Lois Austin provides evidence regarding her 2005 civil claim against the Metropolitan Police following her detention in a police cordon (kettling) during May Day 2001. The session focuses on the revelation that an undercover officer, Carlos Saraki, secretly briefed the police legal team on Austin's character and vulnerabilities just before her cross-examination.
00:10:02 Good morning everybody. Uh today's proceedings are being livereamed with the usual 10-minute delay. Uh there is likely to be a private session when live
00:10:13 likely to be a private session when live streaming will cease. Uh those with mobile telephones may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 10 minutes have elapsed since the event that
00:10:24 have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. Yes. Yes.
00:10:32 Yes. Yes. Please stand. I do solemnly I do solemnly sincerely and truly sincerely and truly declare and affirm declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give
00:10:44 that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth shall be the truth the whole truth the whole truth and nothing but and nothing but the truth that yes
00:10:52 that yes thank you sir good morning Austin can you give your full name please yeah Lois Amelia Austin um you previously gave evidence to this inquiry um on 13th of November 2025 T3
00:11:07 inquiry um on 13th of November 2025 T3 phase 1 and you reduced your witness statement which was behind tab A1 UCPI 37774
00:11:18 and that was 78 pages. You'd signed and dated that at the end which was the 8th of April 2025. That was aduced as part of your evidence. And do you still stand by that
00:11:29 evidence. And do you still stand by that witness statement? Yes, I do. Um within that witness statement you addressed amongst other things the issue of the civil claim that you brought against the Met Police in 2005
00:11:42 against the Met Police in 2005 and that was in relation to your detention in the police cordon in Oxford Circus on Mayday 20 uh uh 2001. Yeah.
00:11:53 Yeah. um you didn't give oral evidence about that in phase one because the uh UCPI was still investigating the issues around that and what happened in the
00:12:04 around that and what happened in the litigation when you brought the civil claim in 2005. Is that right? Yeah, that's right. Um you've since had further disclosure
00:12:15 Um you've since had further disclosure and you'll give oral evidence about that this morning. Yes, that's right. and you've provided a second witness statement and that was something you produced uh yesterday. Um
00:12:27 something you produced uh yesterday. Um it hasn't been made public yet because it hasn't been through the processes um that it needs to but do you have a copy in front of you? Yeah.
00:12:36 Yeah. And that is um uh dated the 25th of February 2026. It consists of 11 pages. Do you recognize that as your w your second
00:12:47 recognize that as your w your second witness statement? Yes, I do. And you signed it on the last page, signed and dated it. And uh is that statement true to the
00:12:58 And uh is that statement true to the best of your knowledge and belief? Yes, it is. Okay.
00:13:00 Okay. So, may that be addressed as uh Miss Austin's second statement? Thank you. So, May Day 2001, um the 1st of May, uh that was the the
00:13:13 um the 1st of May, uh that was the the date of the event, and that's a regular occurrence, isn't it? an an annual event.
00:13:19 event. Yes, that's right. Yeah. And um it's right, isn't it, that you attend most Mayday parades or or protests?
00:13:27 protests? Yes. The trade unions um in London have a regional Mayday demonstration every year on Mayday. Yeah. And I attend. I'm a trade unionist. I'm a socialist. I
00:13:39 a trade unionist. I'm a socialist. I attend along with comradees, friends, family.
00:13:43 family. And on that 1st of May 2001, you were there with other members of the Socialist Party of which you're a member. And you were detained in a police cordon, something that's come to be known as kettling in Oxford Circus
00:13:56 be known as kettling in Oxford Circus for about 7 and a half hours from 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon to 9:30 at night. Yes, that's right. There were about 3,000 protesters. Is
00:14:07 There were about 3,000 protesters. Is that right? Yeah.
00:14:07 Yeah. They were tightly packed in, you say? Um there was no extra water um food, toilets provided at the time and and there was a a level of distress amongst
00:14:19 there was a a level of distress amongst uh people in the crowd. Yeah. So we arrived at Oxford Circus probably just before 2:00 p.m. At that point, um it wasn't obvious that a containment
00:14:31 um it wasn't obvious that a containment or a kettle was going to be put in place. There were lots of police around um lots of protesters, very peaceful carnival atmosphere, people with musical instruments. I was
00:14:44 people with musical instruments. I was outside Night Town, I think, giving out leaflets about child labor and the fact that Nike used child labor in the third world. And um but it wasn't long after that that the police started to surround
00:14:59 that that the police started to surround us. So they put the kettle in quite quickly after arriving in Oxford Circus. And I think it's right, isn't it, that there were about 6,000 police on duty that day policing the the protest.
00:15:10 that day policing the the protest. Yeah, I think so. I mean, I wouldn't have known that, but but only through the litigation afterwards when that became apparent how many police were present. Yeah. Um, you had a young baby daughter at that time and she was in the crash. you
00:15:21 that time and she was in the crash. you were due to pick her up at 4:40 p.m. and you you asked an officer if you could leave the cordon but were refused. Yeah, I asked several times. So, my daughter was she was born on May the
00:15:33 daughter was she was born on May the 9th, so she was just off her first birthday and she was still breastfed because she was uh allergic to dairy milk.
00:15:43 milk. So, I um uh I think you were you were there with your partner, weren't you in Holland? I was with my partner Holland. We asked several times to leave and I um spoke to
00:15:56 several times to leave and I um spoke to what looked like the most senior officers on the day and said um I've got a baby. I was planning to be here for a couple of hours and go home. I need to collect her from a nursery or
00:16:07 collect her from a nursery or but you refused to do that and I was refused and I was refused permission to leave several times. Okay.
00:16:13 Okay. Now um you didn't see any any instance of violence did you while you were in that cordon? No, I didn't. What I saw was uh people tired, frustrated, uh
00:16:26 was uh people tired, frustrated, uh people with um medical conditions like diabetes, you know, we had a couple of young women with us who were on their period who couldn't there were no toilet facilities, couldn't access the toilet.
00:16:37 facilities, couldn't access the toilet. One of the people that was there, we we understand, was Carlos Saraki, an undercover officer. You didn't know he was an undercover officer at the time. He was part of the the group.
00:16:49 the group. um
00:16:51 um associated with the socialist party group. Is that right? Yes. So um Carlo I think it's Sarrai. Everyone called him Saraki but I think it's Chi, isn't it? Anyway, uh Carlo was
00:17:03 it's Chi, isn't it? Anyway, uh Carlo was uh uh yeah I now we now know that Carlo was an undercover officer um who had uh was infiltrated and was spying on the Socialist Party. and he says that he was
00:17:16 Socialist Party. and he says that he was at Oxford Circus on that day. My husband remembers him being there. I don't specifically remember him being there, but my husband remembers him being there
00:17:27 but my husband remembers him being there and he says that he was there as were you a part of a group altogether? How many people were there from the socialist party? Yes. So I think between around 20 maybe
00:17:38 Yes. So I think between around 20 maybe maybe 25 or 30 of us. We were a group. We had our own paper leaflets. Um, we had gone there to sell newspapers, give out leaflets, talk to people.
00:17:50 out leaflets, talk to people. Were there any placards? I'm not sure if we didn't have placards. I don't think um because it wasn't our demonstration as such. We were going along to this big event that had been
00:18:01 along to this big event that had been organized by others. Um, I don't think we had placards. They may there may have been plards from other organizations. I can't remember. Okay. Um following that event, you and
00:18:13 Okay. Um following that event, you and Jeffrey Saxby who wasn't a part of the protest brought a claim against the Met police on the basis that you were your detention in the cordon was unlawful. So essentially it was a false imprisonment
00:18:24 essentially it was a false imprisonment claim. Yeah. Against the police um and that included a claim for compensation for the damage that it caused you uh including inconvenience. Um, and there were
00:18:35 inconvenience. Um, and there were several other or quite a number about 150 other claimants waiting in the wings to see how your claim went. Is that right?
00:18:43 right? Uh, yeah, that's right. Yeah. Um, you were represented at court um initially by your solister Louise Christian. Is that right?
00:18:55 Christian. Is that right? And your barristers were Kia Starmer and Philip Calfman. That's right. Yeah. And the barristers for the uh Met Police were uh John Begs uh now KC King's Council, George Thomas,
00:19:08 uh now KC King's Council, George Thomas, now Kings Council, and Amy Street. Yeah.
00:19:11 Yeah. And their solicitor is somebody that the inquiry knows as lawyer one. Yeah, that's right. um you address uh uh
00:19:24 uh uh this issue and the the the litigation largely paragraph 8 of your initial witness statement. Yeah.
00:19:32 Yeah. Um, and it's right, isn't it, that you came to be aware that as part of the preparation for trial in 2005, so almost four years post the Mayday event itself,
00:19:47 four years post the Mayday event itself, that HM104, Carlos Saraki, the undercover officer, was deployed by special branch to brief the police bar defending the police in that claim. Is
00:19:59 defending the police in that claim. Is that right? That's right. Yeah. And he briefed the police uh uh legal uh council in 2005 at a time when he was still deployed in the
00:20:10 a time when he was still deployed in the field through the SDS. Is that right? Yeah.
00:20:15 Yeah. And at the time he was reporting on groups with links to the S the socialist party. So no platform and Antifa. Is that right? Uh well I I he says that that's what he
00:20:29 Uh well I I he says that that's what he was doing. I knew him and remember him as somebody that was quite enscconced in the Socialist Party. Um, and that he would um I mean he I knew him knew of
00:20:43 would um I mean he I knew him knew of him. I my very close friend and her partner knew him better than I did. Um he would uh turn up sort of semi-regularly at the International
00:20:55 semi-regularly at the International Socialist Party office and talk to my partner quite a lot. So what he was doing in terms of other organizations I don't really or organizations affiliated or close or to the socialist party I
00:21:06 or close or to the socialist party I don't really know but I just knew him at the time as being someone who was in the socialist party and I just thought he was an ordinary member of the socialist party. Um now you know nothing of this
00:21:17 party. Um now you know nothing of this meeting that took place between Carlos Saraki and um as it as it turns out it was Mr. begs um who was council that met him um to be briefed and it appears that
00:21:30 him um to be briefed and it appears that that briefing took place on the first day of trial in the evening so the 17th of January 2005. Do you accept that? Yeah, I accept well I've seen the I've
00:21:42 Yeah, I accept well I've seen the I've seen the evidence. Um, and it's very very distressing and upsetting to hear that an undercover officer meets with um the lead barrista that's about to
00:21:54 the lead barrista that's about to cross-examine me the day the night before I'm about to give evidence and I think um uh uh does Mr. Beg say that um
00:22:05 think um uh uh does Mr. Beg say that um or or Carlos says he was asked to give information on what would wind me up? So we'll come to that in a moment. You were due to give evidence then on the 18th and was it also the 19th of Jan?
00:22:17 18th and was it also the 19th of Jan? I gave evidence for two days. Yeah. Um
00:22:23 when did you come to learn about that secret meeting? Um I'm just probably I think um around the time of the last set of hearings was
00:22:35 the time of the last set of hearings was it when I when we um we we'd got that we'd got that piece of disclosure. I can't remember exactly. So, it's through disclosure given to you as part of this inquiry. It's through disclosure as part of this
00:22:46 It's through disclosure as part of this inquiry. I didn't know about it before, obviously. Okay. Now, obviously, you're limited on what you can say about that meeting. You weren't there. Um, but just looking at
00:22:57 weren't there. Um, but just looking at the accounts provided by Carlos Saraki first about that. He was asked by Opern investigators about it on the 12th of August 2013.
00:23:09 August 2013. And we have two handwritten notes by the officers that were interviewing him that day. The first is behind tab 54 MPS 072
00:23:21 day. The first is behind tab 54 MPS 072 6931
00:23:23 6931 page five.
00:23:29 And we can see about halfway down the page there's a subheading legally privileged material and it says kettling Oxford C uh Oxford
00:23:40 and it says kettling Oxford C uh Oxford service I think that says but it should be circus. Yeah.
00:23:44 Yeah. Lois Austin Carlo was asked to brief the barristister for the MPS on the character of Lois. brief description given of Lois and what
00:23:56 brief description given of Lois and what would wind her up because of the type of person she was. And then the second officer also made a handwritten note of the interview which is behind tab B60
00:24:09 is behind tab B60 MPS 073
00:24:12 MPS 073 8088
00:24:15 8088 page 35.
00:24:22 So we see here bottom third of the page access to legally privileged material the note reads kettled at Oxford Circus Mayday Lois Austin sued the MPS going to
00:24:35 Mayday Lois Austin sued the MPS going to civil court whilst I was still out. So back office asked to meet and brief QC's number two. Now in terms of that we understand that um Lord Panic was
00:24:48 understand that um Lord Panic was involved in the case at an early stage in an informal capacity but later on was the lead council as it went on appeal up to the court of appeal and and ultimately to the European Court of
00:25:00 ultimately to the European Court of Human Rights. Yeah.
00:25:02 Yeah. Um
00:25:03 Um but it is accepted that QC's number two is actually uh Mr. begs who was leading the the legal team um at at the stage
00:25:14 the the legal team um at at the stage that it was at in the high court. Yeah.
00:25:18 Yeah. So as a brief in relation to her character and I know she was a South London girl who could easily get wound up and in speech marks anything about
00:25:30 up and in speech marks anything about Lois we should know.
00:25:34 Now, was there anything on that following day when you were cross-examined that you recall about being wound up in the witness box when
00:25:45 being wound up in the witness box when you when you I when I I'm older now and wiser. I was young at the time and I had two small children. Um, and I think um,
00:25:57 two small children. Um, and I think um, looking back, well, I felt it at the time actually, that the the cross-examination was very hostile. Um, it may not be evident from reading
00:26:09 Um, it may not be evident from reading the transcript, but um, it was hostile and the tone of Mr. Begs, I think, was was um, was not conducive to trying to
00:26:20 was um, was not conducive to trying to get to the truth and find out what happened. It was about trying to discredit me um as a as a witness. Um I think that the questions I was asked at
00:26:31 think that the questions I was asked at the start of when I gave evidence about um Irish people I was asked there were a lot of Irish people in the Socialist Party contingent, wasn't there? Um your
00:26:42 Party contingent, wasn't there? Um your partner's Irish. He was active in politics in in I think Belfast in the '9s. And I remember asking the question to Mr. Begs, are you allowed to ask questions about that? Is that not
00:26:55 questions about that? Is that not racist? What are you trying to say about Irish people? So that makes me think that maybe that was uh that's the information that Carlo had given Mr. Begs to say, uh, well, Lois is married
00:27:08 Begs to say, uh, well, Lois is married to an Irishman. She's got Irish friends. That may be something that's going to wind her on. Now, Mr. Begs addresses that in his witness statement and he says there's a forensic reason for that line of questioning and he sets the the reason
00:27:19 questioning and he sets the the reason out in his witness statement. Um, in general, what effect did the questions have on you in the witness box? Well, I I was it was upsetting and it
00:27:30 Well, I I was it was upsetting and it was also quite traumatizing because it was the type of cross-examination where you're asked one question quickly after another. you're not not like here where you can actually answer the question but
00:27:42 you can actually answer the question but continually interrupted and I think that that it it was and I could I I I saw I think it was George Thomas um in his evidence says I did on occasion have to
00:27:55 evidence says I did on occasion have to talk to Mr. Begs about the way he conducted himself in cross-examination. Um, so we know that he had a history of being aggressive and having a bad tone, but but I suppose that that's not the
00:28:08 but but I suppose that that's not the meat of it. The meat of it is that or the real issue here is that an undercover officer meets the night before I give evidence and supplies
00:28:19 before I give evidence and supplies information to uh council. That's not disclosed in court. Um, and also I don't know if that conduct is allowed. I need to be this inquiry needs
00:28:31 allowed. I need to be this inquiry needs to investigate whether whether an undercover officer is allowed to do that and not not not uh not disclose it in open court that he's met and given information on the claimment.
00:28:42 information on the claimment. Right. In fact, we we'll come to that in a moment. But if I can ask you um to have a look at um Carlos Saraki's actual witness statement to this inquiry, it's at UCPI 35550
00:28:57 at page 114 and it's paragraph 259. So Carlo was actually asked about that briefing on the evening of the 17th of
00:29:09 briefing on the evening of the 17th of January
00:29:11 January 2005 and he says that he told um perhaps if we can just uh decrease the uh the page and what I'll do I'll let
00:29:25 uh the page and what I'll do I'll let you have an opportunity to read the whole of uh paragraph 259. So it goes over the page as well. If we can have double page up on screen.
00:30:25 So I think this is a document that you've seen before, isn't it? And this is what um you understood. Well, this is what triggered your understanding that there had been a meeting.
00:30:34 meeting. Um and essentially he says that he was at Mayday 2001. he was assisting with stewarding and was amongst a large group of socialist party activists, probably
00:30:45 of socialist party activists, probably more than 20 um who were kettled at Oxford Circus and he remembers you were in that group. On page 115, he says he doesn't remember
00:30:56 On page 115, he says he doesn't remember any specific instance of violence occurring. Um and he recalls being asked by council for the Met about your activist activity and your character which he provided.
00:31:08 and your character which he provided. And essentially he said that you were an activist in the socialist party at the Waltham Stow brand. Is that accurate at the time? Yeah. Uh you were involved as a spotter on occasions. Is that
00:31:20 as a spotter on occasions. Is that accurate?
00:31:21 accurate? No, that's not accurate because I was too busy leading demonstrations and speaking and um liazing with the police and doing those sorts of things. So no,
00:31:32 and doing those sorts of things. So no, I don't know what he means by that. Um that you were an outgoing and feisty person. That's probably accurate. Not a violent person. But not a violent person. And I think I
00:31:44 But not a violent person. And I think I mean I think what what this shows is that actually when I was cross-examined, you asked me about the cross- examination. When I was cross-examined, then a lot of the cross-examination was
00:31:55 then a lot of the cross-examination was about violence, was about whether I was violent, um, and about violence generally. Um but actually uh Carlo knew that I wasn't a violent
00:32:07 uh Carlo knew that I wasn't a violent person and Carlo admits it here that Lois says it here that Lois was was not a violent person. So so he says he provided that information the night before. So so the Metropolitan
00:32:18 the night before. So so the Metropolitan Police because the SDS was part of the Metropolitan Police. It is, you know, it was managed by the Metropolitan by special branch special branch part Metropolitan Police and and managed by higherups in the Metropolitan Police who
00:32:30 higherups in the Metropolitan Police who all knew what was going on with the SDS. So if if if they've been told by one of their sources that I'm not a violent person, why was I cross-examined about uh so vigorously by Mr. Begs about
00:32:43 about uh so vigorously by Mr. Begs about violence and whether or not I was a violent person? But also, you see, uh, Carlo did, not only did Carlo know that I wasn't a violent person, he admits it here, but he also knew that I had a
00:32:56 here, but he also knew that I had a baby. Um, because he knew my partner quite well, he knew that I had a baby. He would have seen me when I was pregnant. Um, so, so when the police
00:33:08 pregnant. Um, so, so when the police say, well, and I think the judge says it would have been something that would have been easy to fabricate. Actually, the Metropolitan Police knew that I had a baby because Carlo Neri was spying on
00:33:21 a baby because Carlo Neri was spying on me.
00:33:22 me. He knew he'd seen me when I was pregnant and he knew and he knew on the he would have known on the day I had a baby. except that the officer that you went to to ask to be released wouldn't necessarily know uh your personal
00:33:34 necessarily know uh your personal circumstances. Well, he he wouldn't necessarily know, but but Carlo knew and I I I presume throughout the day he was talking to his handlers. I can't imagine that he was in
00:33:46 handlers. I can't imagine that he was in that kettle for seven and a half hours and at no point had spoken to his handlers. Um uh but also I suppose it I mean is it not a reasonable request to be asked to leave a a containment that
00:33:59 be asked to leave a a containment that the Metropolitan Police have put in place to collect your baby daughter? I mean the judgment talks about Can I just say this one one sentence? The judgment talks about it would have been something it would have been easy to fabricate but
00:34:10 it would have been easy to fabricate but it was also would have been easy to prove because my daughter did exist and she was in a nursery. Ultimately that made a a difference. outcome of the trial as to the legality of the cordon in the end. Did it
00:34:25 of the cordon in the end. Did it um well I think it would have um the the legality of whether or not you can hold absolutely everybody. Um I know a few
00:34:36 absolutely everybody. Um I know a few celebrities got out very early on like Billy Bragg was in there and he got out very early on but we're not going to go back and relitigate it. We're not going to look at the the reasoning of the
00:34:47 to look at the the reasoning of the judge here. But if I can concentrate on sorry really sorry to to shut you down on that. I don't want to talk over you. But um just in terms of what Carlos Saraki did tell um at the MPS council, he does
00:35:01 did tell um at the MPS council, he does say at the end of that page 115 that I don't think that I prepared any written documentation for this meeting. Um I think it was a verbal brief uh meeting. Um, now I'd like to go to the accounts
00:35:13 Um, now I'd like to go to the accounts of the MPS lawyers and what they recall about the meeting with Carly Saraki. So the first is the witness statement, the first witness statement of Mr. John Begs King's Council. It's um, UCPI 39326
00:35:31 and it's in supplementary bundle. It's A3.
00:35:39 If we go to page uh two please
00:35:46 and paragraph five he says as as it happens I do remember meeting with the UCO
00:35:53 UCO um
00:35:55 um I had been given some briefings in writing about what he could say about Lois Austin. Now it doesn't say where those briefings came from and it may not have been from uh uh uh uh Carlos Saraki
00:36:07 have been from uh uh uh uh Carlos Saraki directly. Um but I was skeptical about these briefings and in any event nervous about relying upon anything that I had not myself tested with the UCO directly.
00:36:18 not myself tested with the UCO directly. So we know that SDS um back office um create uh reports and documents and that sort of thing. Um so
00:36:30 so going on to page uh paragraph 10 please. Paragraph 10.
00:36:40 and he says, "I think the meeting came about because some of the written briefings from the UCO, not directly, but by his supervisors and um
00:36:51 and um uh we know at the time that his supervisors including included DI58 and DCI Dell
00:36:58 DCI Dell seemed to portray Lois Austin as some kind of wild radical, possibly involved in very serious matters." and I was asked whether I wanted to meet with the UCO and I said yes because as stated I
00:37:11 UCO and I said yes because as stated I was skeptical about the written briefings. So it appears that this is potentially why that meeting came about. Um what do you say about being described in SDS
00:37:24 you say about being described in SDS material as a wild radical possibly involved in very serious matters? Uh well it's not true. I'm a socialist. There's lots of people in this country
00:37:35 There's lots of people in this country that are socialists and want to change the type of society that we live in. There's members of parliament who are socialists. Um so um but but what what
00:37:47 socialists. Um so um but but what what concerns me about this is that um we know that Carlo has said that Lois isn't violent. I think Peter Francis has
00:37:58 isn't violent. I think Peter Francis has said that Lois isn't violent. And I haven't seen that. I've been described in any of the disclosure that I've had as a wild radical possibly involved in
00:38:09 as a wild radical possibly involved in very serious matters. So, and how does Begs know any of this about me? Um,
00:38:17 me? Um, in fact, what he does say in paragraph 11
00:38:25 final sentence is, I remember contrasting the hyperbole of the written briefings with the mundanity of his direct oral briefing to me. So, in effect, he concluded that the written
00:38:38 effect, he concluded that the written briefings were unfair and inaccurate. And we can see that at paragraph 20A of his witness statement
00:38:53 and and that in effect the the oral and the written uh uh briefings were of no use.
00:39:00 use. Yeah. You see, I think what Mr. Begs is trying to say is that well I met this undercover because I'd heard this stuff around Lois and I wanted to see if it was true but we already know from Carlo
00:39:11 was true but we already know from Carlo that he was asked to give information on stuff that would wind me up. Um and I think this is Mr. Begs trying to trying to cover his tracks. Um and
00:39:23 to trying to cover his tracks. Um and again we go we we come back to the question of is it lawful or is it miscond if it's not unlawful is it misconduct
00:39:35 not unlawful is it misconduct for a um for a barristister to meet an undercover informant or undercover or police officer the night before.
00:39:46 police officer the night before. Well I don't think that's anything we can comment on this morning. No, but does the inquiry can the inquiry can investigate those matters, can't they? Well, that's that's part of why we're taking the evidence today and that we'll
00:39:58 taking the evidence today and that we'll be asking the managers about that because obviously the the managers have have brought um uh HM104 Kylo Saraki into uh uh this arena of the this the
00:40:11 into uh uh this arena of the this the context of the civil litigation. Um, and h how do you feel about that that there's a the UCO is being used for briefing uh a legal team?
00:40:25 briefing uh a legal team? I think it's appalling and I think that if most people in our society knew that this was happening and that it hadn't been disclosed to the court or to the judge, well, the court and the judge,
00:40:36 judge, well, the court and the judge, then I think people would be very angry about that. Um, can we move on to um Mr. Begs his second witness statement. Um, this is at UCPI
00:40:47 witness statement. Um, this is at UCPI 39591
00:40:50 and this is behind tab SA4, page six, please
00:40:58 paragraph 15C.
00:41:06 Um he produced this witness statement after the further disclosure had been made to him as you have received further disclosure as well at the beginning of this year. Um and he says that the
00:41:17 this year. Um and he says that the further disclosure um gave some clarity as to why this meeting may have come about and that there was a notion uh amongst the MPS
00:41:29 there was a notion uh amongst the MPS camp that witnesses for for you and Jeffrey Saxby were going to perure themselves by denying membership of the Socialist Party. Um
00:41:40 Socialist Party. Um were you aware of the extent of uh membership amongst the witnesses that were providing evidence on your behalf? Uh yes I was. And
00:41:51 Uh yes I was. And and can you give us a general sense of how many of them were actually members of the socialist party? So um uh I think from the witnesses maybe one or two and there's a
00:42:04 maybe one or two and there's a difference between the claimants and the w so there the witnesses and then there were the claim the claimants or the potential claimants. I mean it'd be I think it's worth saying how what happened and how the sort of legal
00:42:17 what happened and how the sort of legal proceedings came about because when we were when we were kettled um uh those people inside the kettle started to organize and I started to say
00:42:29 started to organize and I started to say I'd spoken to Tony Benp to say Tony we're being kettled we think that this is unlawful um can you speak to the police on our behalf and to the media and he
00:42:41 behalf and to the media and he We also um spoke to lawyers and they said to me, "Collect as many names of people who are contained as possible for people who want we can try to pursue
00:42:52 people who want we can try to pursue some kind of legal action against the Metropolitan Police for unlawful detention." So me and others started to collect names of people that possibly wanted to be involved in legal
00:43:03 wanted to be involved in legal proceedings. when the following days after that I put out a general call to socialist party people to say anybody that was there on Mayday if you were in the kettle we're
00:43:15 Mayday if you were in the kettle we're going to meet with Luis Christian and we're going to talk about whether we can take legal action for unlawful detention and I think a couple of socialist party members myself and my partner Nile um we
00:43:28 members myself and my partner Nile um we came forward to be potential you know obviously we we were going to be potential claimments and I think one or two others in the socialist party. But getting this disclosure now enables me to understand what was
00:43:42 now enables me to understand what was happening under cross-examination because when I was cross-examined by Mr. Begs, he was asking me about lots of people that were also um uh coming
00:43:55 people that were also um uh coming forward as witnesses or claimments and asking me their names and seemed to suggest that I was lying when I said I don't know these people. I think there was a Janice and a
00:44:06 was a Janice and a we don't we don't need names. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because of privacy. But he was asking me names and I was um I said no I don't know these people but lots of people gave me email addresses and phone
00:44:19 people gave me email addresses and phone numbers on the day to say that they would like to be part of the legal action but also gave emails and phone numbers to Liberty and to other um law firms as well. So um
00:44:32 firms as well. So um so it's a mixed bag. mixed bag. So, so we understand there were about 150 uh provisional potential claimants in total.
00:44:42 total. Yeah, we were to be the test case. Okay. And um of those, can you give us a sense of how many were Socialist Party members?
00:44:50 members? I think um two and of your witnesses, um I don't know, three or four. Okay.
00:44:59 Okay. Three or four. Um Mr. Begs does go on to say in paragraph 17A of his second witness statement,
00:45:10 statement, but can I just say I mean as well that that again Carlo was work was was undercover. He was there on Mayday. He would have seen the emails and the
00:45:21 would have seen the emails and the messages going out to members to say you were there. Would you like to be a claimant or a witness? So uh and and Carlo was obvious he's a
00:45:32 So uh and and Carlo was obvious he's a me he was working for the Metropolitan Police. So the Metropolitan Police at the time would have known um cuz Carlo would have I presume told them uh how many SP witnesses how many
00:45:45 them uh how many SP witnesses how many SP claimments. So we haven't we haven't seen any evidence of that at all. what we but we have to presume that the M metropolitan police knew had that information because a member of the Metropolitan Police was
00:45:57 Metropolitan Police was infiltrating the Socialist Party at the time. Otherwise, if he's not feeding them back reliable information about legal action such as this, then what was the point of him?
00:46:09 the point of him? Now, we know that um Mr. beds here in paragraph 17A um
00:46:17 um says that um it may have been an option for uh them to put questions about socialist party membership to the relevant witnesses for the claimant.
00:46:29 relevant witnesses for the claimant. Um, and at that stage, what appeared to have been mooted was putting the membership issue to witnesses and then possibly obtaining evidence of possible perjury by later searching SP's premises
00:46:40 perjury by later searching SP's premises under warrant. Had you been asked prior to the trial in in the preparation for the trial about uh socialist party membership of your witnesses or other
00:46:51 membership of your witnesses or other claimments? Had you been asked about that?
00:46:53 that? No. No. I know in my witness statement I say I think paragraph one I say that I worked I'm employed by James Brow was
00:47:04 worked I'm employed by James Brow was receptionist which is true and James Brow is the official company of the Socialist Party printing press and then in the second paragraph point well or
00:47:15 in the second paragraph point well or point number two I say that I'm a member of the Socialist Party. I was absolutely clear about being a member of the Socialist Party, but I was never asked prior um
00:47:29 but I was never asked prior um how many claims, how many witnesses disguise the fact of that you had Socialist Party membership? No, not at all. Me? No, not at all. I mean, the world and his dog knows that I
00:47:40 mean, the world and his dog knows that I was a member of Socialist Party. I had I was in uh leadership bodies. I was I had a p, you know, I stood in elections. I was uh very public about my membership
00:47:51 was uh very public about my membership of the socialist party. Um George Thomas Casey in his witness statement uh which is at UCPI 39464
00:48:05 um A1 uh AS1 uh uh the supplementary bundle tab one uh paragraph 21 sorry page 21
00:48:18 paragraph 52 to 57 gives further the detail
00:48:24 detail about uh the concerns, the written briefings um and the intelligence that was uh obtained on you. And at paragraph
00:48:35 was uh obtained on you. And at paragraph 56,
00:48:37 56, can have that up please.
00:48:43 He says that um in emails between Mr. begs and lawyer one, the solicitor for the Met from the 5th of January to the 12th of January.
00:48:54 12th of January. Um Mr. Begs sets out in stark terms the seriousness of um the allegation that witnesses disclaiming any personal involvement with the Socialist Party were in fact
00:49:05 with the Socialist Party were in fact members of it.
00:49:12 And at paragraph 57,
00:49:25 the last two sentences of that paragraph says, "Because of the concern, this was not a case of the defendant seeking to take inappropriate advantage of
00:49:37 take inappropriate advantage of information learned from se a secret source about the other side's legitim litigation tactics. The information, if true, indicated serious wrongdoing and possible
00:49:49 serious wrongdoing and possible illegality, and if it was not true or could not be proved, it would lead nowhere. Yeah. And in fact, we know that it led nowhere.
00:49:57 nowhere. Yeah. Because it was untrue. Um, lawyer one in her witness statement, MPS 074960.
00:50:11 which is SA6 behind tab SA6 at page 12
00:50:22 addresses the same issue at paragraphs 29 to 33
00:50:27 29 to 33 and she she suggests that the purpose in meeting with Carlos Saraki was routine background checks on claimants and their witnesses.
00:50:38 witnesses. Yeah.
00:50:40 Yeah. In paragraph 33
00:50:47 over the page
00:51:01 she suggests that um in her experience it was standard practice for parties in civil proceedings to find out what they can about characters of witness. witnesses so that they knew who they were dealing with. And she refers to a
00:51:14 were dealing with. And she refers to a an email
00:51:18 an email that was sent by Mr. Begs following the meeting with Carlos Saraki that says he had some useful general information about the nature of the beast and that is to say the information that
00:51:30 and that is to say the information that he received from Carlos Saraki went to credibility.
00:51:36 um this suggestion that the the the type of investigations that can be done into people's backgrounds is something that
00:51:47 people's backgrounds is something that both sides can partake in and do background checks on the types of uh people who are coming to give evidence as witnesses. Um do you recall whether your legal team conduct conducted any
00:52:00 your legal team conduct conducted any significant background checks on the police witnesses in the trial? Um, no. I don't think I don't think they did. Um, would you accept it's fair comment that
00:52:11 would you accept it's fair comment that um such investigations were open to both parties to undertake if they chose to do so? Um, I think
00:52:23 well I think that if an if if a member of a legal team is meeting an undercover officer
00:52:29 officer um and as we can see from from lawyer 1's evidence that she says that one of the reasons for meeting the undercover
00:52:40 the reasons for meeting the undercover officer was to find out about the claimants and the witnesses because it looked as though people were trying to hide their socialist party membership. Um then then if if an undercover officer
00:52:52 Um then then if if an undercover officer is is giving that sort of information, does it not need to be disclosed? Um I I can't I I mean I need I'm going to come to the disclosure
00:53:03 I'm going to come to the disclosure point in a moment. But also one more thing to say about that is that but but but what I think this shows me is that um Carlo would have known
00:53:15 um Carlo would have known who amongst the witnesses and claimments were members of the socialist party and I'm presuming from what lawyer one is saying that it was Carlo that gave him information about the witnesses and the
00:53:27 information about the witnesses and the claimants. Um, but he would have known because he was a he was a member of this the he was in the Socialist Party. Um, and he was a he was working for the Metropolitan Police. So,
00:53:40 Metropolitan Police. So, um,
00:53:43 and what concerns me is that I was cross-examined about the witnesses and claimants. It wasn't it wasn't I don't think it was accepted at the point of
00:53:54 think it was accepted at the point of trial that I was was was was not lying about socialist party witnesses and claimants because I was cross-examined on it and I was asked specifically about
00:54:07 on it and I was asked specifically about names of individuals and whether or not they were socialist party members and whe and whether I knew them and at the time I can remember thinking why is he asking me about these people? Can I take you to paragraph 36 of the uh lawyer 1's
00:54:21 you to paragraph 36 of the uh lawyer 1's witness statement? Paragraph 36 C, please.
00:54:30 So in paragraph 36, she addresses that uh the fact that there were concerns that there may have been uh a a a conspiracy to pervert the course of
00:54:41 conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and that being that people were hiding their socialist party uh membership. Um but ultimately you see in the last two sentences it formed no part of the
00:54:54 two sentences it formed no part of the defense. Halfway down the paragraph, she says, "The NPS investigated this possibility, but did not ultimately consider it was made out." So,
00:55:05 So, you obviously say it couldn't have been made out because in fact, there weren't that many people who were members of the Socialist Party. And what difference would it have made anyway to you and how
00:55:19 would it have made anyway to you and how you approached the civil action? Um
00:55:25 Um I don't really understand what you mean. What do you mean if um many of the claimants were part of your uh group of 20 or so socialist party?
00:55:35 party? Yeah, we would have just members. We would have been up front about that. We would have said actually it's 20 socialist party uh members that want to that are claimants that are sitting with the 150. We would have had absolutely
00:55:47 the 150. We would have had absolutely nothing to hide. It wouldn't have been a problem for us. Um, would it have affected your legal strategy?
00:55:54 strategy? Um,
00:55:56 Um, no, not at all. We would have we would have just said instead of there being um two or one or two or three claimants that are members of the Socialist Party, there's actually 20. But we were there
00:56:08 there's actually 20. But we were there as is our democratic rights selling papers, giving out leaflets, making a point about third world debt and child labor. Um, and that's why we were there. We think we were unlawfully um detained. I don't think it would have
00:56:20 um detained. I don't think it would have made any difference at all. I think the point about all of this is that lawyer one says, well, in the end it couldn't be made out and we didn't pursue the issue of socialist party people
00:56:32 issue of socialist party people potentially perjuring themselves. But I was cross-examined um
00:56:38 um this
00:56:40 this on at trial. I was cross-examined and and asked about uh individuals um and whether or not I knew them. So, I don't think at the point of trial that
00:56:52 don't think at the point of trial that that that it's true that it was accepted that it couldn't be made out. I think Mr. Begs thought it was an important part of his cross-examination. I want to move on to contemporaneous
00:57:03 I want to move on to contemporaneous documents now. Um first one is the ripper authorization documents in relation to um Carlos Saraki. The first
00:57:14 relation to um Carlos Saraki. The first is behind tab 43 of the bundle MPS0526804
00:57:22 at page 39.
00:57:29 And these are part of the uh the forms that are required under the uh regulation of investigatory powers act 2000 um legislation. So the ripper
00:57:42 2000 um legislation. So the ripper authorizations at page 39 we can see that this is an update. So there's an authorization, there's a review and there's an update and these take uh place on a regular
00:57:54 and these take uh place on a regular basis.
00:57:57 basis. And we can see here that the officer in charge of this one in relation to Craggy Island which was uh Carlos Saraki's operational name the officer in charge is DCI Michael
00:58:09 the officer in charge is DCI Michael Dell
00:58:12 Dell and we can see that the grounds on which the authorization is sought is in box three B for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime or preventing
00:58:23 and detecting crime or preventing disorder. So this is the purpose for why Craggy Island is operational and why he's deployed into the area that he is at the time. Um
00:58:34 Um page 40 please.
00:58:39 We can see that the subjects of which for uh uh the subject of his deployment are no platform and Antifa
00:58:52 and with those organizations there was a crossover was there with the socialist party
00:58:57 party um
00:58:57 um between the people that operated in the different groups there wasn't a crossover with Antifa as far as I was aware um uh we've talked about no platform before and I gave
00:59:09 about no platform before and I gave evidence about that before and I think that no platform has taken on this sort of you know it's like an urban myth about this organization. I only ever
00:59:20 about this organization. I only ever remember it being a loose um collection of socialist party members who would um sometimes steward events and sometimes would not steward events.
00:59:32 and sometimes would not steward events. Um and I think so so um I think it's been given as a character
00:59:41 character um of being this very firm organization that didn't really exist at the time. Okay, moving on to page 41 please.
00:59:53 Okay, moving on to page 41 please. We can see in box five it relates to the intelligence case. And at bullet point eight
01:00:00 eight we can see that UCO craggy island provided a personal background briefing to MPS defense council in the Mayday 2001 civil action by members of the
01:00:11 2001 civil action by members of the socialist party.
01:00:15 Um
01:00:19 now the inquiry hasn't been able to find a particular intelligence report related to this actual meeting. Um we can see at the top just uh the second paragraph in
01:00:31 the top just uh the second paragraph in this box it says UCO Kraggy Island has produced 26 intelligence reports since the last update providing details of the following activities. Um there doesn't appear to be one in particular in
01:00:43 appear to be one in particular in relation to this um uh meeting. Um page 47
01:00:57 we can see under legal risks
01:01:02 that the deployment uh is subject to review on a daily basis at line manager level with consultation on a more senior level at least once a week and that he remains focused towards his intended
01:01:13 remains focused towards his intended subjects and at all remains necessary and proportionate and this is the legality. Yeah. of the um uh the deployment and the authorization for his operation. And we can see on page 48
01:01:28 that this is signed by DI HM53 on the 27th of May 2005. So a few months a after the trial. Yeah.
01:01:38 Yeah. Um on page 49 please. Customer squad comment. So this is where the information goes to.
01:01:49 the information goes to. Um, and we can see the last sentence of the entry in that box says that UCA Craggy Island's intelligence and assessment for MPS council in relation
01:02:01 assessment for MPS council in relation to the recent Mayday action was of significant value. And we can see that that comes from somebody redacted and and has the cipher TN 00024.
01:02:13 and has the cipher TN 00024. That's a DI that we understand is in C squad or CESK and it's dated the 27th of May 2005.
01:02:31 um in terms of the significant value of any intelligence and assessment provided by
01:02:39 by uh Carlos Saraki for the defense legal team. Um
01:02:46 team. Um you say for it to be any of any significant value it has to be more than what Carlos Saraki says he told Mr. Begs in his witness statement. So the fact that you were a so socialist party
01:02:58 that you were a so socialist party member, the fact that you weren't violent, the fact that you'd been a spotter, although inaccurate, wouldn't in and of itself been of significant value. What What do you say about that? And why do you flag this?
01:03:11 about that? And why do you flag this? Well, because we'd like to know what information you did give that was of significant value. Um, and why there why is there no written
01:03:22 and why there why is there no written record of the information that he that he did give other than to say well all we've got is what he's um what
01:03:35 well all we've got is what he's um what he what he said to Hearn the Hearn inquiry and um and then we've got Beg's comments on on the the meeting,
01:03:47 the the meeting, but if there was information of significant value, where is it and what was it?
01:03:52 was it? Can we go back to lawyer 1's witness statement, please? um MPS0749960
01:04:03 which is behind tab uh essay 6 in the supplementary bundle at page 21 paragraph 47.
01:04:14 She says in in reference to this uh ripper authorization document and the and she quotes that customer um entry there that customer comment.
01:04:28 entry there that customer comment. She says I don't know the basis for this but it does not reflect my understanding and appears exaggerated.
01:04:37 Um,
01:04:42 and she says at the bottom of that paragraph,
01:04:48 she doesn't think that much, if anything, in the case ultimately turned on the information provided by HN 104 because the case essentially was about the lawfulness of the cordon itself.
01:05:00 the lawfulness of the cordon itself. Um, we know from the witness statements of uh Mr. begs uh and uh uh George Thomas as well that they agree that this wasn't of
01:05:11 they agree that this wasn't of significant value. Whatever happened in the meeting between Mr. Begs um HM104 was not in their view of significant
01:05:22 was not in their view of significant value. Having seen the the further disclosure yourself and the witness statements now from the lawyers in the team for the MPS, do you agree with them that actually Um this is another example
01:05:36 that actually Um this is another example of an inaccurate or exa exaggerated assessment of SDS intelligence by special branch. Um
01:05:47 Um or do you believe that it must have been something significant for this? I do if I it is it is an it is an exaggeration by special branch to say it's significant value if is if this is all
01:05:58 significant value if is if this is all we've got
01:06:01 we've got um which is why we've asked the question and I think it needs to be put to Carlo when he gives evidence uh what do you mean significant value
01:06:12 uh what do you mean significant value when you met Mr. eggs the night before Lois was going to give her evidence. What else did you tell him? What did you say to him? Um
01:06:23 because at the moment it doesn't look like it's of significant value. Um but what I would say and I I know I'm repeating myself is that
01:06:35 repeating myself is that what we do know is that Carlo would have known who the Socialist Party witnesses and claimants were. Carlo would have known that I had a baby. He may have
01:06:46 known that I had a baby. He may have even known that I was breastfeeding because I would have said to socialist party people around me, "I've really got to collect my daughter because I'm feeding her and she needs to be fed at 5:00 p.m." Um
01:06:57 5:00 p.m." Um uh and he also knew that I wasn't violent, that Socialist Party members were not violent, and he also from where we was in the in the kettle that we saw
01:07:09 we was in the in the kettle that we saw no violence. So there is really important information there about the containment that Carlo knew.
01:07:19 knew. But
01:07:21 But um
01:07:21 um I think you you said but that doesn't but that but that didn't and the Metropolitan Police knew all of that because we know as I said Carlo was working for the Metropolitan Police. So, why was I cross-examined in
01:07:32 Police. So, why was I cross-examined in the way that I was about things that Carlo already knew the answers to or knew were untrue? So, you you're you set that out at
01:07:44 So, you you're you set that out at paragraph 8.28 of your witness your first witness statement. And um more generally, you say, "Well, if the police had access to a source who was there,
01:07:55 had access to a source who was there, why couldn't that have been disclosed? because it would have aided your case, you say, in terms of what you could have seen in the crowd in terms of any
01:08:06 seen in the crowd in terms of any violence that was occurring. And Carlo would have been a would have been a very good claimment because he would have said, "I saw no violence." Um, and people were bored and fed up and frustrated and people wanted
01:08:18 fed up and frustrated and people wanted to go home. I mean, at trial, I was cross-examined for hours about violence on Mayday. I was shown footage
01:08:29 violence on Mayday. I was shown footage um video footage of J18 and of Mayday 2000 and cross-examined on it even though I wasn't at those events. And we now know that the violence at
01:08:42 And we now know that the violence at those events was set up by Jim Boiling and Jason Bishop, undercover police officers who were able to bring lorries with scaffolding and breeze blocks into central London. Um, so the so the
01:08:55 central London. Um, so the so the Metropolitan Police obviously knew they were undercover, let them in, and then they effectively behaved as agent provocators. We also know, for example, I was I was cross-examined about the
01:09:06 I was I was cross-examined about the gorilla gardening on uh Mayday 2000 and the carrots being planted in Parliament Square and then the piece of turf being put on Winston Churchill's head. I was cross-examined about that and wasn't it
01:09:17 cross-examined about that and wasn't it oh so terrible and terrible, terrible violence? How could have it erupted? Um, and surely Miss Austin, you must have understood that if you weren't contained in that way, the same thing was going to happen on Mayday 2001. But what we now,
01:09:30 happen on Mayday 2001. But what we now, this inquiry now knows, and thank God we've got this inquiry, that it was Jason Bishop that brought the lorry of manure to Parliament Square and dumped it in Parliament Square. So he, so if
01:09:42 it in Parliament Square. So he, so if there was a crime, it was set up by an undercover police officer. So, I feel very upset that I was a young mom, two small children, cross-examined for two
01:09:54 small children, cross-examined for two days in the most hostile fashion about events that we now know were set up and orchestrated by undercover police officers and used as an excuse to
01:10:06 officers and used as an excuse to contain me for seven, seven and a half, eight hours in Oxford Circus. No access to the toilet. I was lactating at the time, so I was actually in physical pain. I needed to feed my daughter. Um,
01:10:19 pain. I needed to feed my daughter. Um, and then I was told that that was something easy to fabricate um by the the judge in in the judge's findings and that it and that also that it was implausible and that I was not credible
01:10:31 implausible and that I was not credible when I said that there was no violence or I saw no violence when actually a member of the Metropolitan Police, Carlo Sarra, who was with me in the containment also said that he saw no
01:10:42 containment also said that he saw no violence but that was never disclosed to the court. So you're saying that actually there was a a source of information there that was accessible that could have been used actually to
01:10:53 that could have been used actually to support your account of events on Mayday 2001.
01:10:56 2001. Absolutely. And and and I know that that that that you said we're not talking about the the the the bigger issue about as to whether the containment was lawful or not, but surely knowing what we now
01:11:09 or not, but surely knowing what we now know about undercover police officers setting up J18 and uh the events of Mayday 2000, surely we do have to ask the question,
01:11:20 surely we do have to ask the question, was the containment lawful? because if Jim Boland and Jason Bishop hadn't done what they had done um then that was given at the trial as the justification
01:11:34 given at the trial as the justification for the for the seven 8hour kettle in Oxford Circus on two Mayday 2001 based on that prior based on that prior information which we
01:11:45 based on that prior information which we now know was set up by undercover police officers behaving as agent provocators in terms of the uh legality of the cordon. Obviously, your credibility doesn't go to that so much, but what
01:11:57 doesn't go to that so much, but what about to to damages? Um, we know that the judge, even if he had found in your favor, would have only awarded5 nominal damage. Um, do you say in fact
01:12:10 do you say in fact the evidence that you were able to provide might have been different or the judge might have taken a different view of you had he been aware of that other intelligence or that other uh information that Carlos Saraki could
01:12:22 information that Carlos Saraki could have provided? Absolutely. I think if he'd known that a member of the Metropolitan Police was saying Lois Austin isn't violent, Lois Austin has a baby. She really needs to collect that baby at 5:00. Lois Austin
01:12:33 collect that baby at 5:00. Lois Austin is breastfeeding. Um, actually there are only a couple of claimants and witnesses that are socialist party members. It's not true that the socialist parties trying to pure uh pure purge them you know is I'll commit in perjury then I
01:12:46 know is I'll commit in perjury then I think it would have changed things and also Carlo's assessment of the crowd generally where he said he saw no violence. Now there may have been some scuffles when the police and uh tightened the cordon and I
01:13:01 police and uh tightened the cordon and I think um Mitchell says this in his statement that a certain point they tighten the cordon and the sort of uh um normal uniformed police officers step
01:13:13 normal uniformed police officers step back and then rows and rows of right police move in and they tighten and tighten the cordon. And I can remember saying to the police near me at the time, "Why are you tightening the cordon? Why are you doing
01:13:24 tightening the cordon? Why are you doing that? That is dangerous. Are you attempting to create a crush? Because people are getting frightened. You are creating a crush. As it is, we're already quite tightly packed into Oxford
01:13:35 already quite tightly packed into Oxford Circus. Um and and Carlo would have been able to say, "Actually, yeah, I saw the police tighten a cordon tighten the cordon and it was a dangerous silly
01:13:46 cordon and it was a dangerous silly thing to do. Why did they do it?" and and your fear um in relation to that and the distress that you felt was in part related to the fact that you had been at Ear's Court um back in 2004, January
01:13:58 Ear's Court um back in 2004, January 2004. And you addressed that in your second witness statement. Yeah. And when I was cross-examined court was sort of skated over and it was, well, Lois Austin is a seasoned activist. How could she possibly have
01:14:10 activist. How could she possibly have been scared? She says she was scared and frightened. Um uh and I was scared and frightened. I was frightened when they tightened the cordon. I was upset when they wouldn't let me leave to collect my daughter. And I got really scared when
01:14:23 daughter. And I got really scared when it got dark and we were getting hardly or no announcements from the police about what was going on. And um and the police knew. So when I was being cross-examined at the trial, they knew
01:14:35 cross-examined at the trial, they knew that I had been brutally beaten at court. And we've heard about this at this inquiry and other witnesses here uh other uh court participants who saw me
01:14:47 other uh court participants who saw me get badly beaten at court know that that was the case. So I was frightened and I needed to leave and I was not allowed to leave. And it's it again in the cold light of day when you think about what
01:14:58 light of day when you think about what happened it's absolutely appalling. I'd like to move on now to a further authorization uh uh document which is behind tab B43.
01:15:10 uh uh document which is behind tab B43. It's going back to the the uh composite authorization docket MPS 052 6804
01:15:20 6804 page 41.
01:15:30 Sorry, it's P uh page 54 now, please. So, we're now going to a review. That was the update. This is now a review again for the purpose of preventing and
01:15:42 again for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime and preventing disorder. We can see on page 56
01:15:50 bullet point five that the UCO craggy island has been in a position to provide background information uh background briefing to both Metropolitan Police Legal Advisers
01:16:03 both Metropolitan Police Legal Advisers and SO2 senior management. So that's special branch in the current Mayday 2001 civil case. So, we're in 2005
01:16:14 So, we're in 2005 where individual activists with support from the SP organization are suing the police.
01:16:22 police. Um, it was a concern that you raised. Um sorry just to finish off this this document we can see at page 63 that this is again signed by DI HM53 on
01:16:35 that this is again signed by DI HM53 on 1st of March 2005 and signed by DCI DCI Dell on the 2nd of March 2005.
01:16:48 Um, and your concern was that senior management within SO2 um was Alan Mitchell, DCI Alan Mitchell at the time, who was a witness in your
01:16:59 at the time, who was a witness in your trial.
01:17:00 trial. Yeah.
01:17:01 Yeah. Um, we know from uh John Begs KC's witness statement that uh Alan Mitchell was not at the briefing that he had with
01:17:13 was not at the briefing that he had with Carlos Saraki. He says that he does recall two senior officers, perhaps a DI and a DCI, but neither of whom were witnesses. And in Alan Mitchell's own witness
01:17:25 And in Alan Mitchell's own witness statement, he says he has no recollection of the the briefing. So, do you accept that it was probably not Alan Mitchell who was briefed by Carlos Sarak the night before you were giving your
01:17:37 the night before you were giving your evidence?
01:17:39 evidence? Uh, well, I I don't know. I don't necessarily accept it. How do we know? Um, I I I think doesn't um Isn't there another witness statement where I've
01:17:51 another witness statement where I've read a lot of stuff? I haven't read everything because I've got a full-time job, but I have read a lot of stuff. And I'm sure that one of them is it maybe George Thomas or lawyer one says that they think that they're not sure who
01:18:03 they think that they're not sure who attended, but was it but it may have been um
01:18:08 been um I think lawyer one says that there was a phone call between Mr. Begs and Alan Mitchell on the evening. half uh when when they were looking to attend and it it it
01:18:20 it it seems that special branch certainly arranged for the meeting and the SDS back office on Carlos Saraki's evidence arranged for Carlos Saraki to go and meet the lead the the lawyer.
01:18:33 meet the lead the the lawyer. Um,
01:18:36 Um, can I move please to B uh tab B-53 MPS 00071194
01:18:44 page three.
01:18:53 This is a chronological list of deployments of Carlos Raki from January 2000 to December 2006. So this is a an SDS management document
01:19:06 So this is a an SDS management document and we can see on the penultimate paragraph on this page there's reference to May 2001.
01:19:14 I'll let you read that.
01:19:35 So it seems Carlos Saraki was able to give some intelligence in 2001 about the disturbances that took place outside of the cordon in Oxford Circus
01:19:46 outside of the cordon in Oxford Circus along um Oxford Street and behind some of the shops there. So we know that at least according to this um uh summary he was providing some
01:19:58 this um uh summary he was providing some intelligence on the day. Yeah. How does he know if he was in the cordon what was going on around um John Lewis and Selfridges?
01:20:09 around um John Lewis and Selfridges? Um well I don't know how this came about this is as much as we know because there's no actual intelligence report um that we've seen in relation to that.
01:20:21 Yeah. Well, I don't know anything about I know what h I all I know is what happened to me on the day that I was at Coups. I was at the World Bank. I went up Oxford. I went up Regent Street to Oxford Circus and then I was kettled for
01:20:34 Oxford Circus and then I was kettled for seven, eight hours. Um were you asked about any of this disturbance on Oxford Street at trial? Um I think I can't I can't remember. I
01:20:45 Um I think I can't I can't remember. I think I may have been asked about disturbances around the cordon. I can't remember. I can't remember. Um going to the contemporaneous uh
01:20:57 Um going to the contemporaneous uh intelligence report that we have from Carlos Saraki. It's at um it's actually in his bundle. Um it's MPS 00005795.
01:21:18 And this is a document you've seen before, isn't it?
01:21:23 So, this is a an intelligence report from uh Craggy Island, Carlos Saraki, um dated the 30th of April, 2001. So, on the eve of Mayday, and he provides a
01:21:35 the eve of Mayday, and he provides a brief outline as to what he expects is going to happen in terms of the schedule of the of the day.
01:21:44 And then the comment there, um, MP activists see their role as providing protection and guidance for other fluffy demonstrators. However, should the opportunity present itself for an attack on property or the police, then they
01:21:55 on property or the police, then they will take part. Yeah.
01:21:57 Yeah. Um, now
01:21:59 Um, now do you want me to comment? Well, well, you you can um essentially it's not the socialist party members, is it?
01:22:09 it? Well, I think I think the the stuff in there about no platform is a wild exaggeration. And I and we've seen this, haven't we, several times at this inquiry where the SDS are trying to um
01:22:23 inquiry where the SDS are trying to um you know uh what's the word? Um justify their existence by talking about no platform in this role and and all of that. And I would have been somebody at the Socialist Party who would have
01:22:35 the Socialist Party who would have organized a group of Socialist Party people with leaflets of material to go to the Mayday uh protests and to intervene, talk to people. And I had
01:22:46 intervene, talk to people. And I had absolutely no knowledge at all of anything to do with no platform um being there, coming along or or being involved in any way. Um, so I think it's I think
01:22:59 in any way. Um, so I think it's I think it's a it's a wild exaggeration and I I don't know if he was having discussions with other individuals that were sort of in and out of of no platform, but I don't I didn't know anything about it at
01:23:10 don't I didn't know anything about it at all and it didn't feature as part of Socialist Party planning. Um, but the the fact that we're described as fluffy demonstrators, I I think he refers somewhere else as well to SP being the
01:23:22 somewhere else as well to SP being the sort of main core of SP people being fluffy demonstrators proves again that we weren't violent, which means there was no reason to cut and and to containers for so long. But also that
01:23:33 containers for so long. But also that sentence I however should the opportunity present itself for attack on property or the police and they will take part. Um, who's he talking about? What the fluffy demonstrators will take part? I mean it's in in that I mean it's
01:23:45 part? I mean it's in in that I mean it's absolute rubbish and nonsense. Our what we were doing on that day was about politics. It was a political intervention. It was about it was also about symbolic protests and this is
01:23:57 about symbolic protests and this is something that we get. Can I just ask you because we're going to be running fairly short on time in a moment, but obviously this do you accept this would have formed part of the pre-event intelligence that would have formed the
01:24:09 intelligence that would have formed the the wealth of material that would have gone to the public and it's not reliable pre-event intelligence. It's not reliable. It's a it's a wild exaggeration. It's not true.
01:24:21 it's a wild exaggeration. It's not true. And there was no intention on behalf of socialist party people or anybody else to start attacking property or the police because the Mayday monopoly, the big anti- capitalist protest on that day
01:24:33 big anti- capitalist protest on that day was a big symbolic protest about world third world debt, child labor, low pay, exploitation. That's what it was about. So it's not reliable. No, it's not pre
01:24:45 So it's not reliable. No, it's not pre it's not reliable pre-event intelligence. And in in terms of that pre-event intelligence, um uh George Thomas King's Council in his witness
01:24:56 Thomas King's Council in his witness statement, I don't need to bring it up. Um it's uh for reference, it's page 10, paragraphs 25 and 26. He makes the point
01:25:07 paragraphs 25 and 26. He makes the point that all of this pre-event intelligence was for was uh inputed reference to it was inputed onto the standard disclosure lists as part of the preparation for the
01:25:19 lists as part of the preparation for the civil trial. Yeah.
01:25:20 Yeah. In 2005
01:25:22 In 2005 and uh uh PII would have been asserted over this that the intelligence material pre-event. Um he sets out that the stand standard
01:25:34 Um he sets out that the stand standard disclosure list um would have noted sensitive material regarding police intelligence, tactics, sources of information and operational
01:25:45 sources of information and operational techniques which would have included this sort of thing. So whilst there was no
01:25:51 no reference explicitly to undercover officers that would have been included within sources of information. Yeah. Um so and and then moving on he
01:26:03 Yeah. Um so and and then moving on he says at paragraph 32.1 to 32.3 he says that in the witness statement of Alan Mitchell
01:26:14 Alan Mitchell um dated the 8th of April 2004 he says that um reference is actually made to UCA's undercover officers
01:26:25 made to UCA's undercover officers in terms that Alan Mitchell will have received information from undercover officers.
01:26:30 officers. Yeah,
01:26:31 Yeah, it was also included to a a reference to undercover officers in the opening statement of the MPS and ultimately references
01:26:43 of the MPS and ultimately references made to undercover officers within the judgment itself. Yeah.
01:26:47 Yeah. At paragraph 198 to 2000 uh to 205. Um,
01:26:55 Um, what do you understand the reference to UCOs's meant? You will have seen that and you would have read that in the judgment that there were undercover officers providing
01:27:06 undercover officers providing information pre-event and on the day. Yeah.
01:27:08 Yeah. Um, what what did you understand that at the time? Yes. At the time. Yeah. At the time of trial. Well, I would have thought uh you know, police that were um
01:27:22 that were um uh maybe turning up to the odd meeting in the run-up to the the protest, you know, if the organizers had had a demonstration, a meeting somewhere to plan what they was going to do or um
01:27:36 plan what they was going to do or um maybe um you know, phone tapping, I don't know, stuff like that. What I would what I certainly did not consider or think was at all possible in what is
01:27:47 or think was at all possible in what is supposed to be a democratic society that undercover officers were deep infiltrators that someone like Carlo was had actually joined the socialist party
01:28:01 had actually joined the socialist party was having um deceiving women either who were members or on the sort of fringes or friends of members of the Socialist Party into
01:28:12 members of the Socialist Party into intimate sexual relationships and that they kept the sort of information on us that they did or also that they took leadership positions in the organizations that they infiltrated.
01:28:24 organizations that they infiltrated. That would never have entered your mind. That would never have entered my mind. It didn't enter my mind for example that Jim Boland and Jason Bishop, for example, were organizers and treasurers for Reclaim the Streets. I went to several Reclaim the Streets meetings.
01:28:35 several Reclaim the Streets meetings. Can I just ask you? Um, lawyer one in this case, the solicitor in the in the case notes at paragraph 41 of her witness statement that we've been referred to before, um, that when she
01:28:48 referred to before, um, that when she was asked about sources of intelligence, in fact, we can we can bring it up. It's MPS 0749960,
01:28:59 page 18.
01:29:06 Um she understood that forward intelligence teams uh would have being called UCOs. She understood UCOs as as including those officers as well
01:29:18 as as including those officers as well who were there attending for the day amongst the crowd. Is that your understanding or did you have different understanding? That's right. And I mean I I remember on the day that um while I was with others
01:29:31 the day that um while I was with others trying to negotiate with the police to let me and others out that really need to be let out. A group of young men that came that were allowed into the cordon. And I can remember saying to the police
01:29:43 And I can remember saying to the police and the police, one of the police officers saying, "Oh, hello lads. We could do with you today." And I can remember saying, "Why are you letting them in when you're not letting anybody out?" Um who are they? Are they police
01:29:55 out?" Um who are they? Are they police officers? Um, so that's what I thought was meant by undercover officers, that they were people that, you know, the police had obviously let them into the crowd so
01:30:07 obviously let them into the crowd so they could listen, see what was going on. Um,
01:30:10 on. Um, and was there any disclosure? Thought it meant. Was there any disclosure made to you about undercover sources um, uh, just prior to the trial itself
01:30:21 um, uh, just prior to the trial itself in 2005? So, there's a the difference. I'm not talking about pre-event or on the event intelligence, but the intelligence that's been provided um
01:30:32 intelligence that's been provided um pre-trial just pre-trial. Yeah. No, there wasn't. And I have read in the disclosure that um that um there was a discussion between Mr. Begs and
01:30:43 was a discussion between Mr. Begs and Kia Stalmer about um Yeah, we don't have to go into that now. No, because that was more about the pre-event um disclosure. at trial. No, just before the trial. No, just before
01:30:55 just before the trial. No, just before No, at trial actually during the trial because I think that arose I think I know what you're you're talking about and I think it arose out of what Mr. Mitchell had said in his evidence on that date which I think was the 14th of
01:31:07 that date which I think was the 14th of January. But we can that isn't the point I'm getting at here. The the point is that there was intelligence from UCOs's whatever that may refer to
01:31:20 whatever that may refer to that was disclosed to you in standard disclosure lists and the most recent one that you had received. We understand from the evidence was the 22nd of December 2004
01:31:32 December 2004 but that of course didn't include the UCO intelligence that the SDS had put forward to feed into the civil litigation. That's right. On the 17th of January, 2005.
01:31:45 On the 17th of January, 2005. And that, it would seem, would be intelligence not so much about the uh the event of Mayday, but more about your personal circumstance, your personality
01:31:57 personal circumstance, your personality and uh the litigation strategy itself. Would you would you accept that? Yeah. Yeah. But you didn't know anything about that, did you?
01:32:03 did you? I didn't know about it at all. And I think it should have been disclosed to me. And how does it make you feel not having that disclosed to you? Uh very upset, very angry. Um as I've
01:32:15 Uh very upset, very angry. Um as I've said, we are supposed to live in a democratic society where um you know uh undercover officers
01:32:26 undercover officers uh should not be allowed to infiltrate and attempt to subvert democratic organizations like the Socialist Party or trade unions. Um, and the fact that they were all talking
01:32:40 and the fact that they were all talking about me, gathering evidence on me, I find very, very upsetting. And I made the point when I gave evidence before that I have never been arrested. I have
01:32:51 that I have never been arrested. I have never even been cautioned. And there's mention of what happened in Lisington over on a student protest where the the police I don't think the police cautioned me. I think they said if they don't if the students don't get up, we'll have to caution you. And I said,
01:33:02 we'll have to caution you. And I said, don't worry, they're getting up in a minute. And the policeman was very friendly and very nice. So I've never even been cautioned. So So the fact that the police, the Metropolitan Police, have a huge big file on me that they're
01:33:15 have a huge big file on me that they're having all sorts of conversations about me that I don't know about when I've never actually ever been arrested. I think is alarming and it should not happen in a democratic society. if I've
01:33:27 happen in a democratic society. if I've done something wrong, then please arrest me and bring me before a court and say, "Well, we've got this big file on Lois Austin because we think she's a criminal and we think she's done all these things
01:33:39 and we think she's done all these things that are a breach of the peace or uh she's been involved in violent disorder, but there is no such evidence. And as I said, I've never been arrested. What's
01:33:50 said, I've never been arrested. What's happened instead is I think I've been the subject of um of uh terrible miscar terrible injustices. I've been beaten. I've been kettled. Um I've been spied
01:34:03 I've been kettled. Um I've been spied on. The organizations that I'm a member of, which are public organizations, have been infiltrated. Um
01:34:11 Um and I'm very angry and upset about it. And I was one of the campaigners to make sure that this public inquiry happened. And I'm very glad that it did because it's given us the chance to talk about
01:34:22 it's given us the chance to talk about what happened to us and the wrongdoing. Miss Austin, there's one final document I want to take you to and this is a document that is uh post the first instance trial at the high court. Um
01:34:33 instance trial at the high court. Um it's behind tab B49. It's MPS 004349
01:34:42 at page three, please. This is an original draft of reports
01:34:54 uh by Carlos Saraki. And we can see um at the bottom of the page this the intelligence in relation to the Socialist Party action against
01:35:05 to the Socialist Party action against the Metropolitan Police. I'll just give you a moment to read that.
01:35:29 So here again we can see that um Carlos Saraki appears to be reporting on the reaction to um the defeat in court
01:35:40 reaction to um the defeat in court um suggest gesting that you didn't give a good performance whilst you were giving evidence and as a result that council for the police were able to discredit you.
01:35:53 If we can see the comment as well please.
01:36:02 Um these opinions are not being voiced openly. Um this is obviously something that's coming from within the Socialist Party from from his understanding of
01:36:13 Party from from his understanding of what's what's happening. Um do you recall meetings that addressed that or were these meetings that were going on uh without your presence? Um we
01:36:24 going on uh without your presence? Um we probably had meetings afterwards to talk about um uh you know whether where we go from here, whether we appeal um to discuss the way that um there was
01:36:39 um to discuss the way that um there was an attempt to discredit me and the Socialist Party. Um so we probably did have meetings like that afterwards. Um I don't think and they probably would have
01:36:52 don't think and they probably would have been at a sort of the executive committee the socialist party or the full-time team. I can't imagine that Carlo would have been involved in those meetings and those discussions. He he does note that the there's the
01:37:04 He he does note that the there's the party hierarchy has instructed um their legal representatives to appeal. Would he have ever been involved in the uh meetings with lawyers? No, he wouldn't have been involved in the
01:37:15 wouldn't have been involved in the meetings of lawyers and he wouldn't have been involved in meetings with the party with elected leadership. I don't think he would have been involved in meetings at at at that level. So, I think he's
01:37:26 at at at that level. So, I think he's just summizing really what he thinks has happened. Um, it's disappointing that he describes
01:37:34 describes me in court as performance. You know, this is it's about it's a serious matter. It's about evidence. Um, as I said, I think that um there was a big
01:37:47 said, I think that um there was a big there was an attempt by John Begs very hostile questioning. His tone was very bad. And I think there was an attempt to discredit me to say that I was lying.
01:37:58 discredit me to say that I was lying. Um, I was lying about not seeing any violence. Um, I was, you know, how could I have been believed that I had a baby that needed to be picked up? Um, and how do you feel about his comments
01:38:10 and how do you feel about his comments could have assisted with all of that as I've already said because he knew the truth.
01:38:14 truth. Yeah. And how do you feel about um his comments on the prospects of an appeal and and your thinking around an appeal? It's just on the the last paragraph on the first page. All right.
01:38:29 Um, we appeal, we discussed it and we appealed because um, and we we took legal advice. We would have met with Luis Christian. Um, probably Kier
01:38:42 Luis Christian. Um, probably Kier Starmer as well at the time and Philip Afman. I I can't really remember, but we appealed because the judgment was so bad and so awful. And I don't think how many years on 20 25 years on I don't think it
01:38:56 years on 20 25 years on I don't think it would be possible to come up with a judgment as bad as that. Um, and I think we felt that um that we needed to appeal because we
01:39:07 um that we needed to appeal because we couldn't allow um
01:39:11 um the idea that it was completely okay to kettle protesters for hours with no food, no water, no toilet facilities. Um,
01:39:25 toilet facilities. Um, and therefore we had no choice but to do it. um whether or not we thought that we could win an appeal, I think we knew that we it was problematic
01:39:36 think we knew that we it was problematic because there had been a big sort of attempt around that case and the events around J18 and Mayday 2000. There'd been a big attempt to
01:39:47 2000. There'd been a big attempt to criminalize protesters to say that all protesters are violent. So it was very difficult terrain to try to win the the initial case and to win an appeal. But I
01:39:58 initial case and to win an appeal. But I think we felt that we had no choice. So specifically, how do you feel about that being reported back to the police given that they were Well, I think I think part of the litigation. Yeah. I I I mean, again, I'm not a
01:40:10 Yeah. I I I mean, again, I'm not a lawyer, but is that allowed? is um so so if if if an organization or a group of people are are um discussing whether they're going to litigate
01:40:23 they're going to litigate and they're talking to their lawyers about that and they're taking advice and deciding what what they're going to do. Is it a misconduct issue or is it lawful for police officer to report that back
01:40:36 for police officer to report that back to the to the to the people that we're potentially going to be taking to court? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Somebody needs to tell me and the inquiry needs to investigate it. Miss Austin, those
01:40:48 to investigate it. Miss Austin, those are all the questions I have for you. Um sir, I'm told there are no rule 10. Um it may be that there's some re-examination. Do you wish to rise for us to
01:41:00 us to I expect there will be I would appreciate 10 minutes of course. So absolutely and the um transcribers need a break as well. Yeah. Thank you very much. We'll break for 15 minutes. Is that what
01:41:12 We'll break for 15 minutes. Is that what you like?
01:41:13 you like? For 15 minutes.
01:59:25 Yes, thank you sir. Some questions Miss Austin by way of clarification. Firstly, you have told the inquiry that there were between 20 25 30 socialist
01:59:38 there were between 20 25 30 socialist party members in the kettle at Oxford Circus.
01:59:43 Circus. Is it right that you were all together as a group before you were kettled? Yes. So, we would have been um we we
01:59:54 Yes. So, we would have been um we we came up Regent Street together. Um then we arrived in in Oxford Circus. I think we was around Nike, the big night shop.
02:00:05 we was around Nike, the big night shop. Um and we we the main bulk of us were together. There may have been a couple of others that were sprinkled around in another part of of of Oxford Circus, but the bulk of us were sort of together
02:00:17 the bulk of us were sort of together giving out leaflets and selling newspapers. So, you stayed together for the time that you were in the kettle. Yes.
02:00:24 Yes. You have in front of you. Now, before I ask you questions about this, please can you bear in mind that you cannot mention any names? They're all protected for privacy reasons. You have a list in front of you containing the 150
02:00:37 front of you containing the 150 potential claimants, the claimants in waiting.
02:00:41 waiting. So, no names, but how many of that list of 150 were socialist party members to your knowledge?
02:00:52 your knowledge? Um,
02:01:04 I have seen it before, but I just want to double check. I'll give my answer.
02:01:22 one that I know of that I can't see.
02:01:31 So, including me, three. Thank you. Now, can you turn to your first rule nine statement to the inquiry
02:01:42 first rule nine statement to the inquiry at page 59 of that? And again, no names, please.
02:01:55 Have you found it? Yeah. Page 59. So on page 59, there are 10 named individuals and these were the witnesses that were called uh at the trial of the
02:02:07 that were called uh at the trial of the civil litigation to give evidence. So these are the claimant witnesses that were called. Can you just look without mentioning any names again at that list of 10 and tell me how many socialist
02:02:19 of 10 and tell me how many socialist party members were witnesses in the hearing to your knowledge? So I've got privacy. I haven't got names on my
02:02:29 on my ah
02:02:32 um do you recollect but I can rec well I know yeah because I sort of can see recognize who they are. So, um,
02:02:54 so none of them. Do you want me to turn over? Were the other Well, the page 60 are they were they
02:03:04 they Yes,
02:03:04 Yes, the top three as well. That's the whole 10 is it comes across page 59 and then the next three are on page 60.
02:03:15 Yeah. None of them. The very last one and then I I do know her and I knew her at the time. I didn't know her well at the time, but sort of she was sort of a
02:03:28 the time, but sort of she was sort of a bit of a fellow traveler, was in the Socialist Alliance, which was like a broad left of different left groups as as the name suggests. Okay. Um, your partner, who you don't
02:03:39 Okay. Um, your partner, who you don't have to mention his name though either, but it's it's right to say that he was a member of the Socialist Party, but other than that, any of the others of that 10 of that 10? Uh,
02:03:52 of that 10? Uh, no. Thank you. So, I don't have any other questions.
02:04:01 Thank you very much for coming back and giving evidence for a second time. You're welcome. I I I um hope for your sake that it's the last occasion on which I will ask you to do so, but I'm grateful to you.
02:04:13 you to do so, but I'm grateful to you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Now we will now um rise while the room is reset for uh our next witness who's coming back uh to
02:04:25 our next witness who's coming back uh to give evidence. Um uh he is unlikely to be able to start before 12:30 and so I'll rise until 12:30 or or so soon as we can get everything ready then.
02:32:17 Yes. Good afternoon and thank you for attending again. Good afternoon, sir. Hello again, HN3. Um, first of all, I just need to
02:32:30 just need to address some follow-up questions and tie up a few lace loose ends, apologies, from Monday's evidence. First,
02:32:39 First, I asked you a question on Monday about which other SDS offices officers enjoyed the same semi-leendary status as HN1. Yes.
02:32:50 Yes. For the record, the officer who you identified is a closed officer. So, we cannot put that in open. Also on
02:33:01 So, we cannot put that in open. Also on Monday, I asked you about an officer HN81, and you wrote down a name of a person
02:33:12 and you wrote down a name of a person who you recalled him mentioning frequently in the SDS meetings. It's slightly ambiguous. HN83, was that person, do you think, Alex Oard?
02:33:23 person, do you think, Alex Oard? To the best of my recollection, yes, that's what that's what Alex definitely surname, I'm not sure, but yes. Do you think it's likely to be Oarde? If he's a in relation to HN81, then then
02:33:35 If he's a in relation to HN81, then then yes, that would be I would accept that. Yes, he is. He's someone on whom HN81 reported frequently. Um, can you give us a flavor of the kind of things he would say about Alex Oilard
02:33:47 of things he would say about Alex Oilard in meetings? Not really, I'm afraid. Uh, when you would do your goound, people would say, "I'm going to demonstration. I'm doing this." And over the years you you've got
02:33:59 this." And over the years you you've got to know or hear frequent names and this would have been the case in this but not specific.
02:34:04 specific. Right. HN81 attended the McFersonen inquiry which started in 1997 and the report was published in February 1999. To the best of your recollection, did
02:34:16 To the best of your recollection, did HN81 mention anything about attending the inquiry in the SDS meetings?
02:34:24 Not that I recall.
02:34:28 To the best of your recollection, was the publication or the contents of the McFersonen report mentioned or discussed during SDS meetings?
02:34:41 No, I don't think it was. Just in case it jogs your memory with the finding that the MPS was institutionally racist, can you recall whether that was Oh, very much so. from uh from the news
02:34:52 Oh, very much so. from uh from the news and open source. Uh but I don't recall it being been brought up at a meeting specifically.
02:35:02 We've obtained some reports from HN81 on civil proceedings instigated by Mr. Dwayne Brooks, whose name I mentioned on Monday. To the best of your
02:35:14 Monday. To the best of your recollection, did HN81 ever mention anything about those civil proceedings in the SDS meetings? No, I've got no recollection of that. In your witness statement, you assert
02:35:27 In your witness statement, you assert this about HN81. From what I remember of HN81, he would not have attempted to obtain information about that inquiry or the campaign, meaning the Steven
02:35:38 the campaign, meaning the Steven Lawrence campaign, for improper purposes, even if asked to by senior MPS officers.
02:35:49 By that HN3, do you mean that HN81, if he were asked to do something that he considered to be improper, would
02:36:00 that he considered to be improper, would have challenged his managers? Is that what you mean by that or something else? I think so. Yes. I uh I I got to know H&81 to a certain degree, although our times didn't overlap by much. Um and I I
02:36:13 times didn't overlap by much. Um and I I found him to be a very decent, honorable person in in the time I got to know
02:36:21 Thank you. Um, another followup, HN3, this is in relation to the Earth first gathering
02:36:29 gathering in 2000
02:36:31 in 2000 and I asked you some questions about your interactions with Rosa and Jim Boiling at that gathering. If I could just bring up please MPS03503
02:36:45 page two on Monday. H3 you said you had no recollection of interacting with them at that gathering.
02:36:58 interacting with them at that gathering. I'd just like to draw your attention to the section of this report where you list the attendees.
02:37:10 Is this one in Wales? Yes.
02:37:12 Yes. Yes. Yes. It's the one in North Wales. That's right.
02:37:20 Um, if I could draw your attention just to the bottom third of the page and you will note that in the second
02:37:31 and you will note that in the second column
02:37:33 column the name Jim Sutton is there. And in the fourth column, second down from the top, it says Rosa. Okay. And you've identified them as activists who are amongst the 400.
02:37:45 who are amongst the 400. So would you accept that that would suggest that you did have some Well, it doesn't necessarily suggest interaction, but it knew that they they were there. Would you accept that? No, I
02:37:56 were there. Would you accept that? No, I I completely agree with your statement that it I know I can see that they were there, but for example, people in the without mentioning well the names listed there, some of those people I had no
02:38:07 there, some of those people I had no interaction with, but could see they were there. So, um I don't dispute. I may have spoken to Rosa. I I really don't, but I've got no recollection of what you mentioned about the sauna and talking that stuff. So, but I don't
02:38:19 talking that stuff. So, but I don't dispute that they were there. Not at all. And
02:38:22 all. And just for the avoidance of doubt, I did touch upon this on Monday. You note in this report uh dissatisfaction
02:38:33 dissatisfaction amongst that is voiced amongst uh individuals at this gathering about Mayday
02:38:41 Mayday and
02:38:43 and a reference to RTS or people walking and climbing at this gathering. basically not really taking it very seriously, engaging in leisurely activities. Um,
02:38:56 engaging in leisurely activities. Um, are you certain that you were not privy to any discussion at this gathering about how the Reclaim the Street central organizer and treasurer Jim Sutton had spent the day
02:39:07 treasurer Jim Sutton had spent the day walking with his girlfriend Rosa and Helen Steel instead of attending workshops?
02:39:16 I've got no recollection, but if there's a report that says that I that they did that, I I don't dispute that. But I've got no recollection of that. I think lots of people, in fact, I I spent some time out outside of the the or the
02:39:30 time out outside of the the or the schedule of events with a few other people sort of going to the pub or walking. Um it was a very very um geographically was an incredible site. So I don't dispute that, but I've got no
02:39:41 So I don't dispute that, but I've got no recollection of
02:39:45 Um, another topic, HN3. This is a matter that we were discussing when the screen froze on Monday. And I think uh some of the answers, some
02:39:57 And I think uh some of the answers, some of your responses got lost. I asked you um to write down the names of NPOIU officers
02:40:09 of NPOIU officers with whom you'd interacted during your deployment. And for the record, the ciphers that you wrote down were EN12, which is Mark Kennedy.
02:40:20 which is Mark Kennedy. Yes.
02:40:21 Yes. And EN32,
02:40:23 And EN32, Rod Richardson. Yep.
02:40:26 Yep. Can you help us with the extent of your interaction with Mark Kennedy? I know there's an example in your witness statement of his attending a disarmed DSI meeting. Was that the extent of it
02:40:37 DSI meeting. Was that the extent of it or did you have additional interactions with him?
02:40:40 with him? Uh when you say interactions, I was aware of him being at sort of events that I was also at. He was a lot of the gatherings, but I don't recall talking
02:40:51 gatherings, but I don't recall talking to him directly sort of. Um but I I was so I would have he probably fe features in my reporting quite heavily that I've seen that he's there. Um that's probably
02:41:02 seen that he's there. Um that's probably about the extent of it I believe. Were you given instructions on how to report on him if you did see him at meetings that you were at in the sense that were you did STS managers tell you
02:41:15 that were you did STS managers tell you to report on him as if he were a normal individual or were you advised to be cautious in any way? No, I don't I don't recall. So, um my my impression and I
02:41:26 recall. So, um my my impression and I think you've seen it in some of the reports that we also reported on oursel or apologies. It would it our identities cover identities would make their way into the the the back
02:41:38 make their way into the the the back office's final report that would then go on with transmission so as to include all of us without Yeah.
02:41:45 Yeah. making the source obvious. Does that make sense? Yes, that does make sense. Yes. So I I would have um I think we've you've seen how my pattern would have worked that I would have written down who was there and if he made it into final report then
02:41:56 and if he made it into final report then that would have been the um from whoever was compiling in the back office. But yeah I if I saw him I would include it. You mentioned in your witness statement
02:42:07 You mentioned in your witness statement the first time you came across him and you said he was behaving in a way that garnered a certain amount of suspicion and that you mentioned this to your cover officer. Was it then confirmed to
02:42:19 cover officer. Was it then confirmed to you after that that he was an NOIU officer?
02:42:24 officer? I think it was at some point afterwards. Yes, that's my recollection. I think I think the cover officer had to go and do some ask some questions and it took a while for that to be ascertained
02:42:35 took a while for that to be ascertained and clearly he would have had to identify how he knew that person was there. So there was obviously some something in the margins, but yes, ultimately someone told me that he was.
02:42:48 ultimately someone told me that he was. And as far as your aware, was Mark Kennedy made aware that you were an SDS officer? Were you given to understand that happened or not?
02:42:59 that happened or not? I I've never considered that. No. Did you cross over with Mark Kennedy frequently? No. As I
02:43:10 No. As I subsequently understood, he moved geographically to another part of the country. So, uh, probably just big actions where people from all over the country attended. In the period of time before he moved,
02:43:22 In the period of time before he moved, did you cross over him? Did you come across him frequently? No, I don't think so. A couple of times at those meetings and they would have been in my reporting, but I I don't think so.
02:43:34 32 Rod Richardson. Um, same questions in relation to him, please. HN3, you refer to um standing behind him at
02:43:45 you refer to um standing behind him at an Earth first gathering in a queue. That's correct. Yes. Um, was that the extent of your crossover or was there more than that? I think it I think it was. He Well, um
02:43:58 I think it I think it was. He Well, um I think he came to talk I think he came to talk at an RTS meeting about a campaign that he was involved in, I believe.
02:44:09 involved in, I believe. And then there was another incident, but I'm not sure if you want to go there. Um, it's hard to say because I don't know
02:44:20 it's hard to say because I don't know whether or not it's something. I mean, I would imagine so. He's an open officer as long as you don't mention any sensitive names. Uh, it was when other activists were discussing him. Yes, that's fine.
02:44:32 Yes, that's fine. Okay. So, yes, I was So, um, so it's I suppose it's it's indirect um contact. Uh, I believed I was driving back from Do you know it's fine? H3. Yes, you refer to this in your witness statement.
02:44:44 refer to this in your witness statement. Don't worry. It's fine. Okay, I'll I'll change the topic here. Um, again, in relation to Rod Richardson,
02:44:55 again, in relation to Rod Richardson, were you told before he gave talks at RTS meetings that he was an NOIU officer? Were you aware of that? No, not at all. Not at all. Um, we we
02:45:06 No, not at all. Not at all. Um, we we obviously found out about the the formation of the unit. There was that was some discussion about that but uh the identity and um and who they were no not at all. So during your deployment you were not
02:45:17 So during your deployment you were not aware that this individual was an NPIOU officer?
02:45:21 officer? No.
02:45:25 What was the SDS reaction to the setting up of the NOIU? Was it neutral? Did the SDS feel threatened, irritated? No, not at all. Not at all. I think uh
02:45:37 No, not at all. Not at all. I think uh my recollection is that they were set up to model crime and they were this is my recollection and it may be wrong. My my understanding
02:45:49 and it may be wrong. My my understanding is that this is what we were told that they'd been set up to to to sort of mirror us but with uh with an outcome of going to court. Right.
02:45:59 Right. Um, so is it fair to say that the relationship was cooperative rather than one of rivalry? I can't speak about the office, but no,
02:46:10 I can't speak about the office, but no, I I don't think rivalry was an issue. I think they had a different terms and conditions, remmit, funding stream. Um, I think clearly in hindsight, people should have got together quite high up
02:46:21 should have got together quite high up and talked about things, but uh, this is the Met after all. corporate spies.
02:46:31 Were you corporate spies? Oh, yeah. Sorry, apologies. Um, were you made aware by your cover officers and or SDS managers about the presence of corporate spies in the groups that you
02:46:43 corporate spies in the groups that you reported on?
02:46:46 Um, I don't think I think it was a it was a given that at big events people would turn up from various different organizations and backgrounds, but at no
02:46:57 organizations and backgrounds, but at no point did anyone say that person over there or that person here or we nobody ever said that person's a commercial informant. But similarly, would you report back to your managers when you thought someone
02:47:08 your managers when you thought someone was suspicious and might be a corporate spy?
02:47:11 spy? Yes. But they wouldn't confirm it to you one way or another. Is that what you're saying?
02:47:16 saying? I I don't think sometimes they would even know or they would even uh take it any further. Were you ever asked to corroborate reporting from corporate
02:47:29 corroborate reporting from corporate spies? The accuracy of it? No.
02:47:37 Did they ever give you any indication when you mentioned a suspicious potentially corporate spy individual in a meeting? Did they give you any
02:47:49 a meeting? Did they give you any indication what they might do with that information? No. I'm sorry. But the back office you meet.
02:47:57 meet. Yes.
02:47:57 Yes. No. I'm guessing no. I don't know.
02:48:03 You refer in your witness statement to the risk of being reported on by corporate spies and NOIU officers at Earth First gatherings because they were
02:48:16 Earth First gatherings because they were soft targets is how you put it. When you say there was a risk a what do you mean by that? What was the risk exactly?
02:48:28 that? What was the risk exactly? I'm not sure the context, but just from what you've said, I think it was probably wasting everyone's time. It was what they call blue on blue. It it didn't really achieve much.
02:48:40 And were you made aware that you were mentioned in NOIU reporting and corporate
02:48:49 corporate spy reporting? Was that ever brought to your attention? No, I don't think so.
02:48:58 Right. Okay. So now we will move to anti- genetically modified food actions which we've not completed on Monday. My apologies for um causing
02:49:10 My apologies for um causing inconvenience on Monday afternoon. No, not no need to apologize. It was my fault. Um
02:49:19 returning to this topic in your witness statement you say it's a paragraph 2016 C.
02:49:27 C. And you also repeated in evidence that you were authorized to participate in crop trashing for one of a better phrase only after the September 2000 acquitt of
02:49:42 only after the September 2000 acquitt of Lord Melchett and other Greenpeace activists. Is that a fair Yes, that's my that's my understanding recollection.
02:49:52 The inquiries heard evidence from a core participant called Brian Healey and also from Jim Boiling that Jim Boiling was involved in decontamination actions,
02:50:03 involved in decontamination actions, trashing actions in Ireland in September 1997.
02:50:08 1997. So before that ruling, were you aware of that?
02:50:18 It doesn't I don't recall anything. I may have read something about an overseas deployment, but I I nothing is I don't recall.
02:50:29 I don't recall. So, does it follow through from your evidence, HN3, that prior to September 2000, you took no part at all in any
02:50:41 in any anti-genetically modified food actions, direct action.
02:50:50 That's my that's my recollection. Yes. And I Does that cover everything? So no driving,
02:50:58 driving, no assisting in the organization of I I don't know about the the dates and times, but uh when once I was invited to participate, that's when the the
02:51:10 participate, that's when the the discussion took place. So I wouldn't have done anything prior to that discussion with the authorization. Can you remember when you were first asked to participate then? Was it prior to that trial, the conclusion of that trial
02:51:23 that trial, the conclusion of that trial in September 2000?
02:51:28 No, I don't think it was. I think it was after that. Think
02:51:33 Think there was a big demonstration organized potentially by Greenpeace themselves, I think, but I didn't go on it or wasn't invited to it or it wasn't
02:51:44 it or wasn't invited to it or it wasn't in my sphere of kind of activity at the time. So, um I can't help you with the dates and credit issues. And can you help us with the types of activities that were authorized for you to
02:51:56 that were authorized for you to participate in once SDS management considered it appropriate? Uh for me personally or just a general background? No, I mean in relation to crop trashing,
02:52:10 No, I mean in relation to crop trashing, what were you authorized to do? What were the parameters? uh to
02:52:16 uh to attend destroy the crop. Um
02:52:23 Um I drove I helped do some research. Um drove people, picked them up, drove them. Um yeah, I think complete I think.
02:52:34 them. Um yeah, I think complete I think. So full participation in essence. Yes.
02:52:39 Yes. Yes.
02:52:41 Yes. Who authorized you to do that? Do you know how high up it went?
02:52:48 Uh, well, it would have been uh it would have been HN 58
02:52:57 58 potentially and 53 and um DS uh HM52. I think we mentioned his name before. The soldier,
02:53:08 The soldier, sorry, bad. DNA screener. Yes, there was it would have um the scenario been that those three people I've just mentioned, we' have had a discussion um and they
02:53:19 we' have had a discussion um and they probably would have had a further discussion. I don't know what they did with that, but then ultimately I was told yes, I could go. To the best of your recollection, were activists
02:53:31 activists who you drove to these actions ever arrested
02:53:36 arrested during the action? No, I don't believe so. I don't believe I didn't drive on every action. Uh there was there was another mini bus. Um so we didn't use my vehicle for all of them. That was later. So sometimes I was just
02:53:48 That was later. So sometimes I was just in the early days I was just a a participant. Um but no, I don't believe anyone was arrested. I'm just going to ask you about some specific examples. H3, we don't have any
02:53:59 specific examples. H3, we don't have any reporting on these. So it's purely just whether or not it jogs your memory. an action in Wyvenho on the 8th of August 2000. Were you the driver of the
02:54:11 August 2000. Were you the driver of the van at that action? Whereabouts is it? Sorry. Wvenhoe.
02:54:16 Wvenhoe. Whereabouts is that in the country? Do you know?
02:54:20 you know? I'm afraid I'm ashamed to say I don't actually know. Snap.
02:54:24 Snap. I went I went on a number of action shows and I can't really remember where they were. It was late at night in
02:54:35 where they were. It was late at night in the middle of the night. I'm sorry. Don't worry. I I'll we'll find out where that is and that that Sorry because that's
02:54:40 that's I'm not entirely sure that's going to help me if I'm honest. Um
02:54:45 Um well, it's a little bit of additional detail. The carnival, it was there were six arrested on that occasion at something called Carnival Against the Crop.
02:54:56 Crop. No, that's that I think that's the thing I was talking about initially. No, all our actions were covert in the middle of the night. I'm pretty sure nobody got arrested.
02:55:04 arrested. I'm told it's in Essics, in case that helps.
02:55:13 Uh I I don't believe so. I think all of the actions I participated in were in the middle of the night and nobody as far as I got arrested. Um
02:55:25 just for the avoidance of doubt, just one more example. on the 20th of June 2000
02:55:31 2000 uh what is described as a 2hour daytime blockade of a genetically modified animal feed company called BCM.
02:55:42 animal feed company called BCM. Does that ring any bells? No. I Ours was very much clandestine uh destroying the crops in the middle of the night. So, uh, these sound like publicly actions that I didn't think I
02:55:55 publicly actions that I didn't think I went on.
02:55:58 went on. WMles,
02:56:00 WMles, uh, which stands for white overall movement building libertarian effective struggles. In your witness statement, you say of the Wombles that they would engage in
02:56:12 the Wombles that they would engage in direct action against the police in a public order situation and they armored and padded themselves in order to carry this through. And that's at paragraph 184.
02:56:24 184. Direct action. Do you mean by that they're barging, attempting to barge through police lines and kettles, or do you mean something else or something in
02:56:35 you mean something else or something in addition to that? No, my my memory is that they didn't seek confrontation with the police, but they were added in protections if
02:56:47 they were added in protections if if disorder broke out. Um, I didn't really have much to do with them. Um, so yeah, I saw them a few I saw them a few times on demonstrations. They um, yes,
02:57:00 times on demonstrations. They um, yes, suitably attired with padding. But um whether they sought to they saw conflict I uh I couldn't say. So
02:57:08 So were you ever given to understand that in addition to the padding they had weapons for example? I don't think so.
02:57:22 You also say in your witness statement this is at paragraph 241 and we touched on this on Monday. You say that although you were present at a number of events, you managed to distance yourself from
02:57:33 you managed to distance yourself from disorder and that this was in keeping with the reclaim the streets memo of setting the conditions of other activists such as the wombles to start the disorder.
02:57:44 the disorder. Um
02:57:45 Um we've got no reporting on the womb which sets out or which evidences the wombles starting disorder. That's not to say there wasn't some. It
02:57:56 That's not to say there wasn't some. It just means that we haven't obtained any. Are you able to help us HN3 with an event or occasion on which the wombles as you understood it started disorder?
02:58:16 Nothing. Nothing. I I can't recall anything specifically.
02:58:24 I think you may have answered this already, but did you ever attend WBLE's meetings?
02:58:32 Not as an active participant. I may have been going to the pub where they were meeting because I knew lots of their members. But no, I was never never went to any of their meetings. Documents show that in July 2001, the
02:58:47 Documents show that in July 2001, the Wombles called for a protest at Campsfield Detention Center. And this was for those activists who weren't going to the G8 protests in Genoa.
02:58:59 going to the G8 protests in Genoa. And this was a center for refugees and asylum seekers.
02:59:06 Do you recall that Wombles's camp at Campsfield Detention Center?
02:59:17 Campsfield R Campsfield rings a bell, but I I I need some further help, I'm afraid.
02:59:22 afraid. I'll take you to a report. We've got a report on an action in Oxford. Just before I do that, were you aware that on the day that the Wombles were setting up that camp, so that was July the 19th,
02:59:35 that camp, so that was July the 19th, 2001,
02:59:36 2001, that they were going to visit Emily Apple's house? I mean, I appreciate it's a long time ago, but do you have any recollection of that?
02:59:48 Unless I reported it, then I must have known, but I've got nothing that's recalling that. No.
02:59:55 Um, let me bring up this report. This is MPS triple06350
03:00:08 at C153 sir and it's dated the 27th of July 2001
03:00:17 and the heading is Campsfield Detention Center your intelligence first paragraph on Saturday the 21st of July 2001 protesters took to the streets of Oxford in a protest designed to draw attention
03:00:29 in a protest designed to draw attention to the asylum issue with the specific target being the Campsfield detention center. This event was to be the climax of a series of actions created as an alternative for those activists unable
03:00:40 alternative for those activists unable to attend the general action and was mirrored by similar demonstrations at half a dozen locations across Europe. The event was organized by members of the WBLE group with privacy bearing
03:00:51 the WBLE group with privacy bearing overall responsibility.
03:00:56 If we could go to paragraph three, please.
03:01:03 Whilst the activists were aimlessly milling around the station, it was noticed that the occupants of one police one of the police vans were leaving the vehicle and beginning to move towards the crowd. A fear of being penned in by
03:01:14 the crowd. A fear of being penned in by the police swiftly spread through the crowd, and that was the trigger that set the crowd off on their travels. There then followed three hours of aimless wandering around the city center with absolutely no set direction in mind. A
03:01:25 absolutely no set direction in mind. A fully clad unit of 20 wombles led the parade, much to the amusement of the Saturday afternoon shoppers. Is that ringing any bells? HN3.
03:01:38 Disturbingly not. Um, if we could go to paragraphs four and five, please.
03:01:46 Privacy became aware at a very early stage that the event was a complete shambles and spent more time apologizing to various dignitaries than he did in organizing the event was clearly not a
03:01:57 organizing the event was clearly not a successful venture. No one was seriously annoyed at the wombles for its failure. The general opinion was that at least they have made the effort to do something and whilst they are still seen as a source of amusement amongst the wider activist community, their
03:02:09 wider activist community, their potential to create a flash point is recognized as something that others can capitalize upon.
03:02:20 not ringing any bells.
03:02:24 It's my reporting. I I I must have been there, but I I don't recall it. I don't recall going to Oxford for this. Emily Apple says you were at the
03:02:35 Emily Apple says you were at the Wombles camp at Campsfield. Do you want to comment on that? I don't doubt it, but I just got like with the email that you showed me on Monday morning. I've got no recollection
03:02:47 Monday morning. I've got no recollection of that.
03:02:48 of that. Uh Rod Richardson apparently was also at that camp. Can you recall at all coming across him in Oxford around this time?
03:03:00 I don't. I'm afraid not.
03:03:06 Just one more report on the wombless please which is MPS0029123
03:03:12 C306 page eight please paragraph three. This is uh raw reporting sent on the
03:03:23 This is uh raw reporting sent on the 16th of September, 2003 from your Holy Bandit's email address. And
03:03:33 sorry, that's not the right
03:03:42 uh Sorry. Can we Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. No, sorry. My my bad. Um, yeah, I'll read this in its entirety. One of the few non-earthfirst groups who are perceived as trustworthy and who other
03:03:54 perceived as trustworthy and who other groups are willing to work with are members of the Cardiff Anarchist Network. Originally formed as the Cardiff Wombles, they have reformed themselves after a falling out with the London Womble leadership. Having
03:04:05 London Womble leadership. Having correctly identified the London WBEL leadership as a glorified drinking club who have never managed to carry out a single successful action, they broke all links with them and are now busy trying to forge ahead without them. They
03:04:18 to forge ahead without them. They successfully made links with several EF groups and are distancing themselves from the London wombles who are considered a joke amongst the Earth first folks.
03:04:30 So, is it fair to say HN3 that the Wombles
03:04:37 Wombles were not considered a serious sinister force at the time? I would agree.
03:04:50 In light of that, we know that there were a large number of
03:04:57 of SDS and NOIU officers reporting on them at the time.
03:05:05 Were you aware of that or did you have any awareness of that? Yes.
03:05:11 Yes. Yes. Was there ever any discussion of the
03:05:15 the proportionality of a large number of undercover officers reporting on what appears from the reporting to be a fairly
03:05:24 fairly with me? No. No. You were never privy to any discussions of those of that kind.
03:05:33 Mayday 2001. There's very little reporting obtained by the inquiry on this HN3.
03:05:44 I'll bring up the one we've got. It's MPS05623
03:05:49 C133. The intelligence was obtained on the 30th of March 2001. It's very brief. Allesio Lungi has booked a fullon sound system for Mayday.
03:06:02 booked a fullon sound system for Mayday. In addition, about 40 people from Luton have agreed to attend and wear white overalls with the sole purpose of protecting the rig.
03:06:13 Did you attend May Day 2001? We can take that down now. Thank you. Uh, is this the year after Gorilla Garden?
03:06:23 Garden? It is. Yes, it's the following year. Uh, right. Yes, I think. Yes, I think I did.
03:06:28 did. Did you report on it? I would have done if I went. Yes. My my recollection is I spent all day being kettled.
03:06:36 kettled. Oh, well that's had limited limited reaction. You've um preempted my next question. So is that what were you in the kettle at Oxford Circus?
03:06:47 Oxford Circus? I was indeed. And it's your recollection that you did report on that albeit. Yes. This this would have it could have double after the the event. Um I think
03:06:58 double after the the event. Um I think when we spoke about reporting it could take many forms from um from the documentary the written Yeah. to a phone call to a verbal on a day but I didn't I
03:07:09 call to a verbal on a day but I didn't I don't recall it the 2001 event except if this was the one where I got kettled. I don't think I was with anybody either. I don't recall. Do you recall whether you witnessed any
03:07:20 Do you recall whether you witnessed any disorder or violence?
03:07:29 I I don't recall
03:07:37 the 2002 Earth First summer gathering. This took place in the West Country apparently. HN3.
03:07:47 Okay. Did you attend that summer gathering?
03:07:54 probably. But uh is there any reporting to help me? I'm afraid not. Oh, maybe that's the answer then. Maybe I didn't go. Um I I thought I would have gone to all one of them while I was
03:08:05 gone to all one of them while I was deployed, but maybe there was a reason I didn't go. Well, I'm not sure a lack of reporting is necessarily decisive in terms of whether or not you went because it does appear we are missing a number of
03:08:16 appear we are missing a number of reports.
03:08:16 reports. Okay. Um, again in case it jogs your memory,
03:08:22 memory, do you recall attending a Wombles workshop at this summer gathering?
03:08:29 Possibly if there were people there that I knew.
03:08:32 I knew. It was given this workshop by EM32 Rod Richardson.
03:08:41 No, no, then maybe not.
03:08:46 I would have reported that. Um, sorry. Yes, you've said well and if I've understood sorry
03:08:56 even West Country I'm struggling. Do you know the actual Do you know the location?
03:08:59 location? No, I'm sorry. I tried to find a more precise location and I actually struggled. So, I'm sorry about that. H3. I appreciate that's unhelpful. again. We'll see if we can
03:09:10 We'll see if we can No, no, I specify I've got good memories of one in the in the Midlands, but not of this one, I'm afraid.
03:09:16 afraid. No, this this it's not in the Midlands. Um, if I understand your evidence up to this point correctly, you were not aware at this stage or indeed throughout your deployment that Rod Richardson was an
03:09:29 deployment that Rod Richardson was an NOIU officer. So, you wouldn't have had that in mind had you reported on this gathering. Is that a fair summary?
03:09:38 summary? I I think so. And uh again with the chronology, the event in the in my in my van, that would have led me to a discussion
03:09:49 that would have led me to a discussion where his identity was perhaps
03:09:53 known. But no, I wouldn't have gone to a a a workshop that knowing who he was. No.
03:10:02 No. If we could bring up MPS36459,
03:10:07 that's B84. This is an operational review document. Um, authored by Bernard Greeny for the
03:10:18 Um, authored by Bernard Greeny for the period August to December 2002. The first paragraph on page one
03:10:25 under target. Red Herring has continued to be targeted against the various environmental groups that have grown amidst the vacuum left by the demise in all but name of reclaim the streets. As an experienced and much admired RTS
03:10:38 an experienced and much admired RTS organizer, red herring services have been sought by any number of subgroups including Earth First, Wombles, Campaign Against the Arms Trade and many others.
03:10:52 HN3, were your services sought as an organizer by the Wombles? No. Or or by cat?
03:11:05 No. Or or by cat? Did you ever give Bernard Greeny the impression that they were? No.
03:11:13 Just a small digression while we've got this document up. Um, the final sentence, sorry, actually it's in the same paragraph. The final sentence also says this, if you're targeting, he
03:11:24 also says this, if you're targeting, he is also targeted on a permanent basis against the London Action Resource Center and individual activists who may pursue any number of personal causes.
03:11:38 pursue any number of personal causes. Did you understand yourself to be targeted against individual activists who may pursue any number of personal causes?
03:11:46 causes? No, never. Would
03:11:52 you accept that's very vague?
03:11:59 I'm sorry. The internet's a bit scared. It wasn't a very good question. Were you privy to this document? Were you ever was it ever explained to you what that might mean in terms of your targeting?
03:12:15 I mean what I'm getting at is was everyone a fair fair game essentially any individual activist? No, I I believe I was targeted against rec streets and then uh disarm group.
03:12:30 Moving on now HN3 to the protest against defense systems and equipment international in September 2001.
03:12:42 Mhm. The documents suggest that the reclaim the streets group organized actions for the first day of this DII arms fair uh
03:12:53 the first day of this DII arms fair uh under the banner of a fiesta for life against death. And the name of those in reclaim the streets organizing it were disarm DII.
03:13:04 streets organizing it were disarm DII. If we could just bring up just for context a flyer for the event. It's UCPI 38538,
03:13:11 38538, please.
03:13:17 And Emily Apple says this about what it constituted in terms of the RTS actions.
03:13:28 I'd just like to ask you to comment on the accuracy as far as your recollection serves. Emily Apple says this. The RTS actions were organized for the first day under the banner fiesta for life against
03:13:39 under the banner fiesta for life against death. The idea was to take direct action to disrupt the arms fair using a variety of tactics including a street party. This was the first iteration of disarm DEI with a coalition of groups
03:13:52 disarm DEI with a coalition of groups including RTS the wombles rhythm of resist rhythms of resistance and critical mass taking part. There was also a separate CAT protest.
03:14:03 also a separate CAT protest. Does that sound right? I agree completely.
03:14:11 Um, you may not recall, but it appears that the CAT protest was arranged in liaison with the police whereas this was
03:14:22 liaison with the police whereas this was not. Does that match your recollection? Yes, very much.
03:14:32 There was no requirement. They leazed with the police. There was no
03:14:39 as you described there there was they leers with the police whereas other groups did not. Right. I understand. We could take that down please. If we could bring up MPS6517
03:14:52 at C170. This is a report dated the 14th of August 2001 and the leadup to that uh it's your intelligence and the header
03:15:05 uh it's your intelligence and the header reads in bold underlined the following intelligence is known to only a handful of people and is not suitable for dissemination at this stage or in this format.
03:15:18 format. First paragraph reads, "A central organizing group within London RTS have put together an initial plan of action in relation to the forthcoming DEI exhibition in Docklands on the 11th to the 14th of September. At present, this
03:15:30 the 14th of September. At present, this venture remains a closely guarded secret, although various aspects will be subcontracted to other groups.
03:15:40 So, were you one of a small
03:15:46 small number in an organizing group? Yes, I was.
03:15:53 We can take that down. Thank you. The inquiry has obtained a number of prospective reports on this event. I won't take you to them, but you can
03:16:04 won't take you to them, but you can trust me. There are there are quite a large number and they're very detailed which again is evidences the fact that you were privy. You're one of a trusted few. Can you help us with how many
03:16:15 few. Can you help us with how many people were in the organizing group? Uh if you could help me with the document uh half a dozen maybe I can bring one up for you. Um if we
03:16:26 I can bring one up for you. Um if we bring up
03:16:29 bring up MPS 0. just trying to differentiate between
03:16:31 between sorry I'm just trying to differentiate between this one and subsequent um subsequent years when it was very small group but this one might have been a bit bigger
03:16:39 bigger well I'll bring up a report and see if it jogs your memory but we've also got evidence from Rob Bambbury which I can bring to your attention but if we bring up a couple of these reports so MPS0 6512
03:16:51 6512 that's C168 and that's dated the 14th of August 2001 one
03:17:03 and it reads, "In an effort to thwart state monitoring, activists who are deputized as spotters, scouts, or crowd facilitators during the anti-Dssei demonstration on the 11th of September will be issued with either new mobile
03:17:14 will be issued with either new mobile phones or new SIM cards." I mean, it doesn't list attendees, so I'm not sure how helpful that is other than it suggests that it's detailed information.
03:17:26 detailed information. I agree.
03:17:28 I agree. Um,
03:17:30 Um, we can bring up another one. I'll probably return to this later actually. MPS0747624
03:17:38 at C181.
03:17:46 And again, caution, no downward dissemination of this intelligence. And it reads, "Intelligence RTS activists involved in the organization of the demonstration at DSCI have made a number of detailed wreckies of the site
03:17:59 number of detailed wreckies of the site and have a very good understanding of the location and the surrounding infrastructure. And I'll return to this later, but you can see at the bottom there's a reference to OP bonsai.
03:18:12 Again, very detailed
03:18:16 suggests perhaps this is not information that would be widely known. Is that fair?
03:18:21 fair? Yeah, absolutely. The the the heading that you showed me on the on the prior report about no doubt, you know, the on bold and underlined, that was very specific. That would have been I've seen
03:18:33 specific. That would have been I've seen it quite a few times, but it wasn't common. Um, and that was when uh I would have either verbally or written report to to the back office to say this is only known by a handful of
03:18:45 say this is only known by a handful of people. So maybe maybe the answer to your original question was only a very small number of people.
03:18:52 Rob Banbury in his witness statement at paragraph 27 says this. He says there were five or so people including me and Jason Bishop who were part of London RTS
03:19:03 Jason Bishop who were part of London RTS who organized this day of action. Does that sound about right? Absolutely. Yes. Um sir, I'm aware of the time. I haven't finished this topic but I think it might
03:19:14 finished this topic but I think it might be better to resume. If you take 5 minutes to finish it, then do. If it's longer than that, I agree we should break.
03:19:21 break. Yes.
03:19:22 Yes. Right. Um, do you mind having a short lunch break of 3/4 of an hour? Not at all, sir. Not at all. Then, uh, we'll resume at 20. Not 20. Um, 3/4 of an hour is 5.