Procedural Hearing - Reporting Restriction Order Applications

12 April 2024 · Chairman, Counsel to the Inquiry (CTI), Mr. Greenhall (representing applicants), Mr. Menon KC (representing an applicant), Ms. Kilroy KC (representing applicants), Ms. Heaven (non-state core participant group), Mr. Skelton KC (representing the Commissioner), Mr. Sanders KC (designated lawyers for officers), Mr. Whittam KC (former SDS members), BBC representative · 00:47:30
▶ Watch on YouTube Open in interactive viewer

A procedural hearing addressing applications for reporting restriction orders (RROs) during the Undercover Policing Inquiry. Legal teams representing various parties debate media access to hearing bundles, procedures for restricted reporting, and the rights of non-state core participants to attend closed hearings and make submissions.

Key moments

Full transcript

00:23:57 e e

00:24:57 forign

00:25:27 e for

00:26:04 m v good morning sir uh I appear today on behalf of the inquiry with Miss Gara uh Mr Menon King's Council appears

00:26:16 Gara uh Mr Menon King's Council appears on behalf of an applicant Mr Green Hall on behalf of um applicants uh Mr lenthal who we are anticipating is going to be joined by Miss Kilroy King's Council on behalf of

00:26:31 Miss Kilroy King's Council on behalf of applicants Miss Heaven on behalf of the non-state core participant group Mr Skelton King's Council uh with misss Manion on behalf of the commissioner Mr

00:26:42 Manion on behalf of the commissioner Mr Sanders King's Council on behalf of the

00:26:54 Sanders King's Council on behalf of the designated uh lawyers teams officers and Mr witam King's Council on behalf of those former members of the SDS represent presented by DAC Beach Crofts sir uh for this restricted reporting

00:27:09 sir uh for this restricted reporting order hearing uh you have two notes from Miss Gara and myself dated the 13th of March and the 10th of April you have the commissioner legal team's written submissions of the 2 of April and a

00:27:27 submissions of the 2 of April and a letter from the BBC dated the 3D of April

00:27:29 April those represented by the designated lawyers team DAC beachcroft and the home

00:27:41 lawyers team DAC beachcroft and the home office chose not to make any submissions in

00:27:46 in writing the applicants uh have submitted their

00:27:50 their applications but have not been given an opportunity to respond in writing uh rather the intention is that we start

00:28:02 rather the intention is that we start today with the open oral responses to uh the written submissions of the commissioner and the BBC in so far as they can be made without defeating uh the purpose of their

00:28:14 the purpose of their applications so you may also wish to hear from the state uh participants uh in response not only to anything said today by the non-state uh core

00:28:29 today by the non-state uh core participants but also in response to the media uh

00:28:32 media uh submissions so you'll be aware of the BBC submissions and I remind everyone

00:28:44 BBC submissions and I remind everyone that in TR one after phase one uh that media bodies approved by the inquiry were provided with the full

00:28:55 inquiry were provided with the full hearing bundle in advance subject to a restriction order uh the bodies which received uh the bundle in advance were the BBC ITN the guardian the telegraph

00:29:15 the BBC ITN the guardian the telegraph the Press Association The Daily Mail and times media and if we maintain that approach in trange two it would obviously uh be subject not only to a restriction order but also to any rep

00:29:28 restriction order but also to any rep reporting uh restriction orders that you make following today's hearing after the Open Session sir we plan to go into a series of private

00:29:42 plan to go into a series of private sessions hearing separately from each of the legal teams acting for applicants before returning for a concluding open session so unless there is anything

00:29:53 session so unless there is anything further I can assist you with at this stage uh I think it is uh time to hear from the non-state

00:30:07 from the non-state teams certainly thank you Mr Green are you going to go

00:30:17 first I I certainly can sir um I in relation to the general principles um I endorse what's been submitted by Council to the inquiry um in relation to the

00:30:33 to the inquiry um in relation to the application from the BBC um I on behalf of those clients I represent I would dispute that um the granting of any restriction order reporting restriction

00:30:44 restriction order reporting restriction order would amount to granting anonymity via the back door uh and that um in my submission any reporting restriction order can be implemented in such a way as to allow for the media to have access to the relevant material and to publish

00:31:01 to the relevant material and to publish an accurate um account of uh the inquiry uh without um providing details of that which would identify um core participants in ways which would breach any restrict reporting restriction order that that might be made but I have nothing further to say on on the general

00:31:21 nothing further to say on on the general principles um do you um accept or reject or wish to qualify the suggestion made by the BBC that the um identified uh

00:31:34 um identified uh traditional media Representatives who have received uh bundles in the past should do so uh at the start it will enable them I think more accurately to understand what is going on and to be able to report in due course uh more accurately about what has

00:31:51 course uh more accurately about what has occurred um up to now uh the inquiry has experienced no difficulty with compliance with orders that have been made yeah so we are neutral on on that matter you're neutral thank

00:32:05 you Mr Mel good morning sir we have no no submissions of a general nature to make at this stage in relation to the point that you just raised with Mr Greenhall

00:32:16 that you just raised with Mr Greenhall we uh too are neutral we we don't raise

00:32:31 we uh too are neutral we we don't raise any objection to the media having the TR to um bundle in advance subject course to any uh restricted reporting orders that you make as a result of today's hearing undoubtedly that is so um but my understanding of the application is that they wish to have uh the bundle at the

00:32:45 they wish to have uh the bundle at the start of the hearing so that those who are attending and Reporting upon them can understand what is going on uh but of course subject to uh restriction orders that will prevent them from

00:32:56 orders that will prevent them from publishing those parts of the bundle in respect of which restri restriction orders of one kind or another are made yes we have no um objection or observations in relation to the timing

00:33:12 observations in relation to the timing of the disclosure of that bundle to the media thank you very much indeed most helpful uh Mr lonol I

00:33:21 think Mr lonol it's it's actually I I've managed to arrive a bit earlier than expected oh I'm so sorry I do olizee I I saw you there and I I I um forgive me that is discourteous of me

00:33:39 um forgive me that is discourteous of me and I do apologize um please say your PE thank you well um since I wasn't expecting to be here for this bit of the session um I'm not going to say very much um but what I I just want to

00:33:51 much um but what I I just want to address that last Point yeah um of the bundle I I don't think we are in a position um to agree that at this stage and I would like to address you further

00:34:03 and I would like to address you further on uh the mechanics of of that issue of the bundle going to accredited journalists in advance in the restricted sessions that we'll be holding later certainly that is something I think to

00:34:20 certainly that is something I think to which we may return in the final public session after I've had the heard submissions in private I would be very grateful if that

00:34:31 were anything else other than that I mean I I I think that it's going to be better for me to address um uh points of principle arising in individual in in those private sessions and then to draw them together at the close if that's if if that's all right with you of course it

00:34:48 that's all right with you of course it is um you you you would adopt whatever course you consider best I'm content with that

00:34:50 with that yes so so subject to that I don't I don't propose to say anything further now right do any of the um State uh core participants who have

00:35:03 um State uh core participants who have not put in written submissions wish to say anything at this

00:35:10 stage in that event I think that concludes this Open Session and we will now go into a series of private sessions sorry sir just to interrupt you I do have some short points to raise um clearly they can be raised um now or

00:35:25 clearly they can be raised um now or they can be raised later on because they are they are just general points on behalf of the group so what whatever would suit you best sir um I think it's best if they're ventilated now so that when we're in private session we can um take them into account well so I have

00:35:39 take them into account well so I have nothing to add in relation to the query you raised with Mr Green greenall obviously we remain neutral and we haven't had the opportunity to take F instructions on media and and nothing to

00:35:53 instructions on media and and nothing to add to cti's principles and um the BBC's representations can I just say a few comments please in relation to cti's note at paragraph 16 um and this is really for the public record I think

00:36:04 really for the public record I think you'll and this is the note for uh this is the inquiry's first note the 13th of March

00:36:11 March 2024 where it's stated that disclosure was started in Earnest I think in March 2023 and I think it notes that it's almost complete as at the date of forgive me if interrupting you because

00:36:22 forgive me if interrupting you because for some reason the sound has been set up so that uh it is very mute and there is noise outside the window I didn't catch all that you said then and I with

00:36:35 catch all that you said then and I with a greatest of apologies could I ask you to repeat it fine I'll raise my voice and start shouting no it's just to respond to CTI something CTI has said in paragraph 16 of the note and it's the first note of the 13th of March

00:36:48 first note of the 13th of March 2024 and it it really is just to put on record obviously at that part of the note it says that disclosure was started in Earnest in March 2023 and is almost complete as at

00:36:59 2023 and is almost complete as at today's hearing and of course uh you'll know that the that certainly the non-state core participants have been raising concerns for some time about the speed of disclosure to them as compared to other CPS in particular the police

00:37:17 to other CPS in particular the police and I think certainly as at the 22nd of January 2024 many non-state CPS still had received no disclosure despite receiving Rule n requests with much remaining outstanding and I think it's fair to say certainly that we are as the

00:37:29 fair to say certainly that we are as the legal team for the group understand that several non-state CPS are still waiting for disclosure to respond to their Rule n request so I've just been asked to put that on the public record today just in response to that point of cti's

00:37:48 response to that point of cti's note now there's just four very short points um if I may develop them the first is this if restrict reported restriction orders are to be granted can the inquiry please set down a clear procedure

00:37:57 procedure of exactly what will happen prior to onward publication and commit to giving affected nonp police state cor

00:38:08 affected nonp police state cor participants the right to make written representations so for your note some procedure very briefly was set down in a letter from the inquiry on the 15th of January

00:38:23 January 2024 but that simply indicated that uh those affected may be able to make submissions so it's really just a plea for a clear procedure and a right to make written submissions um and and I'm sure that will include the media as

00:38:43 well now the the the second uh practical and procedural point is this so at paragraph 16 of their written submissions the Metropolitan Police make the point that core participants should not be feted in making submissions to the inquiry in opening and closing in

00:38:55 the inquiry in opening and closing in respect of any material subject to an rro so two points arise here sir first there is the Practical Point raised by

00:39:10 there is the Practical Point raised by the Metropolitan Police of having either a closed addendum or inquiry redaction prior to the opening and closing statements both of which we would agree are acceptable Solutions but there is a second point

00:39:24 Solutions but there is a second point and this relates to ensuring that closed hearings if there are to be anymore do not further limit the ability of non-state participants to address you on the totality of the evidence so of course the Metropolitan Police will have

00:39:37 course the Metropolitan Police will have a global perspective of all the material including those subject to any rro when they make their final submissions to you and this will obviously mean they can

00:39:48 and this will obviously mean they can analyze all of that evidence in totality now the Metropolitan Police are indicating today that they will oppose any attempt to exclude them from a hearing following the grant of an rro and I'm not making any submissions on

00:40:05 and I'm not making any submissions on that point at this stage but simply this if there are to be a series of further closed hearings for nonstate cor participants or hearings with restricted attendance where certain non-state cor participants are to be

00:40:16 participants are to be excluded can the cooperating groups

00:40:27 excluded can the cooperating groups solicitor and Council team please attend any of those hearings clearly that will be subject to consent from the effect non police state cor participant but this is to ensure that the wider State group is effectively in the same position as the met in being able to see all of the

00:40:39 able to see all of the evidence now this is likely to be necessary to ensure that any issues of wider relevance to the group so for example issues around tradecraft that might um come up during uh that

00:40:55 might um come up during uh that restricted and closed hearing um if that does come up clearly if the non-state cooperating group is present in those hearings that that can be identified

00:41:06 hearings that that can be identified connections can be made if necessary and that can then be addressed in our group submissions to you in closing and that would obviously be in a closed Annex if that was the appropriate procedure that was adopted by the

00:41:22 was adopted by the inquiry um May I interrupt your um flow there um you um as I understand it submit that there should be representation um by non-state core participants in hearings that are closed even where the closed hearings are held

00:41:44 even where the closed hearings are held for purposes of um protecting uh serious public interest requirements uh I I simply I'm afraid cannot accept that the this is an issue that has been canvased in uh correspondence before and a suggestion was made that something

00:41:55 a suggestion was made that something along the line of a special advocate

00:42:05 along the line of a special advocate could be um nominated but I'm afraid you have to depend upon Council the inquiry to represent wider interests at closed hearings so sorry just to be clear I obviously wasn't clear in my submission so I'm not rehearsing that argument of course in relation to the Restriction

00:42:16 course in relation to the Restriction orders this is a narrow point so this is if there are to be further closed hearings pursuant to the grant of an rro for a non-state call participant I do apologize I misunderstood I'm not seeking to reargue the the uh the issue

00:42:30 seeking to reargue the the uh the issue around attendance at closed here that we know happen so to the RO so this is any new ones for the benefit of a non-state core participant granted an rro clearly in that situation provided they consent

00:42:50 in that situation provided they consent we would simply ask as the coordinating group um to be permitted to attend any of those hearings if they are to be closed so we can pick up uh the crossover issues for the group so it was it was simply that limited submission

00:43:01 it was simply that limited submission sir give me that I I Now understand the point and I I had misunderstood and thank you for putting me right my mistake so so final point is this uh it's just to seek Clarity on something that's said in paragraph seven of uh Council of the inquiries notes that's

00:43:17 Council of the inquiries notes that's the first note that I've already quoted from and I'll just read it out to you it's the it's paragraph 27 and it's dealing with the inquiry bundle and it simply States this and this is the last sentence if orders restricting ATT

00:43:33 sentence if orders restricting ATT attendants at the open hearings are made such that affect other CPS for example those not involved in the events in question then the relevant parts of the hearing bundle would need to be withheld

00:43:44 hearing bundle would need to be withheld from them so it's it's simply a plea for a better explanation of what is meant there because we don't understand and our understanding was that there would be one hearing bundle subject to privacy redactions but certainly this sentence

00:43:58 redactions but certainly this sentence at paragraph 27 the last sentence would appear to suggest that there may be other versions of the hearing bundle uh that are going to be in circulation some of which have sections withheld so it's

00:44:13 of which have sections withheld so it's just really a plea for clarity obviously not immediately now sir but at a later date just so that we can understand actually what is being meant here in paragraph 27 thank you those are my

00:44:29 submissions does that conclude what you have to say in this opening session it does sir thank you those are my submissions for the opening session thank you very much indeed is there anybody else who wants to say anything in this Open session or shall we now go into the private sessions that I

00:44:40 into the private sessions that I anticipate will take a certain amount of time then we'll do that the Open session is

00:44:56 closed

00:47:25 e e

↩ All hearings