The hearing focuses on the activities of undercover officer HN3 ('Jason Bishop') during the 2001 DII protests and his interactions with activists Emily Apple and Jim Boiling. The session examines the reporting of activist movements, the use of props to smuggle equipment, and conflicting accounts of a meeting between HN3 and Boiling regarding a compromise risk.
00:11:03 Good afternoon everybody. This afternoon's proceedings are being livereamed but by voice only and only 10 minutes after the uh event that is being described uh occurs. Those with uh
00:11:16 described uh occurs. Those with uh mobile telephones who can hear what is said may use them to report what they've heard after 10 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting, but they may not use them for recording.
00:11:28 but they may not use them for recording. I think there may be a period when we will not be broadcasting live, but uh we'll deal with that when we get to it. Thank you, sir.
00:11:39 HN3 returning to disarm DSI in September 2001.
00:11:46 2001. I'd like to bring up a report of yours, please. It's MPS06517.
00:11:53 It's page two. Um, this is a prospective report. It's just a very discreet bit. Under the source comment, it reads, "The
00:12:04 source comment, it reads, "The organizers are hopeful that the police and media will hype up the event and attract a huge crowd. They are hopeful that numbers may exceed 5,000, but 2,000 to 3,000 may be more realistic."
00:12:17 Looking on the internet, HN3, it says the numbers attending on that first day were around 2,800. So, that appears to have been a a good estimate.
00:12:28 estimate. I understand it's a long time ago. Are you able to assist us with how you manage to provide such an accurate estimate of numbers?
00:12:39 Uh I think that would be broadly on the interaction we had around with people around the country. Uh uh the people who turned up to meetings
00:12:50 the people who turned up to meetings prior to that. Uh that was what I would have been based that on potentially.
00:12:59 Moving now on to Emily Apple's involvement. Emily Apple says that she was invited to the RTSDI
00:13:08 the RTSDI logistics meetings through her work with campaign against the arms trade and this was in 2001. And it's at these meetings that she first met you. Does
00:13:20 meetings that she first met you. Does that match your recollection?
00:13:25 Yes, that's correct. She says that they were regular meetings at least every two weeks from March 2001 and more frequently in the run-up to the actual protests.
00:13:37 actual protests. These meetings were attended by about eight or nine people. They generally took place in various pubs. They started in the early evening and we would probably have had a point. That's paragraph 5.3 of Emily Apple's witness
00:13:49 paragraph 5.3 of Emily Apple's witness statement, but I'm not bringing it up again. Does that match your recollection? Yes, exactly.
00:13:59 The first report we have of yours which mentions Emily Apple is dated after the DII
00:14:08 DII protests. Um, I won't bring it up, but trust me, I mean, it's dated the 10th of September, 2001, and the reference is MPS06892.
00:14:18 MPS06892. It's C203. Do you think it likely that you reported on Emily Apple before that point? Yes, if she was if she was if Miss Apple was in a meeting of in a group of eight
00:14:30 was in a meeting of in a group of eight or nine people, then yes, that would have been likely. So, you did report on her. It just so happens that we've not been able to obtain the reports.
00:14:42 I would agree.
00:14:45 Emily Apple says this in her witness statement at paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10 of your relationship. She says, "It was during the runup to DEI 2001 that I
00:14:57 during the runup to DEI 2001 that I started spending a lot of time with Bishop." In particular, I remember spending a lot of time with him in the week before the demo. I spent one day driving around in a higher van with him. We collected useful things for the demo
00:15:09 We collected useful things for the demo like leaflets and dropping off props, leaflets and banners. He was driving. We took things back and forth to a lockup in Canning Town that was rented to help with the protests. From memory, this was around the first time I spent a lot of
00:15:21 around the first time I spent a lot of time with him on my own outside of meetings. Does that match your recollection? H3. Yes.
00:15:30 Is there anything you'd like to add to that about your interactions with Emily Apple in the buildup to DSCI or is that a fair summary? No, that's that's very accurate.
00:15:42 Could we bring up please MPS0747635
00:15:48 C187.
00:15:53 This is one of your reports dated the 23rd of August 2001. Again, no downward dissemination. The intelligence reads, "Reclaim the
00:16:05 The intelligence reads, "Reclaim the streets activists originally planned to enthuse the Canning Town populace regarding this event with a campaign of leafitting in concert with the sambber band. Unfortunately, their efforts have
00:16:16 band. Unfortunately, their efforts have been hampered by printing difficulties regarding the flyers." And again, I just want to draw your attention to OP bonsai at the bottom of that. To the best of your recollection, HN3,
00:16:28 To the best of your recollection, HN3, did the SDS have anything to do with these printing difficulties? No. Not at all. To my knowledge. To your knowledge. To my knowledge. Um, so does it follow from that that you
00:16:40 Um, so does it follow from that that you can't help us with Operation Bonsai and whether that's similar to Operation Apache around Mayday 2000? Oh, is this this could be the um the police public order response to the demonstration potentially, but I don't
00:16:52 demonstration potentially, but I don't know what that is. It would be likely that's what that was. We can take that down please. I bring up another report which is MPS06488.
00:17:04 It's C163 dated the 14th of August 2001. Again, no downward dissemination of this intelligence without reference to CO
00:17:15 intelligence without reference to CO special branch intelligence. It says in relation to the forthcoming RTS action at the DEI exhibition, the central location for storing banners and giant puppets etc.
00:17:27 storing banners and giant puppets etc. is a large squat former factory situated at the junction of Globe Street and Great Do Street SE1. The squat is also being used to store
00:17:38 The squat is also being used to store the protective equipment worn by the Wombles Group. Privacy is running the squat.
00:17:47 squat. HN3, were you privy to this information through your work on the organizing group?
00:17:53 group? Yes, I would have been.
00:17:57 Can you help us with
00:18:01 what your responsibilities were in the leadup to this protest in September? Was it quite was it logistical? Was it a matter of moving things around? Was there more to it than that?
00:18:13 there more to it than that? No, I believe that's a fair assessment. uh using my driving skills. Uh now it's been mentioned I've got recollection of the of a lockup that we rented uh in
00:18:24 the of a lockup that we rented uh in Canning Town area to store props, banners, bits and pieces with um so yes, that's collecting dropping off flyers. That would have been accurate. Thank you. Uh we can take that down, please. We bring up another report which
00:18:35 please. We bring up another report which is MPS06523.
00:18:39 It's C185. This is dated the 23rd of August 2001. If we could look at paragraphs four and five please.
00:18:52 In short, all the various factions will ultimately be gathered at the same location. This is on the day and RTS will be able to utilize the extra numbers in any attempt to gain access to
00:19:03 numbers in any attempt to gain access to the exhibition site itself. There is no doubt that such an attempts will be made and consideration has been given to the feasibility of smuggling ladders through to the perimeter fence and using them to
00:19:16 to the perimeter fence and using them to gain access to the site. Does that ring any bells? Uh not specifically, but that that's uh it's my report. So yes, I would have learned that somewhere.
00:19:28 learned that somewhere. Uh can we take that down please? Uh, if we could bring up another report please. MPS0747623
00:19:37 C180 stated the 29th of August 2001.
00:19:44 Same disclaimer at the top. Um, intelligence RTS activists organizing the demonstration at DSI have made a number of wicker and papermâé props in
00:19:55 number of wicker and papermâé props in which they will try to smuggle equipment such as ladders and wire cutters to the venue. Designs include submarines and hand grenades.
00:20:06 hand grenades. Yes, that's recall that now. Now that's been rent. Yes, absolutely. I do. This is I think these were stored at the squat.
00:20:14 squat. Yes. Um, Robert Banbury backs that up in his witness statement. He says at paragraph 31, amongst what was Oh, well, we're I'm jumping ahead a
00:20:25 was Oh, well, we're I'm jumping ahead a little bit, but he says that one of the things that was stored at the squat was a papia mâe submarine, which would have contained ladders and tools to gain access to the arms fair.
00:20:36 access to the arms fair. Yes, agree 100%.
00:20:40 How did you come to be aware of this plan? If that doesn't seem like an obvious question.
00:20:49 Ah, I probably saw it in the squat. Did you help come up with this plan? No, I don't recall. So, when this plan was discussed in your
00:21:01 when this plan was discussed in your presence,
00:21:03 presence, did you express a view on it or did you keep
00:21:09 keep I don't recall specifics on
00:21:13 Do you accept that within a small organizing group it would be difficult not to express some sort of an opinion such as this? Oh, I don't disagree. I just don't know what my reaction was.
00:21:27 Did you have a a general approach to the best of your recollection when potentially? Sound it sounds like a jolly good idea. So that I probably would have gone with that.
00:21:37 that. Right. So you think you would have supported it and encouraged it? No, there would have been no need. It was already the the the submarine was already in process of being built. I I
00:21:48 already in process of being built. I I recall.
00:21:49 recall. Um just before we take that down, we can just see at the bottom there there's another reference to this op bonsai, but I understand you can't really help us with that. If we could take that down, please. Um, we understand from documents
00:22:01 please. Um, we understand from documents and from Emily Apple's evidence that the premises, the squat, where the items were being stored, it was raided on the 10th of September, 2001.
00:22:12 10th of September, 2001. And Emily Apple and Robert Banbury tell us that a lot of the Papier Mâé props were smashed up, that the submarine was smashed up by police raiding those
00:22:23 smashed up by police raiding those premises.
00:22:26 premises. Were you given to understand HN3 at any point that your intelligence had led to those raids? No.
00:22:36 No. There would have been a significant number of people going in and out of that squat. So,
00:22:44 So, it's your evidence that if there would have been other sources of information about the squat in addition to yours? I would expect so. Yes. So again, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing said in
00:22:56 the avoidance of doubt, nothing said in meetings, nothing said in conversations with your handler to lead you to believe. And again, it's it's possible and feasible that that I was the source of that
00:23:07 that I was the source of that intelligence, but no one ever expressly said that to me. No. And there was no discussion. We I on Monday, we had a look at a um report in relation to disruption in relation to
00:23:19 relation to disruption in relation to Mayday 2000. Do you remember a meeting with you and Jim Boiling and your managers? There is no meeting like that along those lines in relation to taking this kind of action.
00:23:30 this kind of action. No, not that I Moving on to the day itself. Um, we've not obtained a report on the day of day
00:23:41 not obtained a report on the day of day one of the protests at DII on the 11th of September. To the best of your recollection, did you submit a report?
00:23:55 Uh, I would have done um and if it helps, my recollection of the day is that we assembled as a as a group as was on the fly at um Canning Town uh tube station.
00:24:06 Canning Town uh tube station. Yeah.
00:24:06 Yeah. Uh we would have marched walked down behind the Samber band to uh Tidle Basin Road.
00:24:12 Road. Y
00:24:13 Y um large crowd there. Um and then at some point uh we I became aware of a number of broadcast TV trucks that had
00:24:24 number of broadcast TV trucks that had significant numbers of police stood around it. Uh it it was very odd and very strange. So myself and a couple of others I believe went and had a look and uh they were showing feeds of the events
00:24:38 uh they were showing feeds of the events in New York. Yes.
00:24:39 Yes. Um so we watched we watched the events unfold there. Uh I then became aware of the vast majority 95% of the uniform police um or leave
00:24:53 police um or leave uh I now to be redeployed into central London. Um and I my recollection for the the day is I went back to my cover flat and
00:25:05 and the world was never the same. Yes indeed. Um do you remember any disorder on that day at the protests?
00:25:22 Sorry, HN3, we've lost you.
00:25:29 No, no, I don't recall any disorder.
00:25:34 Emily Apple says this of your activities during the day in so far as she's able to speak to them. Paragraph 5.11 of her witness statement, she says, "I remember
00:25:45 witness statement, she says, "I remember spending a lot of time with him on the afternoon of the demo. We spent some of the day running away from the cops together and trying to avoid police kettles."
00:25:55 kettles." Does that chime with your recollection?
00:26:00 That sounds like activity I would have undertaken with Miss Apple, but not on that day.
00:26:06 that day. And you say that because you think the the events of New York, right?
00:26:16 Emily Apple says this as well. She says, "We were obviously becoming close by this time as we wouldn't have stayed together if we hadn't been." Do you agree that you were becoming close around this time?
00:26:30 Uh, I don't dispute what she says. We were becoming friends probably. Yes. Again, it it would appear to be implicit in what you've said, but just to be
00:26:41 in what you've said, but just to be clear,
00:26:43 clear, activists did not gain access to the DEI, to the exhibition site on this day. Is that correct?
00:26:52 I have no more recollection than what I've already said, I'm afraid, for that day.
00:27:02 Emily Apple in her witness statement says that
00:27:06 says that it was on this day, so on the 11th of September 2001 at these DII protests. This was the first day that she started getting followed by the police.
00:27:17 getting followed by the police. She says this at paragraph 5.21. She says, "I remember a forward intelligence team filming. They were specifically interested in me. Later the same day, they followed me, stopped our mini bus, and followed it back to the CAT office.
00:27:30 and followed it back to the CAT office. This harassment continued throughout the week. This is the first time I was aware of getting properly followed by the police. Essentially, this meant that I was being targeted. And she says that
00:27:41 was being targeted. And she says that this coincided with her spending more time with you. Were you ever given to understand that there was a link between the two? that the fact that you were spending more time with Emily Apple and your reporting on her was leading to her
00:27:53 your reporting on her was leading to her being under greater scrutiny by the forward intelligence team? No.
00:27:58 No. Nothing ever said to that effect in desk meetings, for example. No.
00:28:10 Okay. Quick digression. H3 Mayday 2002.
00:28:16 Did you take part in that?
00:28:23 I'm sure I did, but are you going to need to help me with uh where and when it was? I've got no recollection immediately. Um,
00:28:34 don't worry. I mean I'm assuming my question would be is if you can recall whether or not it was decided that but we don't have a report but again we can only infer so much from that and it was
00:28:46 only infer so much from that and it was just whether or not the SDS considered it was necessary to have a UCO at that Mayday whether you can speak to that. Are you aware at all? Uh I went on the previous ones and it
00:28:58 Uh I went on the previous ones and it would have dep it it would have been likely that if I was I would have gone to it. Yes. you can't help us with your activities on the day, I'm afraid. Not without any uh other
00:29:09 I'm afraid. Not without any uh other assistance, I'm afraid. Moving into summer now of 2002. And I want to ask you some questions about Jim Boing and Rosa and the incident that took place at
00:29:20 and the incident that took place at Kingston Green Fair on June the 3, 2002. And we understand that you were working on a stall there with Emily Apple. Is
00:29:32 on a stall there with Emily Apple. Is that correct? Uh my understanding it was with and I I don't doubt that but my my recollection it was with somebody else that you've given a cipher for.
00:29:48 Would you would have been likely that would have been three or four of us there. So I don't dispute that. Yes. Do you dispute that Emily Apple was there?
00:29:55 there? No, not at all. Not at all. No. And she doesn't dispute that. I mean she doesn't say it was just the two of you. So that No. There were there were at least four of us. I recall. And was this a disarmed DSsei stall?
00:30:07 And was this a disarmed DSsei stall? Yes, exactly.
00:30:11 Now, we're aware from the evidence of other people that Rosa and Jim Boiling came to this fair with their
00:30:22 came to this fair with their young child and that Jim Boiling spotted you and then made Rosa hide behind a tent.
00:30:33 then made Rosa hide behind a tent. Now, you say in your witness statement that you were unaware at that time that it had happened. Is that accurate?
00:30:41 That's completely true. The first I became aware of this was in the media report.
00:30:46 report. Right. Well, we'll come to that
00:30:53 again. Just to be sure, did anyone of your activist colleagues around that time mention that Jim Boiling and Rosa had been seen at Kingston Green Fair
00:31:05 had been seen at Kingston Green Fair around this date? Not to you.
00:31:14 Um, now can you help us with when was your next interaction with Jim Boiling after that date? So, June the 3rd, 2002. I
00:31:26 that date? So, June the 3rd, 2002. I appreciate on your account that date doesn't stick out for you particularly, but if you could help us when you think you next spoke to him.
00:31:38 Um, I think I recall giving him some CDs, music CDs. Is this is this Have you got the date of that in my statements? Um, well, it's it's not
00:31:49 Um, well, it's it's not entirely consistent. Um, do you want me to take you to your varying accounts? So, let's bring them because it's it's important. So, um,
00:32:00 important. So, um, yes, of course. If we could bring up MPS 0723144
00:32:05 0723144 B135.
00:32:09 This is an account you gave in 2011. HN3. It's your debrief with with SO15 after the story about Jim Boiling was Oh, I understand. Yes.
00:32:20 Oh, I understand. Yes. Yeah.
00:32:22 Yeah. And it's page four, paragraph two.
00:32:29 Um, it says yes. Thank you. It says HN367 asked HN3 if he had any contact with Jim Boiling once he had left. HN3 said on one occasion he received a phone
00:32:41 said on one occasion he received a phone call from Jim Boiling asking to meet him. This was not long after the Kingston fair. HN3 met up with Jim Boiling. Jim Boiling told him that he was now having a relationship with a
00:32:52 was now having a relationship with a member of police staff from SO15 by the name of Redacted. He asked HN3 for some DVDs for Redaxes. On hindsight, HN3 thinks this meeting was odd and may have
00:33:05 thinks this meeting was odd and may have been, it's a typo, an excuse to see if HN3 had seen him at Kingston Fair. Apart from this one occasion, there has been no other contact.
00:33:18 Do you stand by that? Does that sound right?
00:33:21 right? I do. CDs. It's CDs. Music CDs, not DVDs. Well, in your witness statement, we can bring that up. That's um MPS0748426, which is paragraph 358, page 119.
00:33:39 And you say, I visited Jim Boing at his home once after he had completed his deployment. This was to take his then partner some CDs. In hindsight, the call
00:33:52 partner some CDs. In hindsight, the call from Jim Boiling may have been after the publication of the Guardian article rather than immediately after Kingston Green Fair. So, first of all,
00:34:03 So, first of all, there's some dispute across those two accounts in respect of whether it was soon after Kingston Green Fair or whether it was in 2011.
00:34:12 Do you think it was more likely to be after Kingston Green Fair? Soon after. I think it was. I I think it was. That's my recollection. Um, and your because I remember thinking this is very odd and in hindsight I apologize. Sorry,
00:34:25 odd and in hindsight I apologize. Sorry, we got bit of a delay on the line. Sorry.
00:34:27 Sorry. No, don't worry. Don't apologize. Um, and you you think it was CDs. The reason I ask is only because if you were still deployed,
00:34:35 deployed, you would have had access to all those DVDs. So, I wonder if I most definitely CDs,
00:34:41 CDs, right?
00:34:42 right? Um,
00:34:43 Um, 100%.
00:34:44 100%. So, can you help us? So, he contacted you. How?
00:34:48 you. How? Uh, I think I've said he met, he phoned me, I think. Right. And can you remember where you met? I know it says home here, but it's not specific.
00:34:58 specific. Yeah, I went to um I went to a very nice uh apartment by the river. Um, there's this reference to his then partner. Did you meet his then partner? Now, that's my words, and I may have
00:35:10 Now, that's my words, and I may have just been
00:35:12 just been assuming they were partners, but there was a a lady who I met there. Yes. And that woman wasn't Rosa. No.
00:35:25 And we're still talking summer 2002. So June 2002, as we've seen, I'm not really sure when
00:35:36 as we've seen, I'm not really sure when the date when this was. It could have been significantly later. It could have been. Uh I could only date it on where he was living. Um um was he living in Kingston?
00:35:47 was he living in Kingston? Uh
00:35:50 Uh if it was in a second or third floor flat that would seem about right. Um
00:36:00 Um in evidence Jim Boiling said that soon after the incident at Kingston Green Fair that he arranged to meet up with you. He said this in his live evidence.
00:36:11 you. He said this in his live evidence. He said that he phoned you soon afterwards and
00:36:16 and he said that you met in Bushy Park. Does that ring any bells?
00:36:26 No. Where? What park? Sorry. Bushy.
00:36:31 Bushy. It's in southwest London. Oh, okay. Um,
00:36:39 no. Um, he said that he explained to you that he had reunited with Rosa and that they were now a couple
00:36:50 they were now a couple and that
00:36:52 and that even though she was an activist, they were now together and she knew that he was a police officer. Do you recall that?
00:36:59 that? No.
00:37:00 No. He says that he thought you needed to be aware of this also because there was a compromise risk because Rosa had seen you and knew you
00:37:11 because Rosa had seen you and knew you were a police officer.
00:37:16 Does that match your recollection? No, not at all. My my recollection of the
00:37:24 of the my first hearing about it was the paper article and we we had the meeting with the people from SO5 because of a potential compromise risk then is my recollection.
00:37:36 recollection. He denies that he said anything to you about CDs or DVDs or that he was going out with someone whose name we've redacted from SO5.
00:37:47 redacted from SO5. Can you comment on the accuracy of that? So, I can't comment that they were romantic partners. Yes.
00:37:54 Yes. But I I met her because I knew her from being a member of police staff. Yeah.
00:38:01 Yeah. In his flat. And he, if I understand your evidence correctly, he did ask to borrow CDs. That's your evidence. He asked very specifically for music CDs.
00:38:13 CDs. And that is the only time you met up with him after his deployment ended. That I recall? Yes, that you recall. So, you're certain that none of that
00:38:24 So, you're certain that none of that happened? Is that your evidence? I'm certain that I went to his h went to his flat? Yes, I am certain. No, but what I Sorry, I didn't phrase it properly. Are you certain that you did not have a conversation in Bushy Park at
00:38:36 not have a conversation in Bushy Park at which he told you that he and Rosa were a couple? That he had told her he was a policeman? I have no recollection of that and I think I would have remembered. Um,
00:38:50 can you think of any reason why he might say that if that's untrue? I understand that appreciates you. You know, you you can't read his mind, but can you you can't think of any reason why he might?
00:39:01 why he might? No.
00:39:05 I met I met I met Jim a number of times after I'd finished my deployment and we were posted back in to a similar location. We we discussed but even then
00:39:16 location. We we discussed but even then we didn't even stop for coffee. They were kind of chats in the corridor in the street. And did he say anything to you at that time about the fact that he was in a relationship with a woman called who you
00:39:27 relationship with a woman called who you knew from reclaim the streets who we're calling Rosa? Not until not until the newspapers. Okay.
00:39:35 Okay. I mean clearly I I knew when we spoke on Monday about the um I had an inference from when we the phone call was made to the office. Yes.
00:39:43 Yes. And then we and then we moved offices. I had an inkling and an idea and then everything fits together. And this is why I said I believed that the CDs were for Jim. Jim had an extensive music
00:39:56 for Jim. Jim had an extensive music collection himself. Yeah. And uh I that's why I said in hindsight I believe it was to see whether
00:40:04 but did you ever address with him explicitly the fact of his having had a sexual relationship with Rosa before he
00:40:15 sexual relationship with Rosa before he withdrew?
00:40:16 withdrew? No.
00:40:17 No. You never had an explicit conversation about that? No.
00:40:22 No. And did he ever refer to that when you saw him again? No reference made to that at all or anything like that. Or the fact she tried to track him down.
00:40:34 No, I don't believe so.
00:40:40 So again, just for the avoidance of doubt, you had no idea that he'd reconciled with her until it came out in the press in January 2011.
00:40:51 That's my recollection. Yes. Right. Moving on to a new topic. Um, before we do that, can I try and establish a date? The date when you moved offices and the
00:41:03 The date when you moved offices and the circumstances in which you did so. Can you remember the date? Sir, I'm afraid I can't. I do apologize. Or year even.
00:41:18 Uh,
00:41:21 I would just be guessing. So, I do apologize. Okay. And the reason for moving offices, can you recall what that was? Uh because the the telephone number of the office had been wrong. I now
00:41:33 the office had been wrong. I now understand by Rosa. But you understood at the time. I want to know what what it is that you understood at the time. Oh, I um at the time uh I don't think it was explicit to
00:41:45 time uh I don't think it was explicit to anybody immediately, but I believe in a in a period afterwards, it became apparent that that somebody an activist had rung on the had rung the office
00:41:57 had rung on the had rung the office looking for looking for Jim and that's why we had to move.
00:42:13 Thank you. Uh if it if it helps if it helps sir, I believe the new office uh HN36
00:42:25 HN36 may have may have been um may have been the new DCI.
00:42:34 I don't know if that timing meets, but I I I remember HN36 at the new the new office as it were once we'd moved. I think HN36's name is published.
00:42:45 I think HN36's name is published. Yes.
00:42:46 Yes. That's DCI Dell. DCI Dell.
00:42:48 DCI Dell. Sorry. Yes, sir. Yes. I wasn't sure. Absolutely right to be cautious. It's easier to put it right afterwards if you're cautious than the other way around.
00:43:01 A new topic now, HN3, uh, the true spies documentary. This
00:43:09 This documentary series about the SDS and similar units was broadcast in October, November 2002. Did you watch this documentary?
00:43:22 Uh, I believe I might have seen it sometime later on a VHS tape, I believe. But you didn't watch it at the time it came out.
00:43:35 I have no recollection of that.
00:43:40 Were you told anything about the True Spies documentary before it was made and subsequently? So
00:43:51 subsequently? So when it was a proposal, were you advised or informed about that? No, I don't believe so. Or if we do, if we did, I have no recollection of it. Um, I think all we all I remember is
00:44:04 Um, I think all we all I remember is maybe on the day or two before transmission, we were told something was going to go out. And were you told that in a SDS meeting? It depending on the day of the week,
00:44:16 It depending on the day of the week, either in the meeting or when we rang it when we when we rang in twice a day if there was no meeting scheduled. Yeah. Can you remember what you were told about it? the sort of tenor as well of what you were told.
00:44:28 of what you were told. I'm afraid I can't though. Um I'd like to bring up just in case it jogs your memory, please HN60's witness statement which is MPS0748427.
00:44:39 It's um tab A1 of his bundle and it's page 122 paragraph 178. This is what he says his recollection of it HN3.
00:44:53 He says, "The only other matter I can assist the inquiry on relates to true spies. Before the show was broadcast, I remember that there was a Thursday meeting where someone, I cannot recall who, said that a television program
00:45:04 who, said that a television program about the SDS was being planned. Over the next few months, we heard more about this. Logically, it must have been from the DS's DI or DCI, as they would have been better versed in what was happening
00:45:15 been better versed in what was happening in special branch. As I recall, we were told about a difference of opinion between former SDS officers. On the one hand, there were those who were willing to participate, and on the other, there
00:45:26 to participate, and on the other, there were those who believed publicity was a terrible idea. The fact that the program had been sanctioned by senior SB officers came as a real shock to me. I do not recall the specifics of discussions, but I do recall a sense of
00:45:38 discussions, but I do recall a sense of anger and disappointment. Although it did not change what I did within my deployment, it increased my stress levels and made me more paranoid. I was worried that the specificity of the detail would cause people in the animal
00:45:50 detail would cause people in the animal rights field to be more on the alert for potential UCOs.
00:45:56 To the best of your recollection, did you have similar feelings about it? Yes, that's helpful. And I remember now this show
00:46:09 this show um a number of us feeling awfully let down.
00:46:15 Can you recall being warned to be on the lookout of for activists
00:46:25 being more suspicious of undercover officers or trying to identify undercover officers as a result of the program?
00:46:36 Not specifically not. To the best of your recollection, did your targeting change in any way? And what I mean by that, HN3, is
00:46:50 were you tasked to provide information on individuals who may have been trying to identify SDS officers as opposed to reporting on them because they might be
00:47:01 reporting on them because they might be considered a risk to
00:47:05 maintaining public? No, not at all. The the only The only recollection of it impacting on on myself and an N60 is us um having the flat together to try and get away from
00:47:17 flat together to try and get away from that stereotype. So your getting the flat together you think was a reaction to in part to true spies and the revelations therein?
00:47:29 spies and the revelations therein? if the timing suits that that would that would that would be my recollection
00:47:36 if not specifically but just to to move away from the whole yeah you think it had an impact on it um
00:47:47 we can look at those dates I think it's broadly speaking similar but I'll return to that point but thank you um I think
00:47:54 I think sorry
00:47:55 sorry sorry ma'am I think if if it helps I apologize um I I seem to remember something in my witness bond that there was an office note that
00:48:07 was an office note that reaction to us moving. Yes, there is. There is that they mentioned the program that I recall that. Yeah, you're absolutely right. Um it's
00:48:19 Yeah, you're absolutely right. Um it's in my old plan, but we'll find it. But yes, there's definitely a note and we referred to it on Monday. It's just in another section, I think, but we'll find that. But I think it is around the same time, so that would make sense. Uh, thank you.
00:48:30 Uh, thank you. Yeah, that would it would make that that's how it impacted on me. Yes. Yeah. Um,
00:48:39 I'd like to bring up we had a quick look at this on Monday, but I would like to look at it again. It's MPS1337.
00:48:47 It's B73. Sir, um this is a document which
00:48:54 which relates to actions being taken by the SDS in relation to Helen Steel's trip to New Zealand in December 2002 and her investigations into John Dyn.
00:49:06 investigations into John Dyn. Um
00:49:09 Um paragraph one reads at 1400 on Saturday the 14th of December 2002, Helen Still arrived at Oakland airport in company with her parents. The port warning set in place three weeks ago alerted airport
00:49:21 in place three weeks ago alerted airport police and DS redacted and a discrete baggage search was carried out by customs. This revealed that Steel was in possession of two VHS videos, one
00:49:32 possession of two VHS videos, one dealing with the Mcllair, the other apparently a copy of the BBC 2 true spies programs. She was also in possession of a mobile phone. Details
00:49:43 possession of a mobile phone. Details could not be obtained.
00:49:46 Can you recall Hn3 whether this information was shared with you around this time
00:49:52 this time by H sorry this is by HN53. Can you recall this being imparted to you? No.
00:50:04 Um thank you. Yes. My colleague has helpfully brought my attention to the document about the flat share which was the 12th of February 2001. That's on document MPS triple09473.
00:50:18 That's on document MPS triple09473. That's when it's discussed. So it's
00:50:26 quite a period of time before true spies.
00:50:30 spies. Does that have an impact on your answer? very definitely without even seeing without even seeing the the documentary the fact that something was myself and um myself and N60 had
00:50:43 myself and um myself and N60 had previously raised this and it had been um been turned down um so we we tried again um and I think one of the things that somebody mentioned was the
00:50:55 that somebody mentioned was the documentary now I don't know whether as a result of it or or for in the planning yeah it could have been when it was being discussed Moving on to another topic,
00:51:06 Moving on to another topic, summer 2002 and Emily Apple. We've established that you were spending more time with Emily Apple around this time.
00:51:19 Apple around this time. Um, were you aware that Emily Apple had uh a breakdown in summer 2002?
00:51:36 I don't believe so unless there's nothing. I'm not recalling something instantly, but if there's reporting that would help me. No, there's no reporting, but she says this. She says in her witness
00:51:47 this. She says in her witness statements, paragraph 5.137, uh, that she had her first breakdown in summer 2002 following one night of heavy drinking. I ended up in hospital vomiting blood with dangerously low
00:51:58 vomiting blood with dangerously low blood pressure. Do you remember that?
00:52:09 Would it help if I said vaguely? I apologize. That's just
00:52:14 just you have to say what you believe to be the truth. She says that you did know if that helps. I don't doubt that. I don't doubt that. But I don't remember it as a I probably would have learned about it
00:52:25 I probably would have learned about it sometime afterwards from from from her. So I I don't doubt that. So yes, but I I I don't recall that immediately. Can we bring up please MPS0010493?
00:52:39 It's C253. This is a report dated the 27th of September 2002.
00:52:48 It's a short report. Again, no downward dissemination. intelligence. Emily Apple, who is one of the main figures in organizing the DEI 2003 action, has recently moved to the following address.
00:53:01 recently moved to the following address. And then the address and the telephone number are redacted. Um, we can take that down. Thanks. Emily Apple says of this report at paragraph 5.153 of her witness statement, it describes me as
00:53:13 witness statement, it describes me as one of the main figures involved in organizing DSI 2003 and gives my new address and phone number. While I dispute that I was a leader, I don't dispute I was an organizer. This report
00:53:24 dispute I was an organizer. This report is dated shortly after I moved to this address in September 2002. I remember this as it was quite soon after I had been hospitalized and I had gone to visit family in privacy for a couple of
00:53:35 visit family in privacy for a couple of weeks because of my health. I shared with Privacy and Victoria. Were you aware of this at the time? it to the ill health.
00:53:47 it to the ill health. Yes. And the fact that well clearly you were aware that she'd moved house recently, but yes. Were you aware that this was shortly after she'd been discharged from hospital and in the
00:53:59 been discharged from hospital and in the aftermath of that breakdown? No, I don't believe so. Can you help us with why you reported these details?
00:54:10 Yes, absolutely. I would report it on everybody's address, telephone number.
00:54:20 I know you say you vaguely recall the fact that Emily Apple had had a breakdown, but would the fact of Emily Apple having a breakdown in any way have
00:54:32 Apple having a breakdown in any way have affected the extent and the detail in which Sorry. You say you say breakdown. I my recollection is is the hospitalization
00:54:43 recollection is is the hospitalization because of uh illness or or or or the drinking. I I if if my recollection I'm not going to dispute it. I really not. But I don't you're phrasing it as a
00:54:55 But I don't you're phrasing it as a breakdown is is not what I'm understanding. I believe that that that she was hospitalized because I've subsequently learned that later on but for the reason what I don't I'm sure
00:55:07 for the reason what I don't I'm sure which she describes it as a breakdown in her witness that I would I I don't dispute that at all but um I I wouldn't have kn I didn't know that and
00:55:18 know that and you say you didn't know that at the time so it wouldn't have had an impact on your reporting on her. Is that I don't I don't believe I don't believe so.
00:55:28 so. Do you think if you had been aware of it at the time it would have had an impact on the extent to which you reported on her or not? No, probably not. If I'm honest, and if not, why not?
00:55:41 If I had have known, so I would reported that she would have been if if someone had a had a any form of
00:55:51 illness or injury that was going to take them away from activism for a certain time, I'd reported that.
00:56:00 She also says this about the reporting of the new address and the phone number. This is a paragraph 5.154. However, I also remember that we made the decision that we didn't want this address to be widely known and initially
00:56:12 address to be widely known and initially it was not used as a bail address. This was partly in response to how much harassment I had received and how much it had affected my health. Again, were you aware of that at the
00:56:23 Again, were you aware of that at the time?
00:56:24 time? No.
00:56:28 Emily Apple says at paragraph 5.154, "Jason Bishop knew this and was therefore putting my very fragile mental health at risk by reporting this address. Furthermore, my address and phone number can only have been included
00:56:40 phone number can only have been included for wider surveillance purposes." Emily Apple says, "You did know this. Do you dispute that?" I'm not going to dispute what Miss Apple says, but I don't recall knowing that at
00:56:52 says, but I don't recall knowing that at that specific time.
00:56:59 Um, moving on now to the setting up of disarm DII. Emily Apple at paragraph five paragraphs 5.147148
00:57:09 5.147148 of her witness statement says that the first meetings of disarm DSsei were on the 12th and the 20th of August 2002. And the for the initial meeting she contacted all the people involved in the
00:57:20 contacted all the people involved in the logistics group for 2001 including Jason Bishop. Does that match your recollection?
00:57:29 Yes, I believe so. She goes on to say at paragraph 5.151, Jason Bishop then came to most of the disarmed DSEI meetings. Some of the
00:57:40 disarmed DSEI meetings. Some of the meetings took place at the CAT offices, some at Royal Festival Hall, some at Lark, some at various pubs, mostly in White Chapel. Is that accurate?
00:57:51 White Chapel. Is that accurate? Except for the CAT offices, I only remember going there once or twice ever, but the rest of it completely 100%. Okay. Um, she says that there were generally five to 10 of you at the
00:58:02 generally five to 10 of you at the meetings. Sometimes the meetings were bigger. Does that match your recollection? Absolutely. And you say in your witness statement that you volunteered to run the
00:58:14 that you volunteered to run the transport subgroup within this group. Is that right? Yes, that would have been correct. Um, and I understand that by this time you had your Land Rover.
00:58:25 you had your Land Rover. I think you acquired that on the 1st of July 2002. So,
00:58:31 So, does it follow that you were using your Land Rover in your role running the transport subgroup? very much so.
00:58:41 Moving into March 2003, I'd like to talk to you about the Fairford Coaches incident of the 22nd of March 2003.
00:58:51 Do you recall this incident HM3 just generally just in terms of the publicity it received and what happened? Yes.
00:59:04 Now I understand from your witness statement, we need to be careful. Okay? Please do not give any detail about dates around this topic, your movements on particular dates. But I understand from your witness statement that you
00:59:15 from your witness statement that you were not around on the 22nd of March, 2003.
00:59:24 Yes, that's correct. And I believe you've seen Yes. Yes, we have. We have uh now we have again
00:59:36 please no detail about dates but we have from Emily Apple. I'm just going to bring this up just to evidence the fact that she was involved in lots of Fairford Coach organizing around the
00:59:49 Fairford Coach organizing around the beginning of 2003. So if we could please bring up UCPI 38160.
01:00:00 So this is Emily Apple's diary from 2003.
01:00:06 2003. So page one we can see January 2003 just at the top she's written Fairford Coach write basic text email Kingsley Hall arrow disobedience. So a number of
01:00:17 arrow disobedience. So a number of to-dos flowing from Fairford Coach activity. If we go to page two, please. This is on the 5th of February, 2003. Fairford Meeting, GS. She says that's
01:00:29 Fairford Meeting, GS. She says that's the Good Samaritan Pub. Page three, please. There's reference to a Fairford Meeting at 2 p.m. on the 8th of February, 2003,
01:00:42 at 2 p.m. on the 8th of February, 2003, Osley Street. Page four, the 10th of February, 2003. as a reference there to emailing Jason. Page five,
01:00:57 Fairford Meeting at Lark on the 16th of February.
01:01:01 February. Page six, please. Fairford workshop. Page seven. 23rd of February. Fairford 9:00 a.m. Houston. So, I understand I think that
01:01:13 Houston. So, I understand I think that that was the second there were three lots of coaches. That was the second lot of coaches before the third one which was when the protesters were arrested and forcibly returned.
01:01:25 and forcibly returned. And then if we could go please to page eight
01:01:31 and that's the key date the 22nd of March Fairford. So that's the day that became the subject of the civil action. Um
01:01:43 civil action. Um would you agree while please revealing nothing about your own movements that this shows that there was a lot of Fairford related activity being undertaken by Emily Apple over this time period?
01:01:55 period? Yes. Agree. And you were associating closely with Emily Apple at this time. Is that fair to say? No, I disagree with this time period.
01:02:08 No, I disagree with this time period. Um
01:02:09 Um why would you? Well, again, without going into dates, but you were going to DSEI meetings generally with her. Yes.
01:02:17 Yes. And you were one of a small group. Yes.
01:02:20 Yes. And I mean, I don't think there's any suggestion that you're away for the whole of this period leading up to the 22nd of March, but again, please give no specific dates. Is it fair to say that you would have
01:02:32 Is it fair to say that you would have been aware of some organizing activity? You're not saying you were involved in it yourself, but you would have been aware that activity was being organized in relation to protests at Fairford and
01:02:46 in relation to protests at Fairford and I don't doubt that. I don't doubt that. Yes.
01:02:48 Yes. Um, to the best of your recollection, did you report on it?
01:02:55 As you've seen on number of occasions, if I've heard it, I reported it. Um, but you don't have any specific recollection of reporting on the plans to take coaches to Fairford to protest
01:03:08 coaches to Fairford to protest around the Iraq war. I think we I think we this when
01:03:18 this when in my uh my statement and we were unable
01:03:26 sorry HN3 we lost you there. Do you mind just repeating your last response?
01:03:31 response? Yes. Um uh if I if I had have been aware of it as you've seen previous occasions, I would have reported it. Um
01:03:40 Um it's just that your witness statement gives the impression that you knew nothing about it. Do you think that's accurate?
01:03:49 I clearly would have known something was going on but not to any detail and and I
01:04:00 going on but not to any detail and and I I had no idea what was been planned because of the abstraction. Um,
01:04:09 Um, we know that HN77 was aware of planning. Um, yes, please do remind yourself who that is. I don't think we need to bring it up, but
01:04:20 think we need to bring it up, but there's a summary of her reporting. Uh, MPS0731955
01:04:26 and on page two there's a reference to date of action at the Fairford Air Base. So, we know that she reported on it and you refer in your witness statement and
01:04:37 you refer in your witness statement and on Monday to sometimes having desk meetings with HN77. Again, to the best of your recollection, do you remember there being any discussion of it prior to the 22nd of March?
01:04:48 to the 22nd of March? No, because of the uh the obstruction.
01:05:01 Were you aware at the time or after soon after the event that EN32 Rod Richardson was on one of the coaches that was turned back on the 22nd of March?
01:05:14 I think I knew that subsequently, but I can't help you with when and how I know that.
01:05:20 that. Maybe that's from open source subsequently potentially. Okay. Um, were you aware of the civil proceedings that then flowed from the Fairford Coach incident? So, they took
01:05:32 Fairford Coach incident? So, they took place August 2003 to the 20th of Feb 2004. Were you aware of those proceedings at the time? Uh, I I'm sure I must have been because
01:05:43 Uh, I I'm sure I must have been because if there had been a big action, I must have been, but I don't recall knowing about it.
01:05:50 about it. You don't recall there being any discussion about it in STS meetings? No.
01:05:56 No. Or any discussion. Sorry. Because of my lack of involvement. Um well, again, you may have preempted my next question, but just for the avoidance of doubt, Emily Apple in her
01:06:07 avoidance of doubt, Emily Apple in her witness statement at paragraph 5.181 says that in the resulting civil case against the police, unknown intelligence sources were repeatedly referenced in court papers. One of those intel sources
01:06:19 court papers. One of those intel sources must surely have been Jason Bishop as he was part of our wider organizing group. So, do you have any reason to believe that you were one of those intelligence sources mentioned in the civil proceedings?
01:06:30 proceedings? No, I don't believe so at all.
01:06:35 Moving on. Um, I'd like to bring up another document, please, which is MPS 0077588,
01:06:43 page two, please. This is dated the 2nd of April, 2003. It's B76.
01:06:51 It's B76. Uh paragraphs one and two please of page one.
01:06:56 Um thank you. File note. Uh it says Red Herring. On Tuesday the 1st of April 2003,
01:07:05 2003, Red Herring reported that he'd been approached by a small group of his associates and asked if he would participate in an action against a road holage company that was responsible for transferring bombs from a military depot
01:07:16 transferring bombs from a military depot in Welfford, Oxfordshire to the nearby RAF base of Fairford. The bombs are for use on B-52s. One of the group, it's not known whom, has identified the company concerned and
01:07:28 has identified the company concerned and traced them to their based in base in Southampton. NFD not for disclosure. I think that means the intention of the group is to break into the depo and sabotage the company fleet thereby rendering it
01:07:40 company fleet thereby rendering it unroadworthy. Standard tools will be used to cause damage to the vehicles and there is no intention to resort to any form of incendurary device.
01:07:56 Um, now Emily Apple in her witness statement says of this, she says, "I accept that this that sounds like the sort of thing we'd have talked about doing if we had
01:08:07 we'd have talked about doing if we had received this information. It's certainly in keeping with the types of action we want actions we wanted to carry out to frustrate the war. Do you recollect this proposed action?" HN3
01:08:19 recollect this proposed action?" HN3 vagely, could I just read the rest of the document, please? if it's if it's necessary.
01:08:28 Yeah, it shows that you were authorized to participate in the wrecky of it, but it seems no more than that.
01:08:50 I mean, I'll I'll read out paragraph four because it's very relevant. The reconnaissance visit will be made in Red Herring's vehicle, and to that end, he is a vital part of the overall strategy. However, merely withdrawing Red Herring
01:09:01 However, merely withdrawing Red Herring and his vehicle from the scenario would not in itself cause the plan to be abandoned as other transport arrangements could be made. The net result of Red Her's withdrawal would be to cut off the only intelligent source
01:09:12 to cut off the only intelligent source available and thereby remove all advanced knowledge of the group's intentions. Inquiry conducted through C squad have identified the target company as redacted. The company has a contract
01:09:23 redacted. The company has a contract with the mod for this work and currently have six vehicles NFD permanently garageed at the USAF base in Wford.
01:09:34 garageed at the USAF base in Wford. And then the second paragraph on page two being that it is undesirable to disrupt the plan through any action inaction attributable to red herring. The only reme remaining identified solution is to alert Hampshire special
01:09:45 solution is to alert Hampshire special branch C squad and the NPIU to the threat and hopefully arrange for a similarly discouraging security presence to be in situ at the time of the reconnaissance visit.
01:09:57 reconnaissance visit. The above strategy is fraught with potential pitfalls and as the effective date is almost a week away, it's proposed that Hampshire special branch are not informed until nearer the time. In the interim period, it's hoped that Red Herring will be able to obtain
01:10:08 Red Herring will be able to obtain further information on the scheme and will also allow for an office visit to the target premises over the coming weekend. Such a visit will enable us to identify the size of the premises, the number of vehicles that are or could be
01:10:19 number of vehicles that are or could be gared there, and the extent of their existing security arrangements.
01:10:28 Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Does that ring a bell? Do you remember this? I Well, I remember and this is this is um quite consistent with with with how things would work. If we had uh I think I referred to it on Monday. If we had
01:10:40 I referred to it on Monday. If we had information that needed further discussion at a Thursday meeting, um we would have gone into a smaller group and discussed this and the strategy of what was happening, whether I was authorized
01:10:52 was happening, whether I was authorized to do anything. uh and we would have talked it through and then obviously you can see from some of those things there the back office are also looking at mitigation strategies for for any action that may take place.
01:11:04 that may take place. Yeah. Um
01:11:08 now can you recall what happened to this plan because there's again slight contradiction between the documents. So I can we can look at the documents if that helps but you can't remember whether this what what materialized or
01:11:22 whether this what what materialized or not.
01:11:23 not. I remember doing something I'm wondering if I remember doing something at farra in my Land Rover but not particularly for this. I wonder if this got cancelled. Um well there are two accounts. So if we
01:11:36 Um well there are two accounts. So if we look at MPS 018488 page two uh this is C269. This is raw reporting from you HN3. It's undated,
01:11:47 reporting from you HN3. It's undated, but it seems to be from around the end of 2002 to around March, April 2003. Yeah, page two, paragraph 2, please.
01:12:01 Uh, if you just see Yeah, I mean, it's Well, it's really paragraph three, I guess. Just It says, "The Southampton action is on hold for the moment and will possibly be abandoned in the near future. Victoria and Emily have found a
01:12:13 future. Victoria and Emily have found a replacement target which is more DII related and wrecking will start shortly. So it sounds like it was abandoned from that. Does that chime with your
01:12:27 that. Does that chime with your recollection? I believe I believe so. I think we drove down there. So that makes sense. And I think I know what the other action is. Right. Um if we could just bring up
01:12:38 Right. Um if we could just bring up please MPS36459.
01:12:42 This is an operational review for you written by Bernagini for the period January to April 2003. If we could look under the heading
01:12:53 If we could look under the heading effectiveness at the bottom of the page. Red Herring has maintained a high level of quality reporting that effectively encapsulates the environmental movement within London. If we go over the page
01:13:04 within London. If we go over the page please.
01:13:10 Oh, apologies. I'm sorry. I'm on the wrong page. So, sorry. Effectiveness on page two. So, at the bottom of that page says effectiveness. As a leading member of the DEI organizing group, Red Herring
01:13:21 of the DEI organizing group, Red Herring has had continued access to the entire planning process of that August body. Similarly, he has managed to obtain the main thrust of the plans for the imminent Mayday protest. He has also by
01:13:32 imminent Mayday protest. He has also by disruption managed to thwart an intended attack on the premises and vehicles of a transport company who deliver ordinance to RAF bases in Oxfordshire.
01:13:45 So which account is correct? HN3 did it get abandoned or did you thwart it or did
01:13:52 did No, I think it just got I think it got abandoned and we chose somewhere else. Um
01:13:56 Um my election. Did you give Bernagrini the impression that you had thwarted it by some means? Uh, I don't believe so.
01:14:07 Uh, I don't believe so. Is that the kind of thing you might do? Exaggerate your I I had I had no need I had no need to exaggerate anything.
01:14:19 Would you agree? Emily Apple makes the point that your inclusion in this plan, notwithstanding the fact it didn't take shape, shows that you were very trusted.
01:14:30 shape, shows that you were very trusted. You were trusted. I've lost you. Oh, sorry. Can you hear me?
01:14:37 Can you hear me now? Uh, okay. I got If you could just rewind 30 seconds, please. Yes, fine. Yeah. Um, Emily Apple makes the point in her witness statement that the fact that you were trusted
01:14:51 the fact that you were trusted you were within the inner circle of knowledge, the circle of trust in relation to this plan and this type of anti-war planning shows well a the extent of your
01:15:02 shows well a the extent of your infiltration and your key role, but also the fact that you would have been privy to information about Fairford because you were trusted with this kind of information. What do you say to that?
01:15:13 information. What do you say to that? No, the two don't follow. Why don't they follow? because I my abstraction from the event.
01:15:27 Um just a quick point if we could bring up please this is in this is on the discreet topic of funding for direct action on behalf of disarmed DSI. Can we
01:15:38 action on behalf of disarmed DSI. Can we bring up please MPS 0 1 018488
01:15:46 bottom of page one and it goes over to page two. This is again undated. It's raw reporting HN3 but it again it appears to be from the end of 2002 to around March April 2003.
01:16:00 end of 2002 to around March April 2003. Um it says privacy facilitated the donation of £4,000 from the network foundation. This money, which was channeled through privacy as the CAT
01:16:11 channeled through privacy as the CAT representative, was meant to be for the direct action side of the DEAI campaign. It appears to have disappeared into the CAT coffers and is being used to cover their DSI printing costs. Privacy is
01:16:25 their DSI printing costs. Privacy is aware of the problem and is willing to be more involved in the DSI action now that Rising Tide have finished their series of actions. He has suggested to Jason Bishop that further funds are available for the direct action side of
01:16:38 available for the direct action side of the action and Bishop will leaz with him during the summer. So it appears from that HN3 that you were soliciting funds from an individual for
01:16:51 soliciting funds from an individual for direct action undertaken on behalf of disarmed DSI. Is that an accurate characterization? Not sure about soliciting but I know to what individual you're referring and
01:17:02 what individual you're referring and yesing for money as a group. Uh and this is the same individual who faced criminal proceedings again please don't name them but in relation to J18 is that your recollection
01:17:13 is that your recollection that's my understanding. Yes. Um again did management comment at all on your role here talking about funding direct action? Was that a cause for
01:17:24 direct action? Was that a cause for concern at all or was it something they applauded? No. Sorry, did you say you don't know?
01:17:34 Sorry, HN3, I missed your last response. So, I the signal is awful. Yeah, I know it's not helpful. Um I if your question was did they ask me about the the funding then no that no comment was
01:17:45 the funding then no that no comment was made from the office is my recollection about the u me collecting the funds. Fine.
01:17:51 Fine. Um,
01:17:53 Um, if we could move on now to stop spearhead and read campaigning, please. Um, if we could bring up MPS42159,
01:18:08 C354. This is a again raw report from around March 2004. And the first paragraph reads, "The next picket, an electronic blockade of Reed
01:18:20 picket, an electronic blockade of Reed and Spearhead Exhibitions Limited will be at 1 PM on Monday the 4th of April outside their offices in Richmond High Street. It is hoped to make this a regular event on the first Monday of
01:18:31 regular event on the first Monday of each month except May as this that is bank holiday. So it will be on Tuesday the 3 of May. Uh can you help us with what's meant by
01:18:42 Uh can you help us with what's meant by electronic blockade in this instance?
01:18:48 Um I think that would have referred to um sending faxes to their fax machine. This is in the early days and potentially sending I'm not going to say that's my
01:19:00 not going to say that's my understanding. I think we it probably now it would have been sending spam and malware overwhelming their systems, but I think that was too rudimentary for for this time period. So, I think the best
01:19:11 this time period. So, I think the best we we were looking to do is is to send them uh non-stop nonsense facts is is my recollection. Okay. Um could we go uh down to paragraph seven please?
01:19:26 Um sorry that's on page two. So over the next page then paragraph seven. Um so it's the paragraph that starts at least four activists and this reads at least four activists from Brighton have been
01:19:38 four activists from Brighton have been served with injunction papers for them to appear at a high court in April. The attempt is to prevent any kind of protest outside the offices of EDO who have been subjected to a campaign by the smash EDO group. The legal action has
01:19:50 smash EDO group. The legal action has been brought by the now famous sorry infamous firm of solicitors Lawson Cretendon and co. This firm has been actively seeking clients which have been targeted by protesters and offering to
01:20:01 targeted by protesters and offering to help them. It is the same firm who have been used by the animal abusers to cail lawful protest and also who were behind the Earth first Bayer injunctions. The law firm have themselves been targeted
01:20:13 law firm have themselves been targeted by protesters and have had their windows broken and locks glued. And next paragraph, please.
01:20:23 The above is interesting. I'll want to look at the paragraph after that as well. Thank you. Um, the above is interesting as those named in the injunction were recently acquitted for aggravated trespass. In previous injunctions, all those named have been
01:20:34 injunctions, all those named have been convicted of an offense at the target company. This injunction, if granted, will backfire on the company and will increase the level of protest and harassment against them. Already members
01:20:45 harassment against them. Already members of the disarmed DSEI group are considering actions against EDO. Consideration should be given to the question of what advice to give. Should the Reed slashsp spearhead companies
01:20:56 the Reed slashsp spearhead companies approach the desk as to whether they should follow EDO's lead? So, this appears to be a reference to private companies approaching the desk
01:21:08 private companies approaching the desk for advice. By the desk, do you mean Squad?
01:21:11 Squad? That's correct. Yes. Um, so was this something that you understood to be happening regularly or No, not at all. This was um the the
01:21:22 No, not at all. This was um the the smash EDO campaign uh was um different from our organization from our group um and they took a lot more direct action uh lockons occupations damaging um and
01:21:36 uh lockons occupations damaging um and um
01:21:39 um the context of this is if if the company then if the if the spearhead company approached from a police perspective to say look we're going to be subject to the same level of campaign pain
01:21:52 the same level of campaign pain what advice they would give them. That's that's my understanding. Yeah.
01:21:56 Yeah. That paragraph. But the reason you had that in mind is because you were aware that this had happened previously that a private company EDO had sought advice from C Squad. Is that accurate?
01:22:10 advice from C Squad. Is that accurate? No. No, I don't know that at all. So, one doesn't follow from the other. You were just speculating. Fine. It it would be uh any numbers of comp any numbers of companies in the
01:22:22 comp any numbers of companies in the city or or anywhere else would routinely this is generically now so post deployment just general police information any number of companies would approach the police uh for uh help and assistance on
01:22:35 uh for uh help and assistance on building their security bolards windows blast I think there specific even um crime prevention officers that that give this kind of information and help to offices in the city and London so this
01:22:46 offices in the city and London so this is That that's the context of this. Understood. Um Emily Apple has had confirmed the fact that she was on the green list which is like the environmental version of the blacklist.
01:22:58 blacklist. Uh it bars her from working in the construction industry. Um, did you ever hear anything while you're in the SDS about the SDS working with the consulting agency or indeed
01:23:11 with the consulting agency or indeed special branch working with the consulting a agency regarding blacklisting or greenlisting? That's the first time I've heard of green listing but no.
01:23:24 Um, moving on to the buildup to DII 2003.
01:23:30 2003. If we could bring up please MPS28869.
01:23:35 It's C291.
01:23:39 This is a report dated the 18th of August 2003.
01:23:45 And it reads again no downward dissemination known to a few people. um intelligence. There is a clear determination to disrupt the DEI event in September by
01:23:57 disrupt the DEI event in September by the large number of various environmental anti- capitalist peace groups and left-wing groups who are expressing interest. The actions should take place before, during, and possibly after the event. They will be wide
01:24:09 after the event. They will be wide ranging and in addition to the usual tactics of mass protest at or in the vicinity of the venue could also include electronic attacks and other forms of computer hacking to disrupt the event.
01:24:21 computer hacking to disrupt the event. Businesses taking part and the support businesses to help run the event egers I think probably meant to say caterers security accommodation etc.
01:24:34 security accommodation etc. Do you recall discussion HN3 of this type of action involving hacking? Yes.
01:24:42 Yes. Being organized? Yes.
01:24:45 Yes. Um, again, were you part of the group who came up with this idea? Uh, it would have been a group. I think as it says there we we were looking to
01:24:57 as it says there we we were looking to adopt
01:24:59 adopt uh what's the name the company um Huntington life sciences type approach where the animal rights um had approached had had um not approached um
01:25:13 um not approached um direct action against relevant companies if that makes sense. Um, could we bring up please another document which is MPS0028873.
01:25:24 It's C292.
01:25:28 This appears to be an email dated the 19th of August 2003 sent to you HN3 at your holy bandits address. I'm not entirely sure who's sending it. I think it's Victoria. I know it's not Victoria
01:25:40 it's Victoria. I know it's not Victoria because it would be just so I'm not sure who's sending it. I'm afraid we can find out if that helps. Um,
01:25:48 I'll read it in its entirety. It says, "Hn3, below is the relevant part of an email." So, this is an email you forwarded. So, your preamble goes, "Blow is the
01:25:59 So, your preamble goes, "Blow is the relevant part of an email received this morning concerning the electronic attacks planned for those companies associated with DSCI." This does, say, this is the email. This does mean I'll have to start
01:26:10 does mean I'll have to start preparations from here. My plan so far is own a couple of random boxes to work without traces leading back to my working place. Play with school injects to over the hotel reservations. But
01:26:22 to over the hotel reservations. But timing might be important here. Two weeks before the fair was my plan. If you have objections or better ideas, please let me know. Find lots of open relay mail servers to mailbawn the visitors during the fair. Own and back
01:26:34 visitors during the fair. Own and back door as much random boxes as possible to make a big D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do DOSs network. Have a look at the DSI website and the ones of all the participating companies. Find as muchuk
01:26:47 participating companies. Find as muchuk internet SMS gateways as possible to annoy the visitors during the fair with SMS every second or two. And during the fair, we should do some war driving and see if we can get into their network. Have you got equipment for this? Well, I
01:27:00 Have you got equipment for this? Well, I could definitely use some help on finding open relay mail service and internet SMS gateways. If you could scan around and mail me the IPs, that would be appreciated. Which reminds me of the
01:27:11 be appreciated. Which reminds me of the list of IPs from participating companies. The more information, the better. I won't have enough time to do much with it, but I'll have a quick look over them and see if anything easy pops up. I think that's about it for now.
01:27:22 up. I think that's about it for now. Hope to hear from you soon. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but that reads as if an individual in just on DSI is emailing you asking for assistance
01:27:34 is emailing you asking for assistance with the hacking campaign. Is that fair? Just written down the answer if that would assist you. Oh, what? Who sent you the email?
01:27:45 Oh, what? Who sent you the email? Yes.
01:27:46 Yes. Um, yes, please do that. But can you also let me know whether or not that it's a fair characterization that that individual was emailing you asking for assistance?
01:27:59 assistance? Oh fine. Okay. Thank you. It's all right. My my yes
01:28:03 yes learned friend has told me the name. So that's fine. Don't worry about the name. But have I read this correctly that this is an individual emailing you to ask for your expert assistance with well your
01:28:15 your expert assistance with well your assistance with this hacking this sort of digital interference campaign.
01:28:24 Yes.
01:28:28 Um, if I could bring up quickly another document, please, which is MPS018488
01:28:36 and page 2, paragraph 2 of that document.
01:28:40 document. It's undated, but it again appears to be written the end of 2002 to March April 2003. It's C269.
01:28:49 So, page two, paragraph 2. Yeah. So this section reads, "Victoria has asked Jason Bishop, who apparently has computer hacker contacts, to identify the home address of Michael Tickner, who is the
01:29:01 address of Michael Tickner, who is the Conservative leader of Brmley Council. The address that they believe to be his is Privacy Privacy.
01:29:10 Would it be fair to say that these reports HM3 give the impression that any hacking sabotage of this kind would not be possible without your assistance?
01:29:23 Um, I wouldn't go that far, but they've asked if I've got any contacts, but there are there were other people in the uh movement who would have also had those contacts. Um, we established on Monday that you had quite compared to
01:29:37 had quite compared to most you had quite finely honed computer skills. Is this an example of you putting those to uh use in your target group? Yes, potentially.
01:29:48 Yes, potentially. Again, obviously you were reporting this back to your managers, did they make any comment on the fact that this might be straying into AP ter agent provocator territory or going beyond behavior and
01:30:01 territory or going beyond behavior and role or not? No, I don't believe so.
01:30:08 Um, looking in a little more depth at the stop spearhead campaign, if we could bring up please MPS31602.
01:30:25 Uh, this is a record of a disarmed DSI stop spearhead campaign group meeting on the 18th of January. It's at C318.
01:30:36 the 18th of January. It's at C318. Um, paragraphs, paragraph 2, HN3 shows us there were 10 attendees
01:30:45 attendees of whom you were one amongst others. And paragraph three reads, "A pre meeting had been held by Emily, Jason, Victoria, and P in the Good Samaritan public house where they agreed the
01:30:57 public house where they agreed the agenda and what direction the following meeting should take. It was initially decided that they would concentrate on the DEI organizing company called Spearhead and its new parent company
01:31:08 Spearhead and its new parent company Reed Exhibitions. Reed recently acquired Spearhead in a takeover and interestingly Reed Exhibitions own a large stake in the XL conference center.
01:31:20 Paragraph well sorry. So it seems from this that you were one of four people in this premeating who decided to focus direct action on spearhead and
01:31:33 to focus direct action on spearhead and read. Is that fair? Yes.
01:31:37 Yes. Um if we could look now at paragraph four
01:31:42 it reads following a long discussion it was decided that the group would have a two-pronged focus. Firstly, those from London would still meet to plan actions against Spearhead and Reed while simultaneously several arms company that
01:31:53 simultaneously several arms company that exhibited at DSEI would be chosen as wider targets for those living around the country. Does that sound about right in terms of what you decided to do the strategy?
01:32:05 what you decided to do the strategy? Exactly.
01:32:05 Exactly. Yeah.
01:32:07 Yeah. Emily Apple says this of this campaign in her witness statements, paragraph 5.274, 274. She says, "Alongside open meetings and a spo smaller but more open organizing group, we also had a much
01:32:20 organizing group, we also had a much smaller affinity group that took part in regular covert actions against spearhead and then reed when they took over DII. These actions were generally targeted at
01:32:32 These actions were generally targeted at office buildings often involving throwing paint and gluing locks." And she says at 5.275, 275 about five of us in this group although we did bring other people for some actions did bring
01:32:46 other people for some actions did bring in other people for some actions excuse me this is a small group of trusted people we were very security conscious due to the actions we were taking Jason Bishop was part of this group would you
01:32:57 Bishop was part of this group would you agree with that yes
01:33:01 yes and again were you involved in making decisions about the kind of covert actions
01:33:11 you okay? My apologies. No, no, no need to apologize. Do take your time if you need to. Um, my question was, were you involved in the decision making in this group
01:33:23 in the decision making in this group about the types of covert actions you would take?
01:33:28 Yes.
01:33:33 Um, now we know from your witness statement that you obtained authorization from your managers to throw paint or smear paint on the spearhead offices. Um, can you just help
01:33:45 spearhead offices. Um, can you just help us a little bit with how that authorization was given? What what were you were you given very strict parameters about the extent of the
01:33:57 parameters about the extent of the criminal damage that you could engage in? Was it purely limited to smearing paint?
01:34:03 paint? Um, my recollection is that we I would have
01:34:07 have talked with whoever was in the office at the time about what the intended plan. Um, my recollection is that this had become an issue of not
01:34:19 that this had become an issue of not participating. Um, I think you mentioned there previously that there were a number of issu a number of actions. I participated in one and I believe it's because I tried to uh avoid going on the
01:34:31 because I tried to uh avoid going on the other ones. Um my recollection for this one is we would have talked about it what was planned. Yeah. What was feasible? What was possible? I drove um with
01:34:39 with two other people and um we uh I think there might have been some glue definitely paint. Yeah.
01:34:47 Yeah. Uh we we threw paint uh and potentially glued their locks. Yes, we did. Um, and again for the avoidance of doubt, you actually participated in the gluing of locks and smearing and paint. You
01:34:58 locks and smearing and paint. You weren't simply the driver. Oh, very much so. Yeah. No, no, very much so. Yeah. Um, I don't think we need to bring it up, but you refer to this in your Hearnwitness statement, which is MPS 0723153.
01:35:09 0723153. This is from 2013. you say of that action
01:35:13 action um on a different occasion, well it would appear to be the same action on a different occasion acted as a driver for activists and drove to Richmond where they spread red paint of typo the
01:35:25 they spread red paint of typo the company premises. Every effort made and discussed to frustrate this crime but eventually had to take part to maintain cover. This was debriefed thoroughly,
01:35:37 cover. This was debriefed thoroughly, possibly authorized by Mike Dell and maybe Janet Williams, commander special branch. Um, just looking at that section by section. Uh, can you recall
01:35:50 section by section. Uh, can you recall H3 when it says every effort made and discussed to frustrate this crime? Can you recall? No, I think in light of what I said earlier, I think I avoided going on several other actions and I think this
01:36:02 several other actions and I think this became almost impossible to avoid. I think it was white paint, my recollection as well. I know it's pedentry, but no, just to be correct, accurate. Um, do you know how you came to understand
01:36:14 do you know how you came to understand that it might have gone all the way up to Janet Williams, the commander? I don't I don't I don't know that. Um, and your debriefing, was that with DCI Dell or was that with more senior
01:36:26 Dell or was that with more senior officers?
01:36:27 officers? No, there would have been DCI Dell at them at the at the most. Um, it it it appears, but please correct me if I'm wrong, that a decision was
01:36:38 me if I'm wrong, that a decision was taken that it was on the balance of considerations. it was considered preferable for you to engage in some low-level crime rather than risk blowing your cover and lose access to that
01:36:50 your cover and lose access to that group. Is that a fair description of Yes, I I would agree. Thank you. Um,
01:36:59 Um, in relation to this covert group, Emily Apple says at her witness statement at paragraph 5.276, 276. She says the meetings in relation to these covert actions generally took place at one of
01:37:12 actions generally took place at one of our houses. Jason Bishop came to our houses on numerous occasions and there were no reports on this as that I have seen. Do you recall these meetings regularly
01:37:23 you recall these meetings regularly taking place in Emily Apples and other activist houses? No,
01:37:32 No, not at all. I I think I only went to Miss Apple's house a couple of times and they weren't for meetings. So,
01:37:41 So, it follows from that that you don't think you reported on these trips to people's houses in so far as you did visit other people's houses. Sorry. Sorry. I think I misunderstood.
01:37:54 Sorry. Sorry. I think I misunderstood. Um, can you just repeat the first bit when there were trips to Yeah, let me I'll I'll just repeat the bit from Emily Apple's witness statement. It's paragraph just for the record. It's 5.276
01:38:06 record. It's 5.276 and she says these meetings i.e. of the small covert group in the anti-parad campaign generally took place at one of our houses.
01:38:18 Jason Bishop came to our houses on numerous occasions and there are no reports on this that I have seen. I would have reported if I had gone to someone's house and I don't recall that.
01:38:31 someone's house and I don't recall that. I think that's just uh not correct. So, and you dispute going to Emily Apples and other members of that group's houses on numerous occasions.
01:38:47 Yes, I think so. I think all our meetings were in pubs or festival hall. Uh I I don't doubt we would have had a meeting at somebody's house, but it wasn't regular. No. Um
01:38:56 Um I would only say just given that these were
01:38:58 were and I would have reported them. Fine. So you don't think the fact that these would have been meetings about illegal covert actions wouldn't would not have made meeting in a private home preferable.
01:39:11 preferable. You don't think that's possible? Not at all. No.
01:39:15 No. Um sir, for the next series of questions, we need to go off stream. Yes. Would that be a convenient moment to break before we do or um Yes, I think it would be. I mean, I'm
01:39:26 Yes, I think it would be. I mean, I'm aware I still have a fair bit to get through and I am very aware of the time constraints. Um if it's easier to go off stream and then Yes, exactly. No, I agree. I'm just thinking about the length of the break,
01:39:37 thinking about the length of the break, but yes. No, we should definitely break now.
01:39:39 now. Right. 10 minutes. 10 minutes. Thanks.
02:10:19 back.
02:10:35 Um, HN3, I'd like to turn now, please, to your reporting on sensitive matters relating to Emily Apple and your relationship with her. Please, if we could bring up MPS1894,
02:10:49 that's C270.
02:10:53 This is a processed report dated the 14th of May, 2003. And it reads, "Emily Apple is pregnant. She is due to have the baby in privacy
02:11:04 She is due to have the baby in privacy and the father is privacy." Emily Apple says this of this report. Uh, we can take that down. Thank you. It's um, paragraph 5.207 of her witness
02:11:16 It's um, paragraph 5.207 of her witness statement. She says, "My pregnancy was first reported on the 13th of May, 2003. It includes information regarding who the father is and when my baby is due. This
02:11:27 father is and when my baby is due. This report is made just just under two weeks off.
02:11:35 Okay, sorry. I'm going to stop talking there. Um, she said that she hadn't told many people at this point and that it wasn't common knowledge.
02:11:48 Were you aware of that at the time that you Well, first of all, obviously it's sensitive information. It's to do with someone's pregnancy. Did you have any qualms about reporting that? No. My reason for being that that
02:12:00 No. My reason for being that that hopefully someone might know and that if there was any public order situation that at least
02:12:10 I understand what you're saying and yes in hindsight perhaps it was not applicable to report that but but I did and I take responsibility for it. Um,
02:12:24 did you have any qualms at the time? Did you feel any uneasiness about reporting it or not? Did you feel it was fully appropriate? Probably only with the benefit of hindsight now.
02:12:35 hindsight now. Right. Okay. Um, can you help us with why you think you had no qualms about it at the time or that you felt no uneasiness? No.
02:12:46 No. Um, I may have misunderstood, but I thought you might be implying that one of the reasons you reported was so that people
02:12:55 people in the police dealing with Emily Apple might bear in mind that she was pregnant or is that wrong as in when they came into contact with her? Is that have I misconstrued that? No, that's probably what I was thinking.
02:13:08 No, that's probably what I was thinking. But the reality of everybody who came into all the police that we dealt with Miss Apple, that wouldn't have been the case. But that's what the the intention to report that would have been that she wouldn't have been involved in the same
02:13:21 wouldn't have been involved in the same level of activism probably primarily but also uh yes that anyone who was coming into contact with that because I think by this time now the the for the fit team were were um following her on most
02:13:34 team were were um following her on most major demonstrations at least someone would might be aware. You were aware of that. I think I was. Yes. Because I think they followed me as well. Yes. Um she says actually that on the I
02:13:45 Yes. Um she says actually that on the I think the first day of disarm DII in 2003 she was a legal observer and she was actually pushed in the stomach by a
02:13:56 was actually pushed in the stomach by a member of the fit team when she was pregnant and she informed them she was pregnant. Did you witness that?
02:14:04 I don't recall.
02:14:07 only because that would suggest that I mean I appreciate what you said but that the information being disseminated in regard in respect of warning people to maybe be more gentle
02:14:19 warning people to maybe be more gentle with Emily Apple that would suggest that that didn't I I agree
02:14:24 I I agree I don't think I don't think that's actually feasible not all the fit team would have had that information may never even passed it through from special branch Um,
02:14:35 special branch Um, do you recall management making any comment on this level of this type of sensitive reporting on the fact that you're reporting on her pregnancy in its early stages?
02:14:47 stages? No.
02:14:49 No. Um, if we could bring up another document, please. It's MPS19013.
02:14:58 That's C271. It's dated the 19th of May, 2003.
02:15:07 Intelligence. The palpable animosity between Emily Apple and Victoria reached a peak in the run-up to the DEI open meeting on the 8th of May when it became quite apparent that neither woman could
02:15:18 quite apparent that neither woman could bear to be in the company of the other. The exact reason for the fallout is still unclear, but it certainly involved privacy to some degree. Matters were not helped when Apple jetted off to join PE
02:15:30 helped when Apple jetted off to join PE in Barcelona at a time when preparations for the above meeting were at their busiest. The knock-on effect of her premature departure was that the agenda and timetable for the meeting were still being formulated in the corridor some 15
02:15:42 being formulated in the corridor some 15 minutes prior to the meeting commencing. Matters have not been helped by the joyous news that the Pea Apple relationship will shortly bear fruit in the form of a little activist.
02:15:57 This is a processed report. HN3, the tone is, I think you would agree, quite flippant and sarcastic. Would you agree? Yes, definitely. Uh, do you believe that tone emanated
02:16:10 Uh, do you believe that tone emanated from your raw reporting or that was something applied by the officer who wrote it up? I don't believe that would have emanated from my reporting.
02:16:23 The implication in this report appears to be the pregnancy is to some extent a source of discord between Emily and Victoria. Would you agree with that?
02:16:34 Victoria. Would you agree with that? It Are you sure this is mine? Uh well, it says red herring, so Okay. No problem. I just It's It It doesn't I don't recall this at all. I mean you were the UCO with access to
02:16:49 I mean you were the UCO with access to these individuals so it does seem very likely.
02:16:52 likely. Yes absolutely but but I I don't recall this report at all.
02:16:58 Can you help us with the notwithstanding that you have no recollection with the policing purpose that this report serves the information this report serves?
02:17:09 the information this report serves? No.
02:17:16 I think I asked you this question in relation to RTS, but I'll ask it again. Were you explicitly encouraged to report on discord between individuals in disarmed DSI?
02:17:28 Nothing specifically. I just I think as I've described before, I reported everything. Um, we can take that down, please. We bring up um another document which is
02:17:42 bring up um another document which is MPS39797.
02:17:47 That's C349.
02:17:53 This relates to a meeting, a disarmed DSI meeting on the 11th of October 2004. Uh four attendees. You're one of those attendees.
02:18:05 attendees. Paragraph three reads, "Thus Emily raised her concern over the nature of privacy's involvement within the group. She's concerned that he has been able to gain uh such access typo to the group
02:18:16 gain uh such access typo to the group within a relatively short period of time. He started coming to meetings over 18 months ago. And during that period of time, he has apparently been able to gain a central role within the group. She's worried that nobody doesn't know
02:18:28 She's worried that nobody doesn't know any of his friends and that he lives outside of London and does not socialize with any of the group. She thinks that there's maybe a possibility of him being an undercover police officer, while other members of the group thought it
02:18:39 other members of the group thought it more likely he worked for a commercial security company. Um, and then if we look at the comment, please, just further down the page. Oh, no, sorry, it's on page two. Apologies,
02:18:51 no, sorry, it's on page two. Apologies, it's over the page. It reads, "There exists the possibility that this situation could be exploited to bring instability to the group as a whole on the runup to next year's DII
02:19:05 whole on the runup to next year's DII event at the Excel Center in Canning Town."
02:19:10 Town." HN3, would you agree that that suggests that there was actually a strategy of trying to
02:19:16 trying to exploit
02:19:18 exploit conflicts and disagreements within the group in order to within activist groups, apologies, in order to destabilize them? No, I disagree. I think it says that could be used as a strategy. I I think I
02:19:31 could be used as a strategy. I I think I know who this individual is and I don't I think he he went on to become quite trusted. Um, but can I ask why would you posit this possibility in a report
02:19:42 posit this possibility in a report unless it was something that you knew that
02:19:46 that special branch would value? Uh, there may be other uh opportunities to exploit. But you're saying, just to make sure I
02:19:57 But you're saying, just to make sure I understand your evidence correctly, you were not aware of there being a routine strategy or at least a recognized strategy of trying to disrupt groups from within. 100% not.
02:20:09 from within. 100% not. Um, very briefly, I'd like to go on to a new topic, please, which is the Earth First Summer Gathering 2003. Um, Emily Apple said that she was
02:20:20 Um, Emily Apple said that she was pregnant when this took place and that the two of you traveled down there together in your Land Rover. That's at 5.261 of her witness statement. Do you remember that?
02:20:31 remember that? Is this in Nottinghamshire? I think so. I'm so sorry I failed in my geographical research. I think so, but we will verify that.
02:20:42 we will verify that. You know what? That's quite possible, but I I believe I took a number of people. So, yes. But yes, that's quite possible. I don't dispute that. Um
02:20:50 Um I'll bring up a report. It might actually say in your report MPS29123.
02:20:57 This is an expost facto report which includes amongst other things your attendance at that gathering. It's C306.
02:21:07 Um, page five, please. The penultimate paragraph. Um,
02:21:20 yes. I mean it's towards the end of that paragraph it reads Jason Emily and privacy traveled to the Earth first summer gathering in order to solidify the emerging networks and to run the DII workshop which was scheduled to take
02:21:32 workshop which was scheduled to take place at the gathering. Now please no names but I understand that that privacy was Emily's then Zen partner and the father of her baby. Does that ring a bell? I think it does because we
02:21:44 I think it does because we did you say that she'd had her baby by then?
02:21:48 then? No, she was pregnant. she was pregnant. Uh, okay. I Oh, this may be a later event. I remember trying to work out baby seats. Um, but no, I I don't dispute this. I I don't recall the traveling there. I thought other people
02:21:59 traveling there. I thought other people came with us, but no, that's I would agree with that. My learner friend tells me that it was in Yorkshire Ripen. Oh, yes, I do remember this. Yes, absolutely. Do you remember that one? Yeah, I do indeed. Very good.
02:22:10 Yeah, I do indeed. Very good. Um, if we could go to the next paragraph, please. The workshop and then over the page, please. So the following paragraph reads, "The workshop was by far the best
02:22:21 reads, "The workshop was by far the best attended with around 150 to 200 people turning up. Emily and Jason gave a broad outline of what had been planned so far and arranged a subsequent meeting in London for those affinity
02:22:34 meeting in London for those affinity groups who had shown an interest and wanted the opportunity to wy the XL center and to meet other likeminded groups in private. So, can you recall what your running
02:22:48 So, can you recall what your running that workshop involved? HN3. Um,
02:22:54 Um, I think we would have given them a broad outline of what we've done in the past, the history, uh what the what the uh disarm dice was about uh what we were
02:23:05 disarm dice was about uh what we were seeking to achieve uh and what we were looking to do and how we wanted people's help is what I think we would have said. I don't recall that workshop but um that's what we would have done.
02:23:16 that's what we would have done. Would you have given any instruction in terms of direct action do you think? That'd be too early though. What do you mean by too early? Too early too far in advance of
02:23:28 too far in advance of Yes.
02:23:29 Yes. DSCI. Okay. So does it follow from that that you did assist in giving direct action training closer in time to the event?
02:23:36 event? No, I never gave direct action training to anyone at any time. Uh Emily Apple in her witness statement of paragraph 13.69 says that you were involved in training in both overt and covert actions. How to
02:23:49 in both overt and covert actions. How to blockade lockons, covert criminal damage, smart actions, and also legal briefing. Sorry, legal briefings and know your rights.
02:24:00 know your rights. No, that's not correct.
02:24:07 We would have had someone from the um the group that uh to do with the legal uh we would have had someone from the forget the name. There was a group who used to do all the postcards and arrange
02:24:20 used to do all the postcards and arrange solicitors. We would have had someone from that do that. I don't dispute. I may have been involved and spoke to somebody but no I never held any training workshops. You did not take part or lead or in any
02:24:31 You did not take part or lead or in any way have a Oh, taken part. I undoubtedly I would have taken part. Yes. But I didn't lead or run them. No, you wouldn't have been delivering the instructions.
02:24:42 instructions. Um, returning to the Earth first gathering. Um,
02:24:50 Um, to the best of your recollection, did you attend or do you think you're likely to have attended or reporting or reported on the meeting at this summer gathering about mobilizing for the 2005
02:25:02 gathering about mobilizing for the 2005 G8 summit and this was the first G8 mobilizing meeting that later became descent and it was facilitated by Kate Wilson. Does that ring any bells?
02:25:14 Wilson. Does that ring any bells? Yes, I think it does. Did you attend that workshop? I I think I would have done. Uh do you think we haven't found a report on that, but if you did attend it, is it fair to assume that you would
02:25:26 it, is it fair to assume that you would have reported on it? Oh, most definitely. And would you have named Kate Wilson in that report, do you think? Potentially, yes. Uh, had you come across mention of Kate
02:25:38 Uh, had you come across mention of Kate Wilson? I know we're going to look in due course at the small extract that you composed for the binder, but at this stage, had you heard of Kate Wilson in
02:25:49 stage, had you heard of Kate Wilson in the context of Mark Kennedy EN12? Have you heard anything said about her? No.
02:25:55 No. I mean, we can see from your reports that I think she was at the Wombles action in Oxford. So, she does feature in some of your reports as an attendee.
02:26:07 Would you I mean this is a very speculative question but would you have expected her given that she does appear in some of your reports and you think you met probably reported on her here would you have expected her to have an
02:26:19 would you have expected her to have an RF file at this stage. So this is summer 2003.
02:26:26 2003. Oh I don't know. Sorry.
02:26:31 Um, very quickly just a report. I don't think we need to bring it up actually, but the reference is MPS29123
02:26:42 on page nine. This is one of your raw reports. And in reference to the day of action in DII 2003, you say that Emily Apple had always
02:26:55 you say that Emily Apple had always planned not to be anywhere near the actual protests on the day of the 10th of September. Does that sound right? Because I think the implication there is she's pregnant,
02:27:07 the implication there is she's pregnant, so she's taking a step back from being at the cold face. Does that sound right to you?
02:27:12 to you? Yes, I would agree.
02:27:16 Um, I understand from the reports, please do correct me if I'm wrong, that there's nothing to suggest that there was any serious disorder on the day
02:27:27 serious disorder on the day of or the protest surrounding DII. Um, there's nothing to suggest that it degenerated into serious public disorder at any stage.
02:27:38 at any stage. No, I don't believe so. Uh,
02:27:44 thank you.
02:27:49 Yes. Moving on to your friendship with Emily Apple. Um,
02:27:55 Um, I don't think we need to bring it up, but in the risk management meeting that we've referred to several times now, HN3, uh, it's MPS 0723143,
02:28:07 HN3, uh, it's MPS 0723143, page four. This was a meeting you had with managers so 15 of 2011 following the revelations about Mark Kennedy. You say in that that you and Emily Apple had
02:28:18 say in that that you and Emily Apple had a close friendship, but in your inquiry witness statement, you you don't go as far as that and you say at paragraph 218 that you were no
02:28:29 say at paragraph 218 that you were no closer to Emily Apple during your deployment than I was to any of the other activists I associated with in that period. Can you help us with why your account of your closeness changes and which is the
02:28:41 your closeness changes and which is the accurate description? Uh I think the uh the account with the SO5 representatives uh that was their version
02:28:52 version and not strictly true. I was very friendly with Emily but as I was with lots of num a number of uh individuals. So, do you stand by the
02:29:03 So, do you stand by the description of your relationship in your witness statement or is it somewhere in between the two? Yeah.
02:29:10 Yeah. Um, Emily Apple says this of your relationship. This is paragraph 13.1 of her witness statement. She says, "Jason Bishop was a close friend. We organized and socialized together. He was a trusted part of our smaller affinity
02:29:21 trusted part of our smaller affinity group." And at 13.2, 2. When I first met Jason, it was usually in pubs or other meeting spaces such as lark and other activist spaces. However, as our friendship developed and we started
02:29:32 friendship developed and we started working on more covert actions, we often met in our house in Hackne or later after the birth of my son at Victoria's house in North London. It's noticeable there are no reports from Jason Bishop
02:29:43 there are no reports from Jason Bishop regarding any of the meetings that took place in our homes. And then at 13.4, she says, "While I was close with Jason Bishop, he seemed to latch on to Victoria more than me. She was 19 or 20
02:29:54 Victoria more than me. She was 19 or 20 years old at the time. He said that he was 35 years old, but I don't know if he was older. So, first of all, can you comment on Emily Apple's account of your friendship
02:30:06 Emily Apple's account of your friendship and how it developed? Is that accurate? Uh, yes. I kind of agree that that we were we were friends. We we were definitely involved. We were trusted. That's probably the best that's probably
02:30:18 That's probably the best that's probably the best uh description because of the actions we were conducting. we would have trusted each other. Um,
02:30:24 Um, I still stand by the fact I only went to her house, which is why would there be no reporting? Once, twice, three, maybe no more than three times. And I went to Victoria's house once or twice.
02:30:35 Victoria's house once or twice. Um, can I ask you this? You were very candid on Monday about your cannabis use and the fact that you smoked it regularly. Where were you smoking this cannabis if not in people's houses?
02:30:48 cannabis if not in people's houses? uh at the gatherings or um at the uh festival hall or um at my house. You were smoking cannabis in Royal Festival Hall.
02:30:59 Festival Hall. Uh I think this was before is it before smoking when maybe outside on the terrace.
02:31:08 I went for the sorry to to to use your phrase for the avoidance of doubt. Yeah, that's right. only went I only went to Miss Apple's house no more than three three times and Victoria's house
02:31:19 three three times and Victoria's house once or potentially twice. Um is
02:31:21 Um is that would explain the lack of reporting? Okay. Um
02:31:26 Okay. Um is Emily Apple correct when she said that you were also close to Victoria? That's correct. But bearing in mind these are only the people that she was aware of. There were
02:31:37 people that she was aware of. There were a number of people still from reclaim the streets and other areas that I was also friendly with. Understood. Um, please can we bring up UCPI 38120?
02:31:59 Do you recognize this bear?
02:32:03 Yes, I do. Can you tell us who he is? Uh, I bought that um after Emily's child was born. Uh, and you bought it for Emily as a
02:32:15 Uh, and you bought it for Emily as a present for her child. I did indeed.
02:32:20 Would you agree that that suggests you were actually very close if you're buying a present for her baby? I suggest that's a nice thing to do. It is a nice thing to do, but would you agree it's something that a someone in
02:32:31 agree it's something that a someone in quite a close friendship would do? It's not something you do as an acquaintance. I bought I bought some of the gifts for work colleagues.
02:32:43 Um,
02:32:46 you say it was a nice thing to do. Did you have any qualms at all about the appropriateness of doing this given that you weren't actually who she thought you were?
02:32:58 who she thought you were? No.
02:32:59 No. None at all. Looking back, do you have any views on have you reviewed your No.
02:33:09 No. No. You see no problem with I'm sorry. On this occasion I don't. Okay.
02:33:16 Okay. Um, if I could bring up please MPS31267.
02:33:21 This is C313.
02:33:25 Title Emily Apple has her baby. The environmental activist Emily Apple has had her baby on date of birth. She's named the child a boy child's name. Source comment, the child's second name
02:33:36 Source comment, the child's second name is named after privacy. And then handler's comment dissemination to MPSBC squad and Miu for information only. Please refer to the originator
02:33:47 only. Please refer to the originator where further dissemination is desired or where executive action is likely or anticipated.
02:33:56 So, you're reporting here on a newborn baby essentially. Why did you do that? I reported everything.
02:34:07 I reported everything. Again, did you not have any qualms about reporting on such a sensitive private matter that arguably can have no bearing on public order policing?
02:34:19 order policing? I I agree with your statement. Yes. So in retrospect, do you now recognize that this is deeply intrusive? Yes.
02:34:30 Yes. But you didn't at the time. No.
02:34:32 No. And no one raised any issue with it or No.
02:34:38 No. raised any concerns. Um,
02:34:43 Um, in your witness statement, I don't think we need to bring it up, but it's paragraph 211, and you say this. I mean this is in relation to another individual but I think it could be of general
02:34:54 think it could be of general application. You say I did not give any thought to the impact on her unnamed person if she were to discover that I was a UCO as this was not remotely likely to happen. I do not wish to
02:35:05 likely to happen. I do not wish to appear callous but I worked on the basis that my deployment would not become public knowledge. I doubt it would have been helpful for me to think of the potential impact on activists. In any event, the undercover role frequently
02:35:18 event, the undercover role frequently required me and my colleagues to make difficult decisions about our conduct and introducing this additional factor among the many that we had to balance would have been too much.
02:35:29 would have been too much. Do you stand by that HN3? Yes.
02:35:34 Yes. So,
02:35:37 So, if I understand that correctly, you were saying that you didn't consider the impact because you didn't think it was going to become public knowledge.
02:35:47 Uh, as far as I was concerned, I was correctly authorized and I was doing the job I've been sent to do. Um, that's understood. But nonetheless, the ethical considerations of a situation, whether
02:35:59 considerations of a situation, whether or not it becomes public knowledge, would you agree, is not innately linked to whether or not something is right or wrong. I
02:36:06 wrong. I I agree. I think the public knowledge thing is is erroneous. Um, but if I understand your evidence correctly, you were certainly not given to any
02:36:17 you were certainly not given to any reason to think that what you were doing was wrong by those managing you? No.
02:36:26 No. Or indeed your colleagues? No.
02:36:33 Can you accept now that for Emily Apple to have discovered later on that at this time in her life when she was very young, this is a very formative time when she's pregnant, when she's having
02:36:44 when she's pregnant, when she's having her child, to learn that someone who she believed was a trusted friend and to whom she confided and allowed access to private information about her life to
02:36:55 private information about her life to discover that that person is in fact a police officer who's reporting on Uh, can you appreciate how deeply distressing that is? Absolutely. Do you have any regrets now about the
02:37:08 Do you have any regrets now about the extent of your reporting on that at this time?
02:37:12 time? I did what I was sent to do to the best of my ability.
02:37:18 Moving now on to Ripper, please quickly. Um,
02:37:24 Um, now this came into force, as I'm sure you're aware, on the 25th of September, 2000.
02:37:32 I just want to ask you, just generally speaking, HN3, when it came into force, was there any did it make any discernable difference to your deployment, to your understanding of
02:37:44 deployment, to your understanding of your role, to the constraints on your role, anything like that? I don't recall it ever being discussed. Not at all. There was no sort of briefing before it was implemented. I don't recall anything up.
02:37:55 I don't recall anything up. Um, if we could bring up please MPS0526873
02:38:03 that's B57. This is a large document which contains several ripper authorities N3
02:38:13 N3 and
02:38:15 and it's over the period of its implementation. So from September 2000 until the end of your deployment, so Easter 2006.
02:38:26 so Easter 2006. Um, now we can see from this document, I'm not going to take you through every authorization, but when Roger Pierce was commander of special branch, so that's from 1999 to 2003, all the authorities
02:38:38 from 1999 to 2003, all the authorities are signed off. There's no issues raised. The contents of the applications for authority appear to be cut and pasted from year to year.
02:38:49 pasted from year to year. Uh Janet Williams takes over as commander special branch in 2003. And the authority I would like to look at please is on page 89.
02:39:00 at please is on page 89. This is the authority for the period October 2003 to October 2004. And this is her note. She says, "I have read the contents of this application."
02:39:11 read the contents of this application." So, this is the application for your authority to continue as a UCO. I have read the contents of this application. I am of the view that there is insufficient information contained within the application and associated
02:39:24 within the application and associated documents for me to make an informed decision as to whether to authorize this deployment for a full year or indeed to cancel it. I have asked Detective Superintendent Fuller to conduct a full
02:39:35 Superintendent Fuller to conduct a full review of the RIPER and HA issues. to the human rights act issues regarding this and other deployments. I am mindful that not to renew this authority until the re the review is completed may well
02:39:47 the re the review is completed may well have consequences regarding the safety of the undercover officers involved and operational security sorry security and effectiveness. I feel I have sufficient information to renew this application
02:39:58 information to renew this application for a period of two months after which time DSU Fuller will have completed his review and I will be in a position to make a more informed judgment.
02:40:10 Were you made aware of Janet Williams concerns regarding your authorization at this time? HM3, I recall later on being told. Um, can
02:40:23 I recall later on being told. Um, can you recall who told you and what they told you?
02:40:27 told you? No
02:40:28 No names. Sorry. Apologies. Be very careful.
02:40:31 careful. I can't. But the the context was that when it was brought up, I said that I'd been authorized by Mr. Pierce and I just assumed that was it.
02:40:43 Pierce and I just assumed that was it. And it was only then that they it would whoever would been the DCI would have said, "No, this is a yearly thing." And that that's the context I remember it. Um but I I don't really have anything
02:40:55 Um but I I don't really have anything else. I can't really help you any further.
02:40:57 further. Um it would appear from this from these authorizations that when Janet Williams took over that it became a more rigorous process perhaps the authorization. Did
02:41:09 process perhaps the authorization. Did you get any sense of that? No, I wouldn't have been any aware of any of that. Um, so does it follow from that that you heard no sort of chunterings or discussions amongst STS
02:41:20 chunterings or discussions amongst STS managers about this change? No.
02:41:23 No. Change of the guard and a different vibe coming from the top. No.
02:41:28 No. No.
02:41:31 No. Um, right. I would like to move now please to Emily Apple's outrest arrest outside the Grovena House Hotel on the 20th of July 2004.
02:41:43 20th of July 2004. Now I understand HN3 that you have watched the video provided by Miss Apple of her arrest. Is that right? That's correct. I'll ask you ask you some initial
02:41:55 I'll ask you ask you some initial questions and then I will ask you some questions about the video. I appreciate it's unsatisfactory that we can't play the video here and now, but if anything confuses you, please just let me know
02:42:07 confuses you, please just let me know and I will seek to clarify as as best I can.
02:42:11 can. Um, we understand from the documents that the Farm Air Show banquet was taking place at the Grove House Hotel on the 20th of July.
02:42:23 the 20th of July. Emily Apple describes it thus. This is paragraph 5.298. She said it was an opportunity for top level arms dealers to network both with each other and senior politicians and
02:42:34 each other and senior politicians and that Jack Straw was in attendance. And she says at paragraph 5.299, "Prior to the dinner, we found out there was going to be a presentation of a ceremonial
02:42:45 to be a presentation of a ceremonial sword for AngloAmerican Aerospace Cooperation cooperation." So, do you recall that
02:42:56 So, do you recall that not only did you find out about the dinner taking place there, but that you also discovered in advance that there was going to be this ceremonial sword presentation? Uh, I only subsequently haven't read it.
02:43:09 Uh, I only subsequently haven't read it. Fine. Um, if I could bring up please, this is one of Emily Apple's exhibits. This is UCPI 38122.
02:43:23 I think that's five. Yeah, here we are. So, this is an email that just to put it in context, Emily Apple
02:43:34 Apple forwarded on to I think those representing her, involved in representing her in the criminal proceedings that flowed from her arrest at this event.
02:43:48 at this event. And you can see the preamble says, "This is the email that I sent on the 9th of July that first mentioned the dolls." So this is 10 days, sorry, this is 11 days
02:44:00 this is 10 days, sorry, this is 11 days before her arrest. Um, and her email reads, "Hi, just putting together text for dinner. We'll send to this list in a minute." And we can see, sorry, I
02:44:12 in a minute." And we can see, sorry, I should say that this is sent to the London disarmed DSI group. So I presume you would have been a recipient of this email.
02:44:22 email. Yes.
02:44:24 Yes. She writes, "However, just rereading their text and they're having this presentation of a sword for contributions to Anglo-American aerospace cooperation. What would people feel about doing a
02:44:35 What would people feel about doing a spoof on this and maybe having some dolls with fake blood dripping off them and try to present them with dead baby awards as they're trying to enter? Or is
02:44:46 awards as they're trying to enter? Or is this too macob? Love Emily. Do you remember this? Hn3. I remember the dolls but not the email. Um,
02:44:57 Um, does Emily describing the proposal as a spoof? Does that ring any bells with you?
02:45:04 you? No.
02:45:06 No. Um, were you aware that Emily Apple had done something vaguely similar previously in 2000 in relation to UN Children's Day where cutouts of paper
02:45:17 Children's Day where cutouts of paper dead babies were thrown over the chamber in the Houses of Parliament? Love to know. No.
02:45:24 No. Um,
02:45:26 Um, was it your understanding that this protest was going to be symbolic? Yes.
02:45:36 And would you agree that in line with uh your intelligence in relation to disarm DSCI 2003 that Emily I mean to be fair she's had her baby now but she's a young
02:45:48 she's had her baby now but she's a young mother. She's stepping back from the front line. She's less inclined at this stage
02:45:54 stage to be involved in anything that's going to end up with her being arrested. Would you say that's a fair?
02:46:02 Uh, if she says so, I'm not going to disagree with that. But you have no direct recollection of that being the case that at once she became a mother. Once she was pregnant and she became a mother, she resiled
02:46:14 and she became a mother, she resiled from
02:46:16 from direct action. Uh, I've got no recollection. If we could bring up please MPS35526.
02:46:27 This is C337. This is dated the 13th of July 2004. This is your prospective report. You write Envirro. Well, it's a process
02:46:39 write Envirro. Well, it's a process report, but the intelligence reads, "Invarro activists will demonstrate at the Gala dinner for the Farra Air Show hosted by the Grovener House Hotel on Tuesday the 20th of July. They believe the guest of honor will be Lord George
02:46:50 the guest of honor will be Lord George Robertson, who they suspect is going to be presented with a ceremonial sword at the dinner. The activists plan to make their own presentation to Lord Robertson which will consist of a doll possibly
02:47:01 which will consist of a doll possibly filled with fake blood to represent children killed during conflicts by the arm trade. There may al also be other dolls and legs and arms of dolls thrown
02:47:13 dolls and legs and arms of dolls thrown onto the point where Lord Robertson's car pulls up. And then the source comment reads, "There is no hostile intent in throwing the dolls, but it may be the only way
02:47:24 the dolls, but it may be the only way the activist can ensure Lord Robertson sees their protest if his security keeps them away from him." So this intelligence was obtained 4 days
02:47:37 So this intelligence was obtained 4 days after that email. Um the email doesn't suggest that the dolls there was going to be a doll filled with blood. To the best of your recollection, had the plan evolved or do
02:47:49 recollection, had the plan evolved or do you think you might have got that wrong? Uh, I don't recall. I'm sorry. Um
02:47:59 when you say there is no hostile intent in throwing the dolls, um can you just help us with again to the best of your recollection what you understood this action of
02:48:11 what you understood this action of throwing the dolls to actually entail? Was it that they intended, Cuz it's not entirely clear, is the suggestion they were going to be thrown at the car or on the floor as the
02:48:23 thrown at the car or on the floor as the car pulls up? Can you remember? I'm sorry, I can't. Um,
02:48:31 Um, again, the email that we've seen suggests, it doesn't single out Lord Robertson in particular, but in this email, it appears that Lord Robertson is very much the target.
02:48:42 Robertson is very much the target. Again, is that is it your recollection that the plans had evolved in that regard?
03:17:10 HN3. Sorry, before that um we were looking at this document which is the branch note dated the 4th of November 2004 by DCI Mike Dell. Um,
03:17:25 2004 by DCI Mike Dell. Um, I'll start at paragraph one. On Tuesday the 20th of July 2004, outside the Grove House Hotel, Park Lane, two of a group of anti-arms trade activists protesting their displeasure at the hotel hosting
03:17:37 their displeasure at the hotel hosting the Farmer Baragio bank was searched by police and found in possession of several toy dolls which were drenched. Well, actually, we've read this. I don't need to repeat all of this. Um, I will go to paragraph four, which reads, "Amongst the group of activists was a
03:17:49 "Amongst the group of activists was a detective constable, a member of the Metropolitan Police Special Branch undercover unit who is engaged on a long-term intelligence gathering operation against these and associated
03:18:00 operation against these and associated activists. The officer was not arrested. The solicitor acting for both defendants has asked the officer and other activists to make statements supporting the defendants in brackets fabricated
03:18:13 the defendants in brackets fabricated version of events that the dolls were props for use in street theater. The officer has also been told to give evidence in court. We go over the page please.
03:18:26 I will be grateful for your assistance in achieving resolution to this matter. Um, it's not entirely clear who this is addressed to, but he's obviously sending it up the line. Um, can I ask HN3 on
03:18:40 it up the line. Um, can I ask HN3 on what basis, to the best of your understanding, why did Mike Dell write in paragraph five that the defendant's version of events that the dolls were props for use
03:18:51 events that the dolls were props for use in street theater? Why did he say it was fabricated? Fred, I can't help you. My my only thinking, you've seen my reporting that they were to be thrown. Maybe he's
03:19:02 they were to be thrown. Maybe he's disputing that street theater and throwing them were incompatible, but I I can't comment for him. Um, would you agree that the defense that they were going to be using street theater wasn't in fact fabricated?
03:19:15 theater wasn't in fact fabricated? Uh, they were going to be thrown at the uh at the Lord Robertson, I believe. That's what we reported. Well, that that's not quite what you reported though, is it? HN3. You said that they were going to be thrown
03:19:28 that they were going to be thrown in the area where the car pulls up and that there was no hostile intent. No, that's what I said. Yes. So, but that's not quite the same as sorry, is being thrown at Lord Robertson? That sounds
03:19:39 Robertson? That sounds No, no, I I I Okay, I take your point. Yes, I think we're um Would you agree that even on that account that's not criminal damage, is it? throwing
03:19:53 dolls onto the road. No.
03:19:56 No. Um, again, in your witness statement, you repeat this fabricated claim. It's at page 200, uh, sorry, page 94,
03:20:07 at page 200, uh, sorry, page 94, paragraph 276. Um, you were asked a question about the propriety of your relaying to a your supervisors who then
03:20:18 relaying to a your supervisors who then of course relayed it up the chain of command uh information that is subject to legal privilege regarding Miss Apple and her codefendants defense in her
03:20:30 and her codefendants defense in her forthcoming trial. Uh, did you give any thought at the time to whether this information was privileged? I don't recall even having a conversation with with Miss Apple
03:20:42 conversation with with Miss Apple Solister, but I don't dispute it happened, but I've got no recollection. And yes, I would agree. We're now verging into LPB territory. Um, did any of your managers
03:20:53 Um, did any of your managers raise with you the issue of it being LPP at the time? No.
03:20:58 No. Um, looking at the extract of your witness statement on the screen, you repeat this claim of it's being fabricated. You say, "As far as I'm aware, I did not receive or become aware
03:21:10 aware, I did not receive or become aware of any legally privileged information while I was deployed as a UCO. In so far as I was aware of Emily Apple and Privacy's plans to base their defense against any charges arising out of their arrest outside the Grove House Hotel on
03:21:23 arrest outside the Grove House Hotel on an intention to carry out street theater. I would query whether this was covered by privilege because it was entirely false. But was it entirely false? HN3, would
03:21:35 But was it entirely false? HN3, would you agree that actually your evidence thus far suggests that's incorrect? Would you agree? No, I disagree. I I I think we're we're
03:21:49 No, I disagree. I I I think we're we're discussing what's theater and what was going to be thrown and where it was going to be thrown. And uh I think the best the best recollection is is the report that they were to be thrown
03:22:00 report that they were to be thrown towards the car that I agree that may take the form of theater but uh yeah um but would you agree that the
03:22:11 um but would you agree that the memo from Mike Dell at least does not suggest that there's room for doubt that it sounds quite decisive. Do you think that's fair to say?
03:22:24 Uh yes, I agree. and that under those circumstances to circulate or to have been part of a chain of information or at
03:22:35 part of a chain of information or at least the source of information uh which is relayed up the chain of command in the Metropolitan Police uh suggesting that Emily Apple is willing to commit perjury or is planning to commit perjury
03:22:47 perjury or is planning to commit perjury is actually grossly unfair to Miss Apple and
03:22:52 and also a breach of legal professional privilege. Do you think that's fair? I don't think that's what's been discussed. But can you not see that the implication is if you're saying that her defense is
03:23:03 is if you're saying that her defense is going to be fabricated or that that's I didn't I didn't say that. He said that.
03:23:08 that. Um but you do repeat it in your witness statement though. Undoubtedly I think I would have read that from from the document that I got. Right. So you're echoing what's written in the Mike Dell document rather than
03:23:21 in the Mike Dell document rather than making that
03:23:24 judgment from your own. Yes, exactly. Sorry, I've now understand what you're saying. Yes. Yes.
03:23:30 Yes. Yes. Okay.
03:23:32 Okay. Pause a moment to get to the bottom of this.
03:23:34 this. Yes.
03:23:35 Yes. Um,
03:23:37 Um, reading as one does that it is asserted that a statement made in what would otherwise be covered by legal professional privilege is false. as you
03:23:50 professional privilege is false. as you said in your witness statement takes it outside the protection of legal professional privilege.
03:23:59 Oh, I think so. I follow that as I understand it is the law. Was that what you were trying to say? I s I believe so. Um I I apologize for
03:24:10 I s I believe so. Um I I apologize for the confusion. I I think if something was demonstrabably be false, I I think so. Thank you for assistance.
03:24:21 G8 now and this is one of my last topics HN3 apart from a few miscellaneous matters. Um I'll endeavor to get through this as quickly as can be done while also doing
03:24:35 quickly as can be done while also doing it in the necessary detail. Um the G8 in Scotland 2005. Um,
03:24:47 Um, I don't think we need to bring it up, but in one of your ripper authorities, which is at MPS0526873,
03:24:54 that's at B57. Um,
03:24:59 Um, it's the 1st of October 2004. And on page 97, you're referred to in this ripper authorization by your manager as the major
03:25:11 by your manager as the major environmentalist source for the 2005 G8 meeting.
03:25:17 meeting. Is that an accurate description of I mean, as far as you're aware, your status as a source in relation to G8? Uh, probably not. No.
03:25:29 Uh, probably not. No. Is it an exaggeration? Yes.
03:25:34 Did you give your manager reason to believe you were the major environmentalist source? No, I was uh Can I write it down for you? Yes, you may.
03:25:45 Yes, you may. If you if you carry on, I'll write it down.
03:25:47 down. What? Sorry. What exactly are you? Don't tell me what you're writing down, but the answer to your question about Yes.
03:25:53 Yes. Oh, I see. It may clear up any um fine. Thank you. Abiguity.
03:26:09 Thank you. H3. Um, if we could bring up please MPS0747506.
03:26:18 This is C367.
03:26:23 Um, this is a n what's referred to as a national intelligence report dated the 2nd of July 2005.
03:26:34 2nd of July 2005. And
03:26:37 And I think in your witness statement, you're saying you're not entirely sure this national intelligence report format.
03:26:44 format. Yes, I think I covered that in my statement. I I don't recall this. This is not something we would have used. Um the intelligence here reads Emily Apple has her son pee with her at the G8. This will curtail her getting heavily
03:26:56 will curtail her getting heavily involved but she will continue to support activists with transport etc. Emily was pounced on today. I presume that's pounced by fit officers and appreciate she is well known to police
03:27:07 appreciate she is well known to police and probably under surveillance and the date of that I think that's before the
03:27:17 main arrest. Um this has been it appears to have been attributed to you HN3. Do you believe that to be the case? No,
03:27:28 you believe that to be the case? No, this is this so this is written in the present tense. She has a son with at the G8. Um
03:27:34 G8. Um we we wouldn't and it was not my practice to report unless it was a seriously vi urgent threat to life. I wouldn't have reported and didn't report once an event took place. So this could
03:27:47 once an event took place. So this could have come from any number of sources that would have seen a mishapple at the event.
03:27:50 event. I understand. So you're you're saying that you would not have been ringing the office with updates in relation to your activities. Um
03:28:03 Emily Apple in her witness statement at paragraph 5.413 says this about your and hers activities in relation to the G8.
03:28:16 in relation to the G8. She says we left Friday the 1st of July. Emily Apple was the only driver who came in the mini bus. So, you did not go in the mini bus with her. No.
03:28:26 No. Um, and this meant that she had to do all of the driving on the way up there and that she also had her son in the mini bus. I mean, I appreciate you weren't in the mini bus,
03:28:37 appreciate you weren't in the mini bus, but does that chime with your recollection? You went up separately. I went up separately with H. Would you like me to Sorry, was with HN60. Hn60. Uh myself and H160 traveled up to
03:28:51 Hn60. Uh myself and H160 traveled up to the G8. Yeah. Um a few days before uh we traveled around Scotland. Um and then we attended the main camp uh in Sterling and we stayed in his van.
03:29:02 stayed in his van. Uh we slept there and uh we did a couple of wrecky jobs. Yeah. For other activists. Um and then that um we left his van and um we were
03:29:14 that um we left his van and um we were asked to help out with doing some driving which led us up to the events on the day which I think you're discussing. Yes, exactly. Um just rowing back a tiny little bit. Um
03:29:26 little bit. Um Emily Apple says this. She says that there was going to be a mass walk out of the camp at Sterling on the day of the G8, which was the 6th of July 2005,
03:29:38 G8, which was the 6th of July 2005, and activists were going to try and get as close to the summit of Glenn Eagles as possible. Do you remember that being the case, that being the plan? I I don't dispute it, but I don't recall
03:29:49 I don't dispute it, but I don't recall it. Now,
03:29:50 it. Now, um she also says, this is paragraph 4 point, sorry, 5.426, 426 people wanted to get to Sterling for the action on the 6th and she volunteered to get as many people as possible back to Sterling for
03:30:03 people as possible back to Sterling for the action and that you volunteered to come with her to help her do that and that the two of you drove through the night three or four trips carrying activists to Sterling so they could take
03:30:14 activists to Sterling so they could take part in the mass walkout. Does that sound accurate? Uh I think yes. Uh yes, that's yes, that's correct. and that you and she along with her baby drove through the
03:30:26 along with her baby drove through the night transporting people to the camp from Glasgow from the squat in Oh, okay. No, apologies. Um, no, this was myself, uh, N60 and Miss Apple that
03:30:37 was myself, uh, N60 and Miss Apple that would drove multiple times backwards and forwards.
03:30:39 forwards. Fine. Okay. So, HN60 was there as well, but it was Yes, I don't think it was through the night. I think it was just during the day. We made multiple trips. Um, well, Emily Apple says it was throughout the night. Through the night.
03:30:51 throughout the night. Through the night. Um, but you disagree. is that uh I can't recall if she says that I don't disagree. um
03:30:59 um a document I don't think we need to bring it up but it's MPS0723153
03:31:06 which is B138 page 8 where you refer this is the Hearn um interview that I keep taking you back to and you say of the G8 you say you
03:31:18 to and you say of the G8 you say you acted as a lift service for other wear wearies between Glasgow and Sterling stopped every hour or so by different police forces. I assume that that's in relation to this same
03:31:30 relation to this same Yes.
03:31:30 Yes. period of activity. That's consistent. Yeah. Um, in that same document, I understand that it says that you dropped everyone off around 4 a.m. So, does that affect
03:31:42 off around 4 a.m. So, does that affect your previous answer that in fact you No, I still don't recall going through the night. Uh uh my recollection is we've made numerous trips during the day and on it was the last event last trip
03:31:53 and on it was the last event last trip but I I don't dispute it but fine
03:31:55 fine be consistent. Um Emily Apple says this. She said that you decided not to go back to the camp after you dropped everyone off because you was concerned
03:32:07 you was concerned uh the three of you that it might get raided.
03:32:10 raided. Uh she says that you drove to Tesco's uh to get nappies and food and to go to the playground. Do you recall that?
03:32:21 Vag. She says that you were really grumpy that day. Do you remember that? Uh not not especially. Um,
03:32:32 Um, do you recall that on several occasions over that night and the following day you were left alone with Emily Apple's young son?
03:32:43 young son? I'm sorry. Say, can you say that? Do you recall that over the course of that evening and the next day that you were on several occasions or some occasions at least left alone with Emily Apple's young son just to take care of
03:32:55 Apple's young son just to take care of him just for brief periods while Emily Apple went? I think if she popped to the L or something like that potentially. Did
03:33:03 Did that's what I can think of but I don't recall it. Um can you recall whether it caused you any
03:33:10 any unease at the time? I I don't recall it happening and if it was it would only for like one or two minutes while she popped to the L is my recollection. I think was that there was a time at a garage I think. Did you give any thought to whether or
03:33:22 Did you give any thought to whether or not she would want to leave her child with you if she knew who you really were? No,
03:33:28 were? No, you didn't give any thought to that. I think it was so No. No. Um, looking back now, do you think it was appropriate?
03:33:39 was appropriate? Yes. We're not going to leave the child alone.
03:33:43 alone. Um,
03:33:44 Um, Emily Apple in her witness statement of paragraph 5.432 says, "Later that morning, we were getting calls from people needing lifts back to camp from Glenn Eagles." And she said to the extent that she was
03:33:55 said to the extent that she was answering the phone saying anarchist taxi service. Do you recall that? Vaguely. Yes. Um she says that it was on your final journey to pick people up from a squat
03:34:07 journey to pick people up from a squat in Glasgow to bring back to camp. Um can you recall the people that you were picking up from the squat in Glasgow and bringing back? Can you remember which
03:34:18 bringing back? Can you remember which group they were members of? I think there were some Am I allowed to say nationalities? Um, yes, you can say nationalities. Just don't say any names.
03:34:30 don't say any names. I think there were some Polish people there and there were some also ah there were some also um there were some womble people.
03:34:37 people. Yes, that was going to be one of my questions were members. Yes, there were. Yes, there were. Um, can you recall whether there were any members of dissent there? I I don't know who that would have been.
03:34:48 I I don't know who that would have been. Um, I should be clear, sorry, on the dates that this is the 6th of July. Is this the day we all got um arrested?
03:34:55 arrested? Yes.
03:34:56 Yes. Yeah.
03:34:57 Yeah. Yeah. I I met some Polish people and some uh some womb people. Um you do say, by the way, I think, sorry, I haven't got a reference. I'm not sure it's a witness statement, but there apps to be some confusion. You
03:35:08 there apps to be some confusion. You refer to being arrested on the 1st of July. Would you agree that you were arrested on the day of the G8, which was in fact the 6th of July? Yes, definitely. Because of the following day.
03:35:19 following day. Right. Um, so you're on your final trip. Uh, it was the final because the police I think we had many more trips still planned, I believe. Yeah. Okay. So, you didn't know at the
03:35:31 Yeah. Okay. So, you didn't know at the time it was final. It turned out to be final. Um,
03:35:37 this final run to pick people up from the squat in Glasgow and bring them back to the camp. And that you asked HN60 to drive. Does that sound right?
03:35:48 drive. Does that sound right? Uh, or the HN60 was driving in any of he was definitely driving. Absolutely. Um, paragraph 5.45 of her witness statement, Emily Apple says, "You were
03:36:00 statement, Emily Apple says, "You were 10 minutes away from the squat in Glasgow and then five vans of riot police, some 12 police motorbikes and three vans of police dogs descended on
03:36:11 three vans of police dogs descended on the van and that Emily was Emily Apple was breastfeeding her baby at the time. Do you remember that? Uh, so I think my recollection is we picked the activist up from the squat
03:36:23 picked the activist up from the squat and then we were five minutes back away from it, driving away from it. I understand. Uh, so the van was full. Um, HN60 was driving. I
03:36:35 HN60 was driving. I think I might have been in the front passenger seat, but I don't dispute that if I was set somewhere else. Uh, I I can't comment on whether she was feeding at the time or not. Yeah. Um, but yes, her her description is very
03:36:46 Um, but yes, her her description is very accurate. Yes. What was your reaction when this happened? Were you horrified? Was it somehow expected? No, we we had no idea this was going to happen.
03:36:56 happen. Was it your impression that this was disproportionate or that it was appropriate? Uh I didn't know what they were planning. I had no idea what the resources were were aimed at.
03:37:07 resources were were aimed at. Um, you were arrested for breach of the peace on petition and
03:37:15 and charged at the station. Is that right? No, we weren't char unless it's different in Scotland. We weren't charged. No, we were sorry. We were held in um would you like me to just what I can recall? Yeah. Um so we were the the resources were
03:37:29 Um so we were the the resources were uh quite significant. There was a prison van ready there which is I is not usual in uh in my experience. Yeah. We were taken uh on mass to a police
03:37:41 We were taken uh on mass to a police station. Uh we were booked in. Uh I spent a number of hours with five or six other people in a in a uh in a holding cell. We were then I was then taken to a
03:37:53 cell. We were then I was then taken to a cell on my own. And then during the night um during the night we were move I was moved two or Definitely two times to different police stations.
03:38:03 stations. Yeah.
03:38:03 Yeah. And then at some point I was interviewed, right?
03:38:06 right? Uh I didn't because we weren't planning on getting arrested. I didn't have a bus card or a telephone number. So I I just uh accepted the interview without a uh a sister.
03:38:16 sister. Yeah.
03:38:16 Yeah. Told them what we were doing that we were driving from A to B and that was it. And then we went to Glasgow Central Sheriff's Court, I believe, the next morning.
03:38:24 morning. Yeah.
03:38:24 Yeah. Which is why it was the 7th of July, right?
03:38:27 right? We heard incident on the radio. So that's why I can be sure about the date. Um uh I don't believe I ever had legal representation onetoone. I believe somebody came round
03:38:39 onetoone. I believe somebody came round to the cells and said you're going to be remanded
03:38:43 remanded in custody. Yeah.
03:38:44 Yeah. And then about an hour after that we were let go. Um and is it your understanding that some strings were pulled? You don't need to go into detail but that some strings
03:38:56 to go into detail but that some strings were pulled to effect. Were you given to understand afterwards that some strings were pulled by the MPS?
03:39:02 the MPS? Very much so. Um, did you give any briefings to TAI police in England before the G8 before you travel down to Scotland?
03:39:14 you travel down to Scotland? Not in England. No. You gave briefings in Scotland? I did.
03:39:19 I did. Can I ask how many briefings? Just the one. And we don't need to go into any detail there, but was that after you'd left to go to Scotland on the around the No, this was this was months in advance.
03:39:31 No, this was this was months in advance. Months in advance, right? Um and you were
03:39:42 fine. Um, it was brought to your attention by your managers that you were
03:39:50 your your intelligence was perhaps going to be of use. Is that fair to say? For for what? For the whole of the geode.
03:39:58 geode. Yeah.
03:39:59 Yeah. Uh, it was very limited. Um,
03:40:14 can I bring up please MPS063088?
03:40:24 This is update red herring September 2005 page one third paragraph down and it reads in the run-up to the G8 summit in July UCO Red Herring has provided valuable intelligence about the
03:40:36 provided valuable intelligence about the potential involvement of disarmed DSI activists in public order events associated with the event. The officer has also assisted in the photographic identification of potential G8 activists
03:40:48 identification of potential G8 activists in support of Operation Jambburye Sorbus. Um, again, is it accurate when it says that you provided valuable intelligence about the potential involvement of disarmed DSI in public
03:41:00 involvement of disarmed DSI in public order events associated with the event? Uh, possibly not because I don't believe I was involved in any organization for for this event, but I would have known
03:41:12 for this event, but I would have known through Miss Apple what was happening with the disarmed IC. So, that it's accurate. Yes. Um,
03:41:19 Um, did you assist in the photographic ID of potential G8 activists? I believe so. After the event,
03:41:32 um,
03:41:38 you say in your witness statement that you
03:41:43 you utilized an incident. Actually, this isn't in your witness statement. Sorry. This is in Hern that you utilized an incident over HN60's van to create an argument in the group and enhance your exit strategy.
03:41:57 group and enhance your exit strategy. Um, did that happen after your arrest? You don't need to go into detail, but does that ring any bells? Oh, I think we were uh I think we were sent across the other
03:42:08 uh I think we were sent across the other side of Glasgow to pick up the van and we were a bit grumpy. Right.
03:42:14 Right. Um now just some final miscellaneous topics. Hn3 um welfare support. Um
03:42:26 Um you speak in your witness statement at paragraphs 302 uh and 283 of having had a supportive family
03:42:37 a supportive family uh which assisted you greatly. Um, did you rely on your spouse and your family for support during difficult aspects of your deployment and
03:42:48 aspects of your deployment and afterwards? Without doubt. Did you face any difficulties just in general terms please? Did you face any difficulties in readjusting to your real
03:42:59 difficulties in readjusting to your real life after your deployment? No.
03:43:06 I think we touched upon this on Monday, but again for the avoidance of doubt, was any support ever offered to your spouse over the course of your seven-year deployment? No.
03:43:21 Um, some miscellaneous topics. Um, you said that true spies earlier in your evidence that it didn't impact your targeting at all. Um, if we could bring up quickly this
03:43:32 Um, if we could bring up quickly this document, MPS100049.
03:43:40 Uh, it's heavily redacted as you can see, but it the title of the document is true spies targeting impact. We could scroll down please and we can see in virros
03:43:51 virros it says Helen Steel and then
03:43:56 and then your on the other side red herring. Can you help us with what this document is? Were you made privy to this
03:44:07 is? Were you made privy to this document?
03:44:09 document? I don't believe so. So
03:44:11 So if I do I don't recall it I'm afraid. So you don't recall any discussions about targeting the impact of your targeting, following on from true spies?
03:44:23 following on from true spies? No, it's a thematic. Is it a thematic list of
03:44:28 list of I'm sorry. I don't know. Um and so I take from that you can't help us with why Helen Steel's on there. No, I'm sorry. Um,
03:44:42 I've asked you some questions about your crossover with Mark Kennedy. Um, and you've answered to the effect that you did know that he was an NPIOU officer. um in relation to him and other
03:44:58 officer. um in relation to him and other UCOs or NPIOU offices that you may knowingly have come across if you were aware in a meeting or at an event that a UCO or an NPI be they NPIOU or SDS
03:45:12 UCO or an NPI be they NPIOU or SDS expressed a view or did something specific
03:45:16 specific how would you reflect that in the reporting would you record that or would you make a point of not no no as you've seen I recorded everything. And were you given any advice at all
03:45:29 And were you given any advice at all about how to approach that particular situation? No.
03:45:35 No. Um,
03:45:40 were you given any specific instructions about prosecutions relating to the G8? No.
03:45:50 No. Um, you refer in your witness statement several times to Helen Steel as being in a crop trashing group with you. You say that that's the basis on which you knew
03:46:01 that that's the basis on which you knew her and interacted with her. Um, and yet we've only got one report from you which mentions her in the context of crop trashing and that's
03:46:12 context of crop trashing and that's about her withdrawal from crop trashing. Did you report as to the best of your recollection? Did you submit lots of report on activities that you undertook alongside Helen Steel?
03:46:24 alongside Helen Steel? If I was with Helen and we were propressing, I would have reported it. Yes, absolutely. Can you help us with approximately how many times you recalled going on anti-com decontamination actions with
03:46:36 anti-com decontamination actions with Helen Steel? Oh, I can't remember with Helen specifically. Uh, but I went on
03:46:45 about 10 maybe and she would have been on a proportion of those, but I can't help you with unless I've got the documents of how many she was on, but a a decent proportion roughly.
03:46:57 but a a decent proportion roughly. A proportion. A proportion. Um, those are all the questions I have for you, HN3. Um, I believe we've covered the rule 10, sir. Um, I understand there's no re-examination.
03:47:09 re-examination. In that event, is there any need in your view for me to pause for to see if there are any further rule 10 no
03:47:16 no topics? I'm told not. I I think you have covered the full ground.
03:47:26 There was a noise off stage. There was a noise off stage. I think
03:47:29 I think poss possibly uh it would be wise for I think it would be wise us to find out whether that signified anything or not. Yeah, I think I think that would be wise. I I'll rise for couple of minutes
03:47:40 wise. I I'll rise for couple of minutes to let that Thank you, sir.
03:59:23 I understand that there are one or perhaps two questions. Yes, just a small number. Yes.
03:59:29 Yes. Um HN3 if we could bring up please MPS39594.
03:59:36 This is uh intelligence report. um attributed to you. Uh the date the information was received was the 10th of November 2004
03:59:48 November 2004 and it relates to the stop the war demonstration parliament square 10th of November 2004. It reads this evening Emily Apple will be attending the stop the war demonstration in central London.
04:00:01 the war demonstration in central London. It would appear that she is keen to get involved with or initiate some direct action of some sort. She anticipates that she may be arrested.
04:00:12 that she may be arrested. Um, I'm just going to take you to one more thing before I ask you questions about it. If we could bring up also, please MPS 0526873, that's B57,
04:00:23 that's B57, um, page 81 of that document.
04:00:29 Um, these are your ripper authorizations. Thank you. And um it third paragraph down it reads detailed intelligence in
04:00:40 down it reads detailed intelligence in relation to Emily Apple, a disarmed DSI activist intending to commit an act of criminal damage during the stop the war demonstration in Parliament Square on the 10th of November 2004 at the start of the Fallujah offensive. As a result
04:00:52 of the Fallujah offensive. As a result of this intelligence, a forward intelligence team was deployed on Apple and criminal damage offenses averted. Do you recall submitting that intelligence
04:01:03 you recall submitting that intelligence HM3?
04:01:05 HM3? Uh, no. The U, it was very generic. Um, there was no specifics involved. Um, so I I I don't recall it. Uh, the stop the war was something we went on a
04:01:17 the war was something we went on a couple of major big demonstrations. Um, so I thought this would have this would have resonated, but I'm afraid I can't help any further. Um Emily Apple says of this. She says, "I don't recall having
04:01:29 this. She says, "I don't recall having any intention to commit criminal damage at any stop the war march. Fit regularly stopped and searched me and followed me closely on every demo I attended. But it wasn't down to their presence that I
04:01:41 wasn't down to their presence that I didn't commit criminal damage on these marches. There simply wouldn't have been any point." Again, when you were with Emily Apple on Stop the War Marches, did you ever see
04:01:52 Stop the War Marches, did you ever see her committing any criminal damage? No. there. Um, she says this at paragraph 5.405. As can be seen from my criminal record, my convictions for criminal damage have been very targeted. Um, for example, at
04:02:05 been very targeted. Um, for example, at Alder Master or going equipped at the welfare military base and as can be seen from my disclosure, my other plans to commit criminal damage at this time were both focused on companies directly involved in or directly profiting from
04:02:18 involved in or directly profiting from them.
04:02:20 them. Again, does that sound right? Does that chime with what you recall of her? Yeah, very much attitude to criminal damage. Very much so.
04:02:31 Very much so. Um,
04:02:33 Um, can you please just answer this with a yes or no? So, just yes or no in your answer. Do you recall sending some 192 discs with company director addresses to Emily
04:02:46 company director addresses to Emily Apple in 2005?
04:02:56 No. Do you think you might have done? Yes.
04:03:03 Um, another question. Um,
04:03:09 do you know anything about an operation called Operation Gant that you may or may not have discussed at some point with DI Lambert in the very early stages
04:03:21 with DI Lambert in the very early stages of your time in the SDS? No, only from other people's evidence. I've heard of that. But it doesn't ring any bells personally about information that you were directly
04:03:32 about information that you were directly privy to.
04:03:35 privy to. Um
04:03:36 Um I believe that is now it.
04:03:41 Yes.
04:03:44 Thank you for your patience in um not only giving evidence over one long day on Monday but returning to do the same but with slightly um odd hours today.
04:03:56 but with slightly um odd hours today. I'm grateful for the frankness and buntness of the evidence that you've given and for your willingness to admit when you might have been wrong.
04:04:07 been wrong. Thank you. Excellent. We will resume on Monday with um Carlo Sori who will take the whole of next
04:04:18 Sori who will take the whole of next week's hearing.