uh

01:58:00 lawyers and the representatives of all sides but

01:58:04 sides but as it were bilateral meetings rather than

01:58:07 than a meeting at which everybody was present that

01:58:13 that has up to now worked albeit i think with increasing difficulty now that we've started hearings it seemed to me uh to be the moment at which uh i would invite everybody to

01:58:25 which uh i would invite everybody to reconsider whether it would be a good idea to have uh to use the old latin phrase inter-parties um uh oral

01:58:33 oral procedural hearings about

01:58:40 about the evidential hearings were conducted and other matters that arise as we go forward

01:58:44 forward i wanted first of all to know from your side because it was after all the actions of non-state corps participants who precipitated the um route we've gone down up to now um whether that is

01:58:56 um whether that is a good idea or not whether it's something that will be welcomed or not well certainly sir my understanding um from correspondence between um lydia d'agostino the rlr on behalf of

01:59:08 lydia d'agostino the rlr on behalf of the non-stake or participant cooperating group uh and it's listed the inquiry was that it was anticipated that there might be um or that there would be an inter-party's procedural hearing uh

01:59:20 inter-party's procedural hearing uh after the end of phase one of tranche one and before the commencement of phase two

01:59:26 two in order that um the issues have been raised in this phase could be um could be considered by you sir um and certainly if that's what you're

01:59:38 certainly if that's what you're contemplating then that is very much something um that the non-state core participants would wish to happen you've heard um from mr smith this morning about the strength of feeling um

01:59:50 about the strength of feeling um about how the first phase has gone and there are certainly many issues um that we would wish to have the opportunity to address you on and for you to consider

02:00:03 thank you i though it is my intention that there should be an inter-parties procedural hearing about phase two and that that should take place um

02:00:15 and that that should take place um towards the end of january next year can i explain that um the earliest date on which we may be able to begin phase two is the

02:00:27 may be able to begin phase two is the middle of march that may be optimistic but

02:00:34 but as mr barr said it's our intention to start phase two in march or april and uh

02:00:36 and uh if um

02:00:43 if um and an inter-party's hearing is possible before the end of january then it can not only inform how we're going to conduct the hearings but will permit us to put things in place technical means in place to do so i'm encouraged by what you say

02:01:00 i'm encouraged by what you say and i i hope that your remarks are not confined just to the next stage as it were but can help or can inform how we proceed for

02:01:09 for subsequent chronic issues have i understood you right well sir i don't have a crystal ball obviously um and

02:01:20 obviously um and uh all i can say is to repeat at what you heard from mr smith this morning about the strength of feeling uh certainly and the core participants wants to participate they they are desperate to participate so they very

02:01:37 desperate to participate so they very much welcome the opportunity to do so at procedural hearing uh what will happen in the future obviously depends on um the way things progress so i i can't really say more than that but certainly for now uh they very much want to have

02:01:50 for now uh they very much want to have the opportunity to address you on um on the way in which the inquiry is conducted going forwards yes and to

02:01:52 and to help determine um how hearings are going to take place because we are we are all learning from experience um it's easily the best teacher and

02:02:03 teacher and you can

02:02:04 you can advance also to theoretical arguments before things actually start once they get going you see what the problems are and you one can sometimes see what the solutions are

02:02:15 solutions are um may i ask mr menden uh if there's anything as he wants to add to what has just been said in that exchange sir um you will appreciate that um having just been alerted to your

02:02:29 having just been alerted to your question i i'm unable to speak on instructions but for my part i i think that a

02:02:35 that a that resuming procedural hearings at which all core participants can raise issues with you of concern

02:02:49 raise issues with you of concern whether they be about rule 10 or whether they be about redactions to the papers or

02:02:51 or other procedural matters would be welcome um i i think part of the difficulty um since those hearings stopped is that

02:03:02 um since those hearings stopped is that one has had to effectively um engage in email communication either on a solicitor to solicit basis or on a council to council bases

02:03:15 council to council bases and then you are obviously alerted as to when a ruling or a view of is required but

02:03:16 but procedural hearings clearly where everybody has the opportunity to speak um will increase dialogue and in in those circumstances i i would think would be welcomed

02:03:28 would be welcomed thank you

02:03:29 thank you um mr skelton

02:03:36 yes sir i think the the mps endorses the approach of of having um hearings um in which anyone can make submissions about matters which affect their interest and which they ought fairly to be heard upon and

02:03:49 and really to approximate your hearings as close as possible to what they would have been like had you've been able to sit at pocock street and issues had arisen like miss brandon's application while the hearing was going on and we could all reconvene in front of you

02:04:08 could all reconvene in front of you in the chamber as we would ordinarily um so yes inevitably there will still be the need for some bilateral hearings about

02:04:08 about safety or security issues or applications that necessarily need to be private but matters like this which affect everybody yes

02:04:18 yes summers

02:04:22 summers yes so we we'd agree with that i think uh

02:04:26 uh a transparent uh inter-party's approach is preferable to a series of bilateral communications because

02:04:31 because each party to those bilateral communications isn't aware of what's being said in the other dialogues and so the more we can do all together the better

02:04:45 together the better thank you then for once there is um happy unanimity and i don't anticipate that those who aren't at this hearing would um express a dissenting view very well then we will begin with um

02:05:01 a quote ordinary close quote procedural hearing

02:05:02 hearing um

02:05:04 um inevitably by a television link um

02:05:10 um sometimes towards the end of january about

02:05:14 about how we're going to hear the next phase of trash one

02:05:29 can i now turn to um the narrower issue of rule 10 and here i want um first of all to address miss brenda and mr mennon um

02:05:40 i think i ought to address my remarks to you mr mennon first because um i regret to say that um part of what i have to say is um uh critical

02:05:48 critical the purpose of rule 10 is to enable the inquiry to control proceedings in a manner that is both useful to its purposes and lawful and i i regret to say that the

02:06:03 and i i regret to say that the cross-examination the re-examination you conducted of tariq ali and the cross-examination you conducted of

02:06:09 of the two officers illustrated in some part how we can't proceed

02:06:22 proceed can i first of all deal with mr ali you asked him a question that

02:06:25 that when he answered it breached a restriction order um

02:06:35 um no ill will was intended obviously as i understand it you don't know that uh the person who was named is dead

02:06:49 is dead he may or may not be i don't know what your source of information is the inquiry doesn't know either way if

02:06:50 if he is alive then

02:07:03 his rights under the rehabilitation of a vendors act would have been infringed an inquiry is not a court it doesn't have unfettered unrestricted

02:07:12 opportunities to explore every issue that an advocate might consider to be relevant

02:07:17 relevant it has statutory limits on what what it can do

02:07:18 can do and i must try to uphold restriction orders that have been made and people's rights under legislation such as the rehabilitation of a vendors act

02:07:35 the next avenue of questioning which was not harmful but not helpful was your questioning about the vote that had taken place at which

02:07:50 that had taken place at which the officer said he'd voted with his colleagues if he had voted who supported the ad hoc committees uh line about the route that the march should take no harm was done by that at all but equally no purpose was served by it

02:08:12 equally no purpose was served by it the third question is is something which may or may not give rise to harm whether it does is beyond your knowledge and mine you asked about helen crampton

02:08:24 you asked about helen crampton my understanding is that her name is now um blazoned over the social media sphere and you asked about a relationship that you suggested she may have had with a man who may or may not be alive

02:08:39 with a man who may or may not be alive but he was probably dead george cochran i don't know and the inquiry team doesn't know the basis upon which you sought to to raise that question with joan hillier and

02:08:53 and i'm afraid the inquiry has got to proceed on the basis of participants telling it what they

02:08:59 what they know or what they believe they know and the basis for it rather than as it were coming out

02:09:12 without a significant advance warning by conventional courtroom questioning um i i don't mean those

02:09:25 um i i don't mean those observations just courteously but i'm afraid i have to make them because it does

02:09:26 it does show

02:09:27 show what

02:09:28 what the inquiry cannot

02:09:31 cannot allowed to happen this is an inquiry not a trial and the processes of an inquiry must be followed

02:09:41 followed i i will give you the opportunity to respond to what i've said obviously that if you require time to to reflect upon it before doing so i would gladly give it to you

02:09:55 i'm happy to respond um straight away sir if i may yes can i address each of those three discrete issues one by one please um

02:10:08 um in relation to my questioning of of tariq ali

02:10:12 tariq ali and the specific topic that you've raised

02:10:16 raised just to put it in context for those who um

02:10:19 um didn't hear or see the evidence last wednesday that parikhali gave he was asked by council to the inquiry about a particular meeting that took place

02:10:32 meeting that took place um at the notting hill branch of the vsdc

02:10:36 vsdc and a intelligence report in respect of that meeting was put on the screen um and um for him to comment on and the name of a particular individual

02:10:49 and the name of a particular individual who was said to have been distributing a leaflet to that meeting was redacted and um he was asked about that and he couldn't assist because he

02:11:00 because he he wasn't told the name and effectively he wasn't at the meeting and um he had nothing of any evidential value to offer in respect of that um

02:11:11 um i knew the name of that individual um

02:11:15 um because on receipt of the papers from the inquiry um um and having conducted further in investigations we knew who that individual was

02:11:26 individual was and i wrongly um uh believed at the time and um you know this because i've emailed the your legal team to inform them of my mistake that i wrongly believed at the time that he was deceased and i'm i'm truly sorry for

02:11:37 deceased and i'm i'm truly sorry for having made that assumption i took it on good faith from a wholly reliable source but

02:11:43 but unfortunately an innocent mistake was made and that man is is very much alive

02:11:54 made and that man is is very much alive and um and and that was the sole reason that i i mentioned his name in the questioning was one because i believed he was dead and two that i was trying to trigger a recollection

02:12:07 recollection in mr ali which in fact i did because he did recognize the name but i

02:12:08 but i if i'd known he was alive um i would not have mentioned his name and i've apologized for that and i hope you accept that apology from me it was an it was a genuine mistake made on wrong information

02:12:20 wrong information um and so i accept that if i'd known he was alive um

02:12:29 um given there was a privacy reduction in respect of his name i shouldn't have mentioned it so that was the context in which i mentioned that

02:12:36 that having then

02:12:39 discovered that he was alive

02:12:43 um

02:12:51 me and my teams took steps to further investigate that matter and those

02:12:53 and those steps are ongoing and

02:13:00 and that is why when you asked me prior to my

02:13:02 my questioning of joan hillier what the basis of

02:13:06 basis of my proposed questions were i was as vague as i was because i it effectively was hot off the press if i can put it that way and it and it demonstrates i think in a very graphic way

02:13:16 way what happens when the lawyers for the non-state core participants are given disclosure as late as we were we had literally four weeks

02:13:31 we had literally four weeks to prepare our opening statements read

02:13:34 read five and a half thousand pages of evidence

02:13:36 evidence and

02:13:38 and propose our questions for the relevant police witnesses i i it was a it was a very cumbersome task i mean if we had this material months in advance as we

02:13:49 this material months in advance as we have repeatedly suggested and submitted that we should have had this would never have arisen i'm confident of that but when when one is working against the clock in this way

02:14:02 clock in this way it is much more difficult to avoid

02:14:04 to avoid problems of this kind so i regret mentioning his name i i hope you accept from me that i did so because of an innocent mistake on my part

02:14:17 innocent mistake on my part and i wouldn't have done so if i'd known that he was alive forgive me for interrupting you because i know you're going to turn to the next topic may i say that i

02:14:30 topic may i say that i and of course accept your apology and explanation as to how it happened um i will refer return to late disclosure later which is a topic understood um turning to my my questioning in relation to

02:14:43 my my questioning in relation to um i think it was the the witness with the cover name john graham in relation to the meeting that nine undercover police officers attended and where there was a vote in relation

02:14:56 and where there was a vote in relation to the route to be taken by the october 1968 march in my submission it was a relevant topic sir to explore with with anybody who attended that meeting because notwithstanding the fact

02:15:11 meeting because notwithstanding the fact that nine police officers could not have affected

02:15:15 affected the outcome of the vote given the number of people at the meeting surely it's important to know how police officers voted on an issue that

02:15:24 that had a direct impact um on the public order policing of that demonstration i mean if for example a

02:15:35 demonstration i mean if for example a police officer at that meeting had voted along with the uh the the maoists and others who um according to the police were seeking a fresh confrontation at grosvenor square

02:15:50 fresh confrontation at grosvenor square in other words they had voted in support of the of the march going to grosvenor square

02:15:50 square contrary to the to the strong views of the leadership of the vsc who felt very strongly that grosvenor square should be avoided on this occasion and that goes

02:16:01 avoided on this occasion and that goes directly to your terms of reference in terms of the conduct of police officers and their participation in decision making that had a direct impact on potential

02:16:13 that had a direct impact on potential direct impact on public order policing and so for example if john graham um had said

02:16:21 said which he didn't i appreciate that but i didn't know that until i asked the question um yes in fact when i went back to the safe house i i we we spoke amongst each other and we discovered that four of us had voted one way and five of us had voted the other way

02:16:33 five of us had voted the other way that that surely would be a relevant matter for your consideration because it it goes completely contrary to conrad dixon's penetration of extremist groups

02:16:46 dixon's penetration of extremist groups document so that's the sole issue i was trying to explore with that question there was no mischief other involved at all um but i didn't know what his answer was going to be because he hadn't been asked the question so in my submission that was a

02:16:57 my submission that was a that was a question on a relevant and potentially important matter that could depending on the answer have assisted you in your search for the truth

02:17:09 you in your search for the truth so i mean that's my defense if i can call it that way to that particular question of that particular witness again forgive me for interrupting your response but um i i did indicate that no

02:17:23 response but um i i did indicate that no harm whatever had been done by that line of questioning i i simply doubted its utility but um that's a matter of opinion between you and me and um i don't think they delay us any

02:17:32 us any um

02:17:33 um turning into the third issue which is clearly in the larger scheme of things the most important of the three i

02:17:40 i i can assure you sir that we in my team deliberated long and hard about how to approach this matter um in part because it clearly was sensitive

02:17:50 sensitive in part because it clearly was um hot off the press so to speak and

02:17:57 and and clearly because um

02:18:05 um consideration had to be given as to whether to wait or not and seek to deploy

02:18:06 deploy that particular point at a later stage the difficulty that we found ourselves in was this that um joan hillier is the only surviving

02:18:19 um joan hillier is the only surviving police officer who was involved in the infiltration of nottingham vsc there are no other witnesses who can speak to that issue um and

02:18:27 um and um

02:18:31 um therefore a decision was made again in good faith that it would be wrong not to explore this matter of course with your permission which you did give me um with the only surviving police

02:18:43 um with the only surviving police officer who could potentially assist on that issue um and and that was the basis upon which i made the application i i can assure you it wasn't an easy decision to make i i fully understand

02:18:57 decision to make i i fully understand and understood at the time the potential implications of asking those questions but i i we took the view mr parry and i for for those we represent that we would be

02:19:09 be failing in our professional duty um to our clients and

02:19:13 and failing in our professional duty to assist you in the search of the truth if we did not seek your permission to ask questions about that matter which i

02:19:26 ask questions about that matter which i spelt out in some detail when i made the application and then when you gave me permission to do so to explore them with the witness um and that effectively is my explanation for for what we did it

02:19:39 explanation for for what we did it remains a live issue i entirely accept what you're saying that it it is now um all over the internet if i can put it that way and um we will um consult with your legal team

02:19:50 team um

02:19:54 um after this particular phase is over as to how best to um

02:19:57 um explore that issue further if you think it's worth exploring further um in in later um tranches and phases um but i i

02:20:08 um but i i i mean clearly i said something to you sir when i made the application for permission that led you to allow me to ask the questions that i did

02:20:23 that i did um because clearly what i was exploring and i tried to do it as carefully as i could without for example putting a specific case to the witness because i i couldn't do that i i asked as open-ended questions as i could um but i i i took the view and i think

02:20:34 um but i i i took the view and i think you agreed with me that this the issues that i was raising were squarely within the terms of reference of the inquiry so i'm sorry that it's turned out the way it has but i

02:20:45 way it has but i i'm afraid i i do stand by the decision that mr parry and i made and i think in the circumstances it was the correct and professional decision to make

02:21:04 i do not for one moment question the professional propriety of the question or the thought that you gave to beforehand um

02:21:13 however if and when an issue like that arises in the future uh

02:21:16 uh it is i think imperative that cards are put on the table to the inquiry lawyers i'm not suggesting that it needs to be put into the public domain or the advanced notification or

02:21:31 domain or the advanced notification or anything of that kind needs to be given to witness but

02:21:37 but the basis for the questioning needs to be explained and demonstrated to my legal team before the question is raised now

02:21:49 team before the question is raised now because joan helio was giving evidence and because the issue had not been raised

02:21:50 raised before except in your the the questions that you indicated um the night before i i think my timing is right um

02:22:03 i i think my timing is right um i i was confronted with a decision as to whether or not an issue capable of being relevant to the terms of reference of some significance should be explored by you in questioning which is why i gave you permission but

02:22:19 which is why i gave you permission but in future please if something like that does happen it is imperative that the inquiry legal team is told beforehand not just the ba the questions you want

02:22:33 not just the ba the questions you want to ask or the topic on which you want to ask questions but the evidential basis for the questioning yeah yes i understand and and just just finally on this topic i as you've acknowledged i i i did on receipt of the information

02:22:44 i i did on receipt of the information the evening before and it was literally the evening before that i came to possession of the information i i

02:22:59 possession of the information i i drafted specific questions on this topic um i didn't set out the source of that material i accept but i dropped i set out the specific questions with the specific names of the individuals concerned and emailed them both to um solicitor to the inquiry and counsel to the inquiry and i would have been available if they

02:23:19 available if they wished um to speak to me about the basis of those questions to have to have told them everything that i knew but um i had no

02:23:20 i had no nobody got in touch with me after i submitted those questions um and i then wait i was hoping that obviously those questions would be asked by council of

02:23:31 questions would be asked by council of the inquiry when they weren't asked by council of the inquiry i made the application so i mean i i hope but i i certainly undertake that if a similar issue arises in future

02:23:39 in future um

02:23:46 um i will ensure that certainly on our part uh better lines of communication are are available with your legal team to ensure that we don't have a situation like this arising again

02:23:57 again thank you that's all that i can ask and your response is all that i could hope to receive can i deal with late disclosure now

02:24:05 i don't think the outside world including uh lawyers for non-stake or participants quite appreciate the problems that in covid times

02:24:16 covid times the inquiry is having with assembling the documents that need to be disclosed

02:24:29 to be disclosed so that those such as yourself can read and understand them and participate effectively in the hearings um i'm not going to waste time now explaining what they are but

02:24:37 but i ask everybody to accept that they're formidable and they're not in within the control of the inquiry um

02:24:49 let me put that differently not wholly within the control of the inquiry we do our best to see that the documents are put into a state where they can be disclosed to non-state court participants

02:25:02 participants without infringing the public interest and other considerations

02:25:08 despite that

02:25:18 i acknowledge that you are bound to be under very great time pressure preparing for hearings

02:25:25 if we're to start as we have thankfully have and proceed at a pace which is

02:25:37 ultimately acceptable both to the public to our sponsors uh to everybody who is interested in the outcome of the inquiry then you may fail you may find that you are placed under time pressure in the future i think that's unavoidable and um

02:25:55 we are struggling to avoid it but we can't do so completely um

02:26:02 and i'm afraid that for the hearings if they take place in march or april of phase two

02:26:07 phase two the same

02:26:12 the same pressure of time is going to apply that's

02:26:13 that's something i offer by way not a consolation but of explanation [Music]

02:26:21 [Music] um we do know the problems we're putting you under

02:26:25 you under i'm afraid they're not avoidable except at the price of um endless

02:26:30 endless further delay so i understand i'm sure ms brando will want to say something on this can i just say this before she um says what she needs to say i we understand all that but

02:26:45 understand all that but all we ask is that the inquiry doesn't wait exactly four weeks or six weeks before um

02:26:50 um the phase two hearings are to begin before giving us the entire bundle i mean we we we asked the inquiry to you know give us material piecemeal as

02:27:03 you know give us material piecemeal as and when it becomes available and as and when suitable reduction has been completed so that we can start the process because if we i mean in relation to this tranche for example surely there must be

02:27:14 must be material available in relation to phase two that can be disclosed for example next week so we can start working on it in december rather than having to wait until february next year before we get the full bundle that's all

02:27:27 before we get the full bundle that's all we ask so that we have maximum time with as much of the paperwork as possible and if it has to be piecemeal so be it

02:27:40 if it has to be piecemeal so be it um and i we've made this uh suggestion before um directly to your team so they're well aware of it um and we just hope due consideration can can can be given to that request uh for the benefit of all thank you and just as i have asked you

02:27:56 thank you and just as i have asked you to reflect upon things uh you have asked me and my team to reflect on things and we will do so thank you

02:27:59 thank you miss brenda so i appreciate you saying you don't want to waste time today going into the details but i think it probably would assist to have a rather fuller

02:28:17 assist to have a rather fuller explanation from the inquiry not not now but it can be uh in writing afterwards as to precisely what the delays are because

02:28:20 because there is a real sense amongst the non-state uh non-police call participants that they are repeatedly at the bottom of the list in terms of priority for um

02:28:31 um for their input and so and they come as i understand once it goes through reduction process they will be last on the list to receive the material but

02:28:43 but last to not mean least and there should be proper recognition of the value of the contribution that the non-state corps participants can make when they see the material

02:28:57 make when they see the material and with respect so i don't think that message is getting through it it seems that um not sufficient weight perhaps is being

02:29:09 not sufficient weight perhaps is being given to the value that the non-stake or participants will be able to add once they see the material and

02:29:14 and all i can do is to support mr menon and the submission that he's made that the kinds of difficulties that you have seen in terms of questioning the reason for my application um which was what i had understood this

02:29:27 um which was what i had understood this hearing was to be full uh in relation to questioning arises out of the frustration the visceral frustration and i think you probably got some of that from mr smith this morning and if you have been following social media you will be well aware of it

02:29:39 will be well aware of it and that the corporatists the non-state corps participants feel about what they perceive to be their repeated exclusion from the inquiry's proceedings and a big part of that is

02:29:51 and a big part of that is not having for the vast majority of non-state court participants they don't have access to the material until the witness is giving evidence and then they have

02:30:01 have this cfax transcript as mr smith has described it so if they are to provide us with instructions on the material that they are seeing for the first time

02:30:18 that they are seeing for the first time as it passes by their eyes on the screen they have virtually no opportunity to feed into the process and so

02:30:20 and so it's in that context that these last minute difficulties are are going to inevitably arise and if there cannot be a greater priority assigned to affording us the the uh materials further in

02:30:36 us the the uh materials further in advance so that we can properly prepare and um that we have an opportunity to then discuss with council to the inquiry the questions that we are putting in writing in advance and an opportunity to explain the rationale behind them um

02:30:53 explain the rationale behind them um which we have tried to do whenever um councils of the inquiries come back saying no they don't want to ask a question and i know mr mennon and myself have tried to then provide further explanation but all of that takes time and i appreciate that there are

02:31:05 and i appreciate that there are pressures on the inquiry but i just i would urge that when the timetable is being worked out that sufficient recognition be given of the value that the non-state side of

02:31:16 the value that the non-state side of this inquiry can provide if only it's given the proper opportunity to do so

02:31:25 can i explore a little further with you [Music]

02:31:29 [Music] precisely what it is that you're telling me um

02:31:35 um as i understand it there is no complaint uh about the time that you have for making written rule 10 submissions to cancel to the inquiry seven days before we um

02:31:48 we um hear the evidence of a witness i've seen what you've put in and generally not always but generally you get back the answer yes and you have kindly acknowledged that um council of the inquiry has asked the

02:31:59 council of the inquiry has asked the questions that you um wanted to have raised in the main even even when um the initial answer was no

02:32:12 um is it that part of the process that that

02:32:13 that gives rise to difficulty or is it

02:32:19 the the later stage when evidence is given

02:32:22 given um

02:32:31 um put out on the rolling transcript and documents are put up on the screen well it's at every stage i'm afraid so the initial seven day deadline as you may be aware both mr menon and myself have struggles to meet

02:32:44 menon and myself have struggles to meet the seven day deadline simply because we are still trying to get on top of the material because we received it so shortly before the hearings at the time we were also writing the opening statement so that's the first difficulty

02:33:00 statement so that's the first difficulty the second difficulty of course at least for my part is that i am not able to discuss the material with the vast majority of the non-state core participants because they do not have access to the bundle and so it's subject to restriction order so i'm not

02:33:12 to restriction order so i'm not permitted to discuss it with them so i'm not able to gather in their concerns so i i can

02:33:17 i i can formulate rule 10 questions on the basis of my understanding of the papers and the understanding of those rlas within the cooperating group who have access to the bundle um but then um there is because because

02:33:29 um but then um there is because because of those time pressures then very little opportunity for me to discuss with council to the inquiry um when there has when they've required further um clarification so for example i have

02:33:42 clarification so for example i have usually received the response from them saying whether they will or won't ask the questions i've proposed either the night before the witness is due to give evidence or more frequently on the morning before the witness is about to give evidence

02:33:54 the witness is about to give evidence so i have i have very little time then to either email or go and try and find counsel to the inquiry to discuss with them

02:34:01 them why i think some of the questions that they have said they won't answer sorry won't ask are nonetheless important i've had to be extremely selective because

02:34:12 had to be extremely selective because there's so little time so i've chosen perhaps my two or three most important questions and have provided explanation

02:34:24 questions and have provided explanation in relation to those and you're right so in relation to those they have then generally been asked although perhaps not to the full extent followed up that i have indicated and would be desirable in in the questions that i've proposed so

02:34:38 in the questions that i've proposed so that that is one branch of the question of the problem but the second and very significant aspect is that the for the vast majority of non-state called participants the very

02:34:49 non-state called participants the very first time they will have access to the witnesses evidence is as it's rolling past them on the screen and so i then receive at the end of the day

02:34:55 day um requests through rlr's saying why wasn't the witness asked about this and the concrete example is from the women in relationships

02:35:07 women in relationships uh as you know sir they have repeatedly sought to persuade you unfortunately unsuccessfully so far that they have a direct interest in this phase because

02:35:20 direct interest in this phase because although the first known relationship doesn't arise until phase two in the case of rick gibson they want to understand where that came from did it suddenly spring out of nowhere or did it emerge did it did it evolve through a culture

02:35:31 did it did it evolve through a culture now we have heard from the evidence of two of the officers so far in this phase and i anticipate that and the officer

02:35:42 and i anticipate that and the officer 345 who's being called on thursday may have further evidence in relation to this

02:35:43 this one officer john graham accepted that he did take a um member of the group out for a drink for a drink yes or he went for dinner sorry he went for dinner um and uh

02:35:55 for dinner um and uh dick epps who we heard from yesterday had been out for a drink now they both denied having sexual relationships and i have nothing to um suggest that they did but

02:36:12 but what the women in relationships are very keen to explore is the extent to which um

02:36:17 um activity of that kind was used to bolster credibility as um dick epps had um said it was in his case um and to explore the extent to which and they discussed it with

02:36:29 which and they discussed it with managers and you will recall yesterday i was able to put those questions to mr epps because they had been emails to me by a core participant um but they at the moment have virtually no

02:36:44 no opportunity to input that kind of um

02:36:48 um of questioning because they don't have access to the material in advance um and so that creates a very big problem which which was what prompted my application um that i had understood was going to be heard today

02:37:05 going to be heard today um which is twofold really one is that you

02:37:06 you agree so or acknowledge that just for the remainder of this phase given that we don't have time now to have the full-blown procedural hearing

02:37:18 have the full-blown procedural hearing that's anticipated after the end of this phase

02:37:19 phase that in order to mitigate the difficulties that arise out of the non-disclosure of the bundle to call participants and the

02:37:29 and the problems that have arisen with the rolling transcript that you

02:37:35 that you um take the course of agreeing that there will be ten minutes allowed at the end of the there are only two remaining witnesses for non-state questioning

02:37:50 witnesses for non-state questioning which would enable um those such as the women in relationships to email me um

02:37:52 um during the witnesses evidence with uh the the key suggestions for questioning um and that would enable them to feel that they have

02:38:07 that they have a an identified route by which they can participate and which they can assist you sir and i say it's it's twofold because one is allowing a recognition that there will be that opportunity and the second is broadening the scope for questioning

02:38:20 broadening the scope for questioning because you have in the past said that you will only permit questioning um by lawyers for non-state court participants where um the person doing the questioning represents a witness who is directly affected

02:38:34 witness who is directly affected factually by the evidence of the witness being questioned but this this would be a different purpose this would be exploratory it would be assisting you sir with the themes that go to your terms of

02:38:48 themes that go to your terms of reference drawing on the skills and expertise

02:38:52 expertise of those who were subject to similar practices

02:38:54 practices you heard from mr smith this morning about his level of expertise ironically recognized by the police themselves not just in relation to the facts of his particular case but in terms of the

02:39:10 particular case but in terms of the themes that arise through blacklisting now you might think so that he is someone who would be a source of very relevant knowledge and expertise in relation to identifying questioning

02:39:22 identifying questioning going to the sort of systemic issues that are of key relevance to you and i would submit that the same goes for many of the core participants certainly in relation to relationships the women

02:39:33 the women certainly in relation to the black justice campaigns the category and j families

02:39:46 families but those are just examples and it is wiser um taking such a restrictive approach

02:39:47 approach to

02:39:48 to permitting questioning will better your ability to get to the truth because you're not drawing on [Music]

02:39:56 [Music] the the the expertise that is there to assist you um if you would permit it to do so and i i fully appreciate that you must retain the power sir to stop

02:40:11 must retain the power sir to stop inappropriate questioning and you you've heard from mr menon this morning about the reasons why um that occurred and certainly i will undertake as well um to ensure wherever possible that i i

02:40:22 ensure wherever possible that i i discuss matters with council to the inquiry um but in terms of issues that arise through a witnesses evidence when non-state corps participants are receiving that information for the very

02:40:38 receiving that information for the very first time as it flashes past their eyes and there has to be some scope for

02:40:39 for feeding in questioning at that stage

02:40:57 thank you you've given me something to reflect upon um i i'm going to do that and you will have your answer before closer play today um but um would you

02:40:58 would you give me

02:40:59 give me please um

02:41:01 please um a short time to reflect upon what you say and if necessary to discuss it uh not necessarily and publicly but um privately with um uh counsel to the inquiry

02:41:11 inquiry certainly said mr skelton anything you want to say on this topic um yes please if i may sir sir can i address you just briefly on the two topics essentially because i

02:41:22 the two topics essentially because i think it's both disclosure and witness questioning that's been addressed um by mr menon and miss brander yes just on the issue of disclosure if i may briefly i think the mps recognizes the extraordinarily difficult

02:41:36 extraordinarily difficult task you and your inquiry have um producing an open bundle

02:41:47 um producing an open bundle about matters which were hitherto secret uh bearing in mind the complexities of that task both on data protection um privacy and of course security and safety of individuals and other public interests and that task is unit for interrupting you and in particular where

02:42:00 you and in particular where the majority of the bundle doesn't come from

02:42:01 from directly from police custody no and that that is an important point so which leads into my second point which is that i hope the inquiry recognizes that the mps hasn't

02:42:15 recognizes that the mps hasn't improperly delayed the disclosure process um as you will have

02:42:24 process um as you will have read in the mps's written submissions we emphasized that point which we think is an important one because establishing good faith in an inquiry we think is important and we emphasized it in our oral submissions as well but i know that mr menon uh didn't accept that assertion but i would like

02:42:38 but i would like the inquiry to at least accept it that the mps has done everything it can to ensure that your bundle can be produced and appreciates the difficulties that you have in completing that process

02:42:52 so the second issue is witness questioning and i think essentially there are two issues here one is the specific issue that arose uh with mr menon's question

02:43:03 that arose uh with mr menon's question uh to the female uco who gave evidence a few days ago that i think is a question really of of fairness i appreciate what mr manon said about the the background to it and the timing of it but any question which goes to the heart

02:43:19 but any question which goes to the heart of an issue which the inquiry is looking at such as sexual relationships and is highly contentious requires uh careful consideration of what is fair to the witness and the organizations from which she comes and in this case of course it would have

02:43:31 and in this case of course it would have been helpful for the witness to have had noticed that that question was going to be asked and to have had the evidence on which it was based and indeed um one has to be careful allowing any

02:43:42 um one has to be careful allowing any questions where there isn't in fact a factual evidential basis for that question to be put or at least one which

02:43:53 question to be put or at least one which is prepared to come forward a witness is prepared to come forward and so we were disturbed by that line of questioning coming out as it were on the hoof for the very first time without any warning as i'm sure you were sir too

02:44:04 too and we hope that in future that will not happen that witnesses will be allowed the time to think about the issue and uh if necessary look at documents again

02:44:15 if necessary look at documents again and respond fairly and appropriately as a result

02:44:16 a result so the more general point that miss brander makes which was the original subject i think of this um short hearing today i've just got three short inter

02:44:32 today i've just got three short inter interrelated points to make on behalf of the mps first of all um a point which you yourself so i think said earlier this morning the inquiry is inquisitorial not adversarial and all of the witnesses are called by you and examined by your council and they're incred they are questioned in

02:44:44 incred they are questioned in furtherance of your investigations and not in support of a position or case on the part of any of the court participants so second in related to that um as you will be aware rule 10 of the inquiry

02:44:58 will be aware rule 10 of the inquiry rules was brought into force in part as a corrective to the bloody sunday inquiry which was notoriously protracted and expensive not least because the legal representatives of its participants were given a relatively

02:45:13 participants were given a relatively free reign to ask questions of witnesses and rule 10 stops inquiries particularly those like this inquiry or the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse which are highly contentious factually and politically

02:45:27 contentious factually and politically and so it's now a tried and tested model and has been for many years the third point really is about the advantages of rule 10 um it encourages

02:45:39 advantages of rule 10 um it encourages witnesses to give free and open evidence as that they feel that the questioning is independent and neutral and not partisan and hostile and particularly with elderly witnesses in relation to issues such as this where they do feel personally under

02:45:51 where they do feel personally under attack and have done for many years i would like to emphasize that point that is very important and as so you will be aware and certain the mps is aware from

02:46:02 and certain the mps is aware from operation motion many of the witnesses who are giving evidence are extremely nervous and worried about having to talk about things that happened so long ago and about talking about their personal

02:46:13 and about talking about their personal lives and the consequences for many of them have been serious that is not to underestimate the consequences for those who um also participate in the inquiry who have

02:46:25 also participate in the inquiry who have been the subject of operations it's just to give a different perspective on that which is important so the other point about rule 10 is that it stops proceedings becoming more polarized than they might already be

02:46:40 be because it fairly and mutually disarms all of the advocates in the same way and in doing so it's effective and efficient by which i mean that all relevant topics can be addressed through questions from a single advocate without duplication

02:46:51 duplication and it nevertheless allows court participants to participate effectively in the proceedings by feeding in their topics to your council and when that system operates

02:47:04 and when that system operates efficiently efficiently and admittedly that does take a bit of time because there are inevitably teething problems about the timing of the questions coming in and the timing of your counsel indicating whether or not they're prepared to ask the questions or address the topics but once that settles down

02:47:19 the topics but once that settles down it's difficult to see what additional questions

02:47:21 questions should remain because your counsel will ask relevant questions he or she will go through comb through our lists and ask the relevant questions and they won't ask the irrelevant ones and therefore there

02:47:35 irrelevant ones and therefore there shouldn't be anything left for anyone else to pick up and um

02:47:38 and um the system to some extent is also flexible different inquiries as you will be aware operate it differently from a

02:47:54 be aware operate it differently from a strict cti will ask all the questions to a rather more free-for-all approach but your system sir is a hybrid model if i may put it that way and it has the flexibility of allowing um legal representatives to ask questions but only in limited circumstances and in particular where there are significant factual disputes and where there aren't such significant

02:48:07 and where there aren't such significant factual disputes there really shouldn't be any basis for asking questions because your council should have done the job

02:48:12 the job and in our view the exceptions which you have put in force through your procedures balance

02:48:24 force through your procedures balance the interests of fairness of all of us so so in conclusion i i think the nps recognizes and as do the lawyers representing the mps that it can be deeply frustrating for all of the participants attending an inquiry such as this not to have their counsel

02:48:37 have their counsel ask robust questions in furtherance of their interests and so it's also extremely frustrating for the advocates themselves who buy instinct and training want to further their clients interests by questioning witnesses directly

02:48:48 by questioning witnesses directly but sir rule 10 and the procedure you have adopted under rule 10 has so far proven to operate effectively and we would say that no one has indicated to you either in writing so

02:49:03 indicated to you either in writing so far as we know or during the hearings or today

02:49:06 today that there are any significant questions or topics that have not been asked and covered by your counsel or could not be asked or could not be covered by your council

02:49:17 council and so for the reasons for those reasons we would say respectfully that at present as it stands there's no good reason for you to depart from your procedures

02:49:36 thank you sir um first i would um echo and endorse what mr skelton has just said and i won't repeat the same points again um it's our position that that um you should apply the approach set out in advance in

02:49:49 set out in advance in in your notes of uh i think october and december last year the proposed approach to rule 10 was trailed and it was confirmed in your note of october of this year

02:50:01 this year so far as we're aware that

02:50:05 that model hasn't been the subject of any challenge

02:50:10 challenge and what the model provides is that um

02:50:11 um questioning by other rlrs apart from cti should be exceptional

02:50:23 exceptional and only in cases where two criteria are satisfied so first that there's a significant dispute of fact um between two participants and secondly that the witness on the other side of that disputed fact is willing to give evidence

02:50:36 in terms of the two of my witnesses who've been questioned by other rlrs um so far three two eight and three three six um those criteria were not satisfied

02:50:48 um those criteria were not satisfied um when it came to the questions that were put to them um both were taken over ground that had already been covered you've already addressed uh mr menon today i would also add

02:51:03 today i would also add that he went on um with three to eight on friday

02:51:05 on friday um without permission to ask questions about the prosecution and the evidence that helen crampton had uh given in you know prosecution uh you didn't give mr men on permission

02:51:18 uh you didn't give mr men on permission to put those questions but nevertheless he went on to do that

02:51:29 as mr skelton has said this is an inquisitorial process my witnesses are assisting you your inquiry with their recollections uh they're not on trial

02:51:42 uh they're not on trial uh none of the witnesses uh from this week or last week is alleged to have done anything wrong um and they've all in advance of giving their evidence have been briefed about the process so we've explained to them how questioning will run the order in

02:51:56 how questioning will run the order in which it will be done and the basis on which

02:52:02 which um exceptionally other rlrs will be allowed to ask questions um

02:52:06 um and it's very unsettling to be told that that you will only be asked questions by anyone else if there's a significant dispute of fact then to have questions put because it's unexpected and obviously they'll be

02:52:19 it's unexpected and obviously they'll be thinking what is the significant dispute of fact in actual fact in in the case of both of those witnesses there was no significant dispute of fact

02:52:28 i appreciate that all uh core participants should have an opportunity to participate in the process but we'd submit very strongly that that opportunity comes via submission of

02:52:41 opportunity comes via submission of proposed questions to council to the inquiry

02:52:42 inquiry um

02:52:46 um departing from the model set out in your note

02:52:48 note is contrary to the principles under underpinning the rule 10 process as i've said it's unsettling to the witnesses who've been briefed on the basis on which such questions might be put

02:52:57 put and

02:53:01 and mr skelton has touched on the fact that a lot of the core participants have very partisan and hostile

02:53:07 hostile views

02:53:08 views from the perspective of my clients uh listening to or following the opening statements that have been made they have they have listened to and heard

02:53:17 heard um

02:53:21 um a series of opening statements making uh

02:53:24 uh very derogatory statements about them very hostile things about them denigrating and vilifying them um in circumstances where they simply feel it's not justified now to then have

02:53:38 feel it's not justified now to then have questions put to them by council i'm not criticizing mr men on miss brandon anyone else i appreciate they're representing their clients and those of their clients concerns

02:53:46 concerns to have questions put to the witnesses by those individuals who've just recently been reading out open statements that are so hostile towards them

02:53:51 them bearing in mind that it's an inquisitorial process is in my submission unfair and inappropriate um

02:54:00 um as regards the suggestion that there would be a free 10-minute opportunity to put any

02:54:11 10-minute opportunity to put any questions that would be an even greater departure from the the approach you've set out in your notes and in my submission that too would be unjustified um finally sir when these applications are made then the first application was made i think on thursday last week

02:54:22 on thursday last week we put a question to your team as to whether or not the rlr for the witness would have an opportunity to respond to the application and we're told

02:54:33 and we're told no unless you felt that you needed to hear that

02:54:34 hear that um

02:54:35 um certainly in relation to the two of my

02:54:48 certainly in relation to the two of my witnesses who've been um had questions put to them by others we would have wished to address you on the appropriateness of that um and to and to oppose it now

02:54:49 now we're not given that opportunity but it's a matter of procedural fairness if this

02:54:53 this uh approach is to continue we submit that we should at least be allowed that opportunity

02:55:03 that's what i have to say thank you sir thank you

02:55:04 thank you um

02:55:10 um mr bar um i would like to discuss these issues with you um privately before making a ruling upon them is there anything that you want to say in public at this stage

02:55:29 so just very briefly to put things into context these are early days in our use of this procedure the procedure we're following is one that's been used in some

02:55:43 been used in some previous inquiries but it may be capable of some

02:55:45 of some refinement it's also important contextually to remember that we are dealing with very early witnesses

02:55:56 early witnesses in circumstances where there are few disputes of fact and few non-state core participants involved

02:56:09 involved that will change as we proceed through the

02:56:10 the evidence

02:56:16 evidence we are grateful for the efforts of counsel for the core participants working with us on the rule 10 procedure it has

02:56:25 it has many advantages it's

02:56:28 it's efficient it can help obtain the best evidence from witnesses it can avoid delay it can avoid repetition

02:56:41 it can avoid repetition it can assist you so with compliance with your

02:56:42 with your duties under rule 13 notice to witnesses rule 17 avoiding

02:56:54 notice to witnesses rule 17 avoiding unnecessary costs and rule 17 procedural fairness

02:56:58 fairness in the context of this inquiry it can help you

02:57:06 help you to ensure that we don't breach privacy and public interest restrictions but it is onerous and we are grateful to all the council who've cooperated with this system we would hope to move

02:57:21 we would hope to move to a position whereby we are getting timely

02:57:23 timely proposals

02:57:26 proposals in one go

02:57:28 in one go in order for us to be able to deal with them and reply to them as soon as we can i appreciate its early days but we were getting

02:57:42 getting multiple iterations in some cases the last of which were arriving really rather late in some cases and we appreciate the pressures people

02:57:53 and we appreciate the pressures people work under that we would like to to move to as i say a single timely

02:57:55 timely proposal

02:57:56 proposal so sir

02:58:00 so sir that's what i wish to say thank you

02:58:01 thank you um

02:58:03 um and

02:58:03 and i will um

02:58:08 i will um when i discuss the matter with uh mr barr um tell you the outcome um would you be available to uh be present as were on screen at half past two

02:58:21 as were on screen at half past two yes certainly sir so can i be permitted just to respond on one point can i just ask if everybody else can be present then as well you may have your your opportunity if anybody says no i'm going to take it

02:58:38 if anybody says no i'm going to take it to everyone to be ready and help us too so i can't i'm afraid um i have a a corner

02:58:44 a corner out of chambers uh on victoria street i think it would be a bit late to to cancel that um but mr mcallister is with me

02:58:49 me uh and i'm sure he can you can cover it thank you very much uh so i apologize i probably wasn't clear i just meant to respond on one point now before you deliberate

02:59:01 deliberate thank you go ahead thank you it was really just that of course the process by which the rule 10 system has been set up um is on the understanding that those um

02:59:14 understanding that those um core participants would have access to the relevant bundle and be able to feed

02:59:27 the relevant bundle and be able to feed into the process sufficiently in advance and it is precisely the absence of that which which makes the system unfair as it currently is because those who um those court participants who want to feed in questions that go to the themes that you will be determining

02:59:39 that you will be determining aren't able to do so because the very first time that they see the evidence is as it appears on the screen and and that's that's why that's why i limited this application to the remaining witnesses in this tranche because i

02:59:56 witnesses in this tranche because i fully appreciate if the entire system is going to be reevaluated based on the experience of this this phase then it may be that

03:00:08 it may be that the method for questioning will fit in with that as a piece but if

03:00:12 if course participants are to be limited only to feeding into the advanced process

03:00:16 process then in fact effectively we have both hands tied behind our back because neither can we ask questions um of the witness as they're giving evidence but neither can those called participants

03:00:28 neither can those called participants that i represent feed in advance because they haven't had sight of the bundle um

03:00:29 um so that's that's the point i really wanted to to draw to your attention thank you

03:00:34 thank you may i now will you raise one final topic and this will be the last that uh we will deal with um before

03:00:42 before i uh

03:00:49 express my um decision at half past two um

03:00:52 um it's entirely separate before

03:00:53 before the

03:00:55 the openings

03:00:56 openings i was

03:00:58 i was asked by a number of non-state corps participants if proceedings could be live streamed to

03:01:09 proceedings could be live streamed to their homes and i indicated in the case of one

03:01:11 of one rosa

03:01:15 rosa that when we get to phase two that i would agree to that i did so on the basis of a long and detailed

03:01:24 detailed explanation of her both her history and her current and family circumstances which um as we all know are exceptional um

03:01:35 um quite rightly uh those who represent her agreed

03:01:53 those who represent her agreed that the uh cl and dl teams should see that the application um unredacted i then wish to explain to

03:01:56 to those who were contemplating making applications and also to the public at large why exceptionally i was willing to agree to her application for phase two

03:02:16 i was then asked not to make the detailed basis of her application public

03:02:19 public i understood that to be on the grounds that she wished to maintain

03:02:29 right to privacy which she has over her personal circumstances and to some extent the history which he would be

03:02:38 explaining i hope in evidence later i agreed to that i was therefore slightly surprised to find that when ms kaufman opened her

03:02:54 case for the non-state core participants including rosa

03:02:55 rosa that

03:03:00 that almost word for word the same detail was

03:03:04 was compellingly set out by her uh

03:03:11 as i had been provided with in her application um

03:03:12 um is there an explanation for that sequence of events

03:03:23 for that sequence of events well sir um i would have to take instructions i'm afraid i'm i'm not able to give an explanation it's the first that you've drawn this to my attention um so i would need to take

03:03:36 my attention um so i would need to take in instructions in relation to that but um if i'm able to do so before 2 30 i will

03:03:40 will i'd be grateful if you try and even if you can't do it by 2 30 if some explanation could be given to me and a time when you have been able to take instructions because whereas up to now i have um

03:03:59 accepted what i've been told about personal circumstances of that nature without hesitation i don't wish to be forced into the position where i have to treat such detail with skepticism

03:04:13 such detail with skepticism well so be it so but i i don't understand that there is any doubt about the truth of what rosa has said

03:04:19 said um

03:04:23 um as i understood it it was simply that um that

03:04:24 that she had not wished to have her personal details disclosed in the context of her application but then it was set out in her opening statement

03:04:36 it was set out in her opening statement yes i'm not talking about the underlying factual

03:04:37 factual assertions but the the

03:04:41 the application

03:04:46 that they should not be made public when i seek to explain the decision which i have made

03:04:58 have made i see so well all i can do is to repeat i will take instructions um as to the reason for that thank you

03:05:00 thank you then can we all be back at top pass two

03:05:09 thank you very much everyone we will now take a break and regime at half past two can you all please move to your breakout rooms thank you

03:05:34 you