HN104 'Carlo Neri' (Carlo Soracchi) gives evidence on the morning of Day 11. The first half covers his understanding that sexual relationships undercover were 'an occupational hazard', the inadequacy of his training, and the SDS's reaction to Peter Francis's whistleblowing - including an Operation Herne note that colleagues felt a 'sense of betrayal' and 'wanted to find them and sort them out'. After the break he is taken through the code of conduct, RIPA thresholds and proportionality, and a long series of his intelligence reports on anti-fascist stewarding groups, the SWP and the Socialist Party, much of which he characterises as 'legend building' and 'anecdotal reporting' under an instruction to 'report everything'.
00:48:26 Uh Mr. Saraki's witness statement. Thank you. Uh the phrase there I remember there was a saying in the back office to the effect that birth, weddings, funerals, you will get invited to attend
00:48:39 funerals, you will get invited to attend these by the people you associate with. What was your reaction to being told that your role would involve that kind of thing?
00:48:49 of thing? Um it made me realize uh quite what a commitment it was and just uh how involved in other people's lives we we would become during the uh duration of
00:49:02 would become during the uh duration of that deployment. Did you give any consideration as to um whether that was appropriate? Um I did. Um I also spoke with people
00:49:15 Um I did. Um I also spoke with people and
00:49:18 and the advice I was given was obviously if you can avoid but there will be occasions where you can't and you will be invited to attend and by not attending it will look strange. Um
00:49:30 attending it will look strange. Um I don't think I went to any of those but I certainly went to things where how would I say it they were beyond the work I was doing. it it was
00:49:41 beyond the work I was doing. it it was proper family and social stuff. We'll come to some of that uh later. In the meantime, could we go to the next subp paragraph 242?
00:49:57 Y give you a moment to refresh your memory.
00:50:08 I'm particularly interested in the sentence, my understanding was that sexual relationships were accepted as an occupational hazard. You say that had come from
00:50:21 hazard. You say that had come from informal conversations with SDS managers and other officers. Uh yes, that that's that's correct. Starting with the
00:50:33 that's correct. Starting with the managers and being careful about anonymity. Yes, sir.
00:50:39 Yes, sir. Which managers did you have informal conversations with about sexual relationships undercover? Um,
00:50:50 Um, as far as I can remember, they would have been my direct supervisors. So, sergeants on the team um
00:51:00 um may have had a conversation uh with one of the more senior officers who ran the team who I think we referred to as HM58.
00:51:14 as HM58. Um
00:51:15 Um but that would be about it. DCI
00:51:21 DCI 58,
00:51:23 58, head of the unit when you joined it, what did he say to you about sexual relationships? Um, best avoided. Um, he said there had
00:51:34 Um, best avoided. Um, he said there had been issues. Um, and what I recall it was, you know, we have to take a common sense approach to this. It's frowned upon. If you do something
00:51:46 It's frowned upon. If you do something like that, we will then need to discuss it.
00:51:55 Did you take it from that conversation then that
00:51:59 then that HN
00:52:01 HN 58 was telling you you might it might happen, but if it did, you must tell him.
00:52:09 him. Um,
00:52:11 Um, definitely took from it that it might happen. He didn't really say you must tell me. Um it was more sort of basic than that. It was obviously this is a
00:52:22 than that. It was obviously this is a discussion we will have to have. Um but he he didn't as far as I can remember say you must come and tell me immediately. Well, if it's a discussion that must be that you would have to
00:52:34 that must be that you would have to have, what did you understand that to mean
00:52:38 mean um that these that sexual relationships might take place that there had been sexual relationships in the past on the unit?
00:52:46 unit? But in terms of the discussion that you would have to have with him about that, what did you understand? I didn't really understand anything. He he it was never said to me, "You will be
00:52:58 he it was never said to me, "You will be thrown off the unit. You will be withdrawn." It was just you must you must flag this up.
00:53:10 Your DI when you joined the unit was HN 53.
00:53:18 Yeah, that's correct.
01:17:25 were exploring the conversations that HN9 had had with your then wife. Yes, sir.
01:17:33 sir. Your last answer said that he was to the effect he'd been asking her whether everything was okay. Can you help us with what it is he said to her uh that troubled you on on a sexual level?
01:17:47 troubled you on on a sexual level? Nothing. He He went round. He asked her if everything was okay at home, if we were getting on. To my knowledge, he never asked anything about any kind of sexual stuff on my behalf.
01:17:59 sexual stuff on my behalf. Did he Did he give her to understand that you might be having a sexual relationship? I I don't know is the honest answer. She she just said that she had been bothered
01:18:10 she just said that she had been bothered by him coming around to our home address to speak to her about me when I wasn't there. Um
01:18:17 there. Um I don't think she asked me if I was having an affair or anything at that time. So my answer would be no.
01:18:28 We were going to then move on to uh Sergeant Beiels. Did you have any conversations with Sergeant Beiels? uh to the effect that sexual
01:18:39 uh to the effect that sexual relationships were an occupational hazard.
01:18:42 hazard. I I believe so, sir. As as I say, there were in formal conversations. Um my main sort of supervisors were those two sergeants. Um you've referred to
01:18:54 sergeants. Um you've referred to Sergeant Bill's. Um am I allowed to refer to
01:19:02 what's his number? Sorry, apologies. Uh, HM127
01:19:10 Uh, HM127 would have been the other sergeant. Sergeant Titty would refer to his name. Um, I'm
01:19:17 Um, I'm certain that they were the people I would have had conversations with. That was early on in my deployment.
01:19:26 In the conversations that you had with your managers, were did they ever make any distinction about types of sexual activity with
01:19:39 about types of sexual activity with members of the public undercover, for example, to distinguish a one night stand from a longer relationship or a non-activist from an activist?
01:19:51 non-activist from an activist? I don't think so.
01:19:56 In terms of UCOs,
01:20:02 UCOs, your witness statement said that you'd had informal conversations with managers and UCOs to the effect that sexual relationships were an occupational
01:20:13 relationships were an occupational hazard.
01:20:15 hazard. Uh, can you give me a yes no answer? Can you recall which undercover officer or officers you spoke to on this topic?
01:20:26 officers you spoke to on this topic? No.
01:20:29 No. What was your reaction as you are deploying to the prospect uh that having a sexual relationship
01:20:40 uh that having a sexual relationship with somebody in your undercover identity was an occupational hazard? Um,
01:20:52 I can't really go back and say what my reaction was. It it it was sort of just part of the job. You you had to accept that it was a risk. Um,
01:21:03 that it was a risk. Um, what did you feel about that risk? Um, I felt that I could manage it at that time. You know, the early days I felt that I could manage it. And by manage it, what do you mean?
01:21:16 And by manage it, what do you mean? avoid
01:21:18 avoid or minimalize um anything that might take place. In any of the conversations that you had with either managers or undercover
01:21:31 with either managers or undercover officers
01:21:33 officers before you deployed, was there any suggestion that sexual activity in your undercover identity was a perk of the job?
01:21:45 a perk of the job? No.
01:21:49 Did you discuss with your wife the risk of sexual activity undercover? Yes.
01:21:58 Yes. Can you help us with the conversation you had with her? I think
01:22:08 I can't remember exact conversations, but I think it definitely came up. Um, and I told her that I would do my best to avoid it. Um, I think she was quite
01:22:20 to avoid it. Um, I think she was quite skeptical to be fair, but she was also very supportive me going and doing that work. And so again, I think she looked at it as we will deal with this if it
01:22:32 at it as we will deal with this if it ever happens. Skeptical about your ability uh to avoid sexual activity.
01:22:42 Yeah. Um I I think skeptical in general that um you know the unit could be trusted
01:22:52 trusted to deal with that. But of course I formed a part of that. But she was also very keen at that stage that I should go and
01:23:04 that I should go and work on that unit because she could see that I was very keen to join it. Why was she skeptical first of all about you?
01:23:14 you? You'd have to ask her, sir. Why was she skeptical about the unit? Um, again, I think you'd have to ask her. I think she felt that, you know,
01:23:25 her. I think she felt that, you know, all boys together, but that's just my impression. She would give a better sort of explanation. I think there were social events to which uh
01:23:36 there were social events to which uh wives and partners were invited. weren't there? I think so. Yeah. So, did she get to know your managers and fellow UCOs?
01:23:47 and fellow UCOs? No. Other than in uh when they visited to sort of talk about the unit. Um and as I've said about the uh previous sergeant, um I don't recall us going to
01:24:00 sergeant, um I don't recall us going to lots of gatherings of uh supervisors and officers from the unit. We were friendly with a couple of officers that I served alongside on the unit and we would
01:24:11 alongside on the unit and we would occasionally socialize with them. I'm trying to explore why why it was that she was skeptical of the unit and how she might know it was largely male.
01:24:22 how she might know it was largely male. I think that was explained to us, sir. Um I think I think um when she was visited um by sort of supervisors who explained what the unit did, I think she understood. I I think I would have told
01:24:34 understood. I I think I would have told her as well.
01:24:38 Your witness statement goes on to say that words to the effect of with hindsight you thought the training you were you were given was inadequate on this issue. What training do you think
01:24:50 this issue. What training do you think you should have been given about sexual relationships in your undercover identity?
01:24:56 identity? In all honesty, sir, any kind of training at all before we deployed out into that world would have been quite good. Um I I can't really say about sexual activity. I'm not sure
01:25:09 sexual activity. I'm not sure what would have um prevented things from happening because every situation is unique unfortunately.
01:25:20 Can we have up uh MPS0721
01:25:25 9992 please?
01:25:39 This is uh a
01:25:44 record. If we go to page two, it's the record of an interview that you gave with operation to operation hear
01:25:55 gave with operation to operation hear officers
01:25:56 officers at New Scotland Yard in 2013 on on the between the 12th and the 14th of August. Could we go to page 10, please?
01:26:10 At the bottom there is a section headed Lawrence campaign. Yes sir. Um it runs just over the page. I'd like you to refresh your memory of the whole uh
01:26:23 to refresh your memory of the whole uh record of this section. Um
01:26:28 Um give you a moment to read that.
01:27:22 First of all, is that an accurate summary of what you said to Hearn on the topic of the Lawrence campaign? Um,
01:27:31 Um, I think so. Um, the third line refers to you reading HN81's
01:27:40 HN81's deployment file. Can you help us? I'll give you a moment to check the site for this. I was just confirming. Okay.
01:27:51 Okay. Can you help us with what a deployment file was and the sorts of things that were on a deployment file? Um, yeah. My my understanding was it was
01:28:05 Um, yeah. My my understanding was it was a document that contained uh our intelligence reporting um and would have contained that kind of sensitive information about individuals etc. and any reports that have been put
01:28:16 etc. and any reports that have been put in.
01:28:17 in. Now when you say sensitive information about individuals do you mean the people they were reporting on or do you mean that the file would contain things about HN81 about his welfare?
01:28:29 HN81 about his welfare? Oh no no no. It would have been to do with reporting on uh what the group uh were basically up up to, what they were doing, what they were planning events
01:28:41 doing, what they were planning events etc. Um who were the main uh sort of people within the group. Um I did not see anything personal as it were relating to any other officer.
01:28:53 relating to any other officer. It says in about 2000 Carlo went to his house to benefit from his experience. Is it right you went to HN81? Yeah, I believe so. Yeah. And was that before or after you deployed?
01:29:04 deployed? That was before, I think. And why did you go to see HN81? I I think we we basically um before deployment, we would spend a bit of time
01:29:15 deployment, we would spend a bit of time with officers currently in the field um for them to really I suppose give give us the benefit of their experiences and knowledge. Um, and that's that's why I
01:29:28 knowledge. Um, and that's that's why I think HN81 was one of the people that I had a coffee with.
01:29:36 What did he say to you about the movement for justice? Um, other than it was a protest group um, and was obviously of a left-wing
01:29:49 um, and was obviously of a left-wing uh, persuasion. Um I think that was part of the reason for seeing him because at that time um I was moving towards going into uh leftwing groups.
01:30:02 into uh leftwing groups. Um I can't really remember more than that. Um he certainly I don't well he did not share any sensitive information with me. He just gave me a general uh
01:30:14 with me. He just gave me a general uh flavor of what his work entailed. What did he say about the Steven Lawrence campaign?
01:30:21 campaign? Not Not very much. I I don't think he even said to me that he was involved with it. That may have come from other sources, but he may have done, but I can't remember. It was the whole purpose
01:30:33 can't remember. It was the whole purpose of that meetup was to talk about how you um get to know people who are involved within that side of politics at that
01:30:45 within that side of politics at that time. So it was more about tradecraft. What did he say about the Steven Lawrence inquiry? Nothing that I recall, sir.
01:30:57 Nothing that I recall, sir. Are you saying that he might have said something that you don't recall? He he he could have done, but I certainly it wasn't what I was interested in. I was interested in understanding um because this was
01:31:08 understanding um because this was obviously pre-eployment, but I was deploying quite soon after this. I was interested in how the the start of the deployment would look and what would be
01:31:19 deployment would look and what would be um wise and maybe not so wise to do in terms of how I approached these groups. Did he say anything about the impact of the Steven Lawrence campaign or the
01:31:30 the Steven Lawrence campaign or the Steven Lawrence inquiry on the Metropolitan Police Service? Not personally. I mean I I mean obviously um the whole Steven Lawrence Lawrence history and issue is a massive
01:31:43 Lawrence history and issue is a massive thing for the Metropolitan Police and quite rightly but he he did not he did not mention anything specific around that. I as I say I'm not even
01:31:54 around that. I as I say I'm not even sure that he talked about it to me.
01:31:59 Did he talk about Neville Lawrence at all?
01:32:02 all? No. Or Dorian Lawrence? No.
01:32:06 No. or Dwayne Brooks? No.
01:32:10 No. Are you sure about that, sir? I I you know, as I say, I I I don't believe so. It may have been casual conversations we had, but there was nothing specific that that that officer
01:32:23 nothing specific that that that officer would have said to me. He he was he was more private than that. Did he say anything to you about the risk of sexual activity uh undercover?
01:32:34 risk of sexual activity uh undercover? I don't think so. No, it's don't recall ever having had that kind of conversation with him. We I I think I went out to see him um on the occasion
01:32:45 went out to see him um on the occasion spoken about here, but more than that, I might have seen him occasionally in what we called the back office. Um but he he as far as I can recall, he was sort of
01:32:57 as far as I can recall, he was sort of on his way out, so he didn't sort of spend a lot of time chatting to us. Um and
01:33:04 and In my opinion, he was not that kind of individual.
01:33:11 It says beginning of the section we've got on the screen, Carlos states that the SDS were deployed to the Lawrence
01:33:22 the SDS were deployed to the Lawrence campaign.
01:33:25 campaign. What was the basis for saying that to Operation Herm? Um, as I say, um, I would have said that they were deployed against Movement for Justice. Movement
01:33:37 against Movement for Justice. Movement for Justice, to my knowledge, was involved within the Lawrence campaign.
01:33:45 I'm not sure that I actually ever wrote that down, sir. Um, but yes, I it sort of follows. Um if obviously we were involved with movement for justice then it it would
01:33:58 movement for justice then it it would follow that there was an involvement in the Lawrence campaign but and how did you know that talk I would imagine it certainly was nothing official was
01:34:10 it certainly was nothing official was ever said to me sir um and I personally never had anything to do with it. It wasn't what I was interested in in my deployment. When you say talk, talk with
01:34:22 deployment. When you say talk, talk with who?
01:34:23 who? Um, chithat amongst
01:34:26 amongst the office, the field. We all had a rough idea of what we were doing and who we were involved with because obviously there are sort of operational reasons for that.
01:34:38 operational reasons for that. So if if you were out deployed, you might know that in this example, I don't think it ever happened, but that officers involved with Movement for Justice were out or that officers
01:34:49 Justice were out or that officers involved in other groups were out and about because obviously you didn't really want to be surprised because that could give the game away. Moving to the very bottom of this
01:35:00 Moving to the very bottom of this extract reads, Carlos states at HN81 was very aware of where the line was. It feels as though Pete Francis has
01:35:11 feels as though Pete Francis has borrowed a lot of his examples from other officers work.
01:35:18 work. What line are you referring to?
01:35:25 I can't remember exactly, sir. Would would you
01:35:28 would you be okay for me to give my opinion? Well, can I let Let me put it this way. I mean, this is a record of what you said.
01:35:36 said. Yeah.
01:35:37 Yeah. I want to know what you meant. I I think what I probably meant by that was uh in terms of his reporting on the protest group that he was involved with,
01:35:50 protest group that he was involved with, hence talking about uh crossing over into close family and things like that. Um I I do need to state, sir, and I'm
01:36:01 Um I I do need to state, sir, and I'm very sorry, but I I really didn't have a lot to do with with that officer um because he was on his way out. So, Understood. Were you referring to
01:36:14 Understood. Were you referring to Steven's berieved family? Yeah, could well have been. Um I I I think that would have been uh my in the context of that sort of conversation
01:36:27 context of that sort of conversation that I did not think the officer had crossed the line as it were to family justice campaigns. Yes.
01:36:38 Yes. to racial justice campaigns. Yeah, I believe so. Who set the line? I I don't know, sir. Sorry. Um I would imagine that was a personal choice by
01:36:50 imagine that was a personal choice by the officer, but also I would think that they received guidance from their cover officers.
01:36:57 officers. We would discuss aspects of our deployment with our sort of supervisors etc. So I think that an issue as serious as this would have gleaned that kind of
01:37:10 as this would have gleaned that kind of uh level of supervision. Is that an assumption or is that something you know? Um
01:37:20 Um bit of both really. I'm sorry. Um definitely assumption there but I I also feel that you know that that would have been something that that was spoken
01:37:31 been something that that was spoken about at the very least and I I certainly wasn't aware that um as I've said there that the line was crossed.
01:37:41 Where was the line
01:37:46 for me personally or for this case for H& 81? I again as I say on the occasions I met him I always got the impression that he was
01:37:57 was diligent and that he understood um how far he could go. But again he he would never as far as I can remember he never revealed anything
01:38:08 never revealed anything um that would have made me raise an eyebrow. He was involved with activists in a justice campaign. That doesn't quite answer my question of where was the line.
01:38:19 the line. Did you know where the line was for HN81 deployment? No, I I wouldn't wouldn't have done No. No, sir. Sorry.
01:38:29 If we could take that uh down now, please.
01:38:34 please. We understand again from notes taken of what you said to Operation Hearn officers that you uh before deploying looked at Peter
01:38:46 uh before deploying looked at Peter Francis's
01:38:47 Francis's Yes, sir.
01:38:48 Yes, sir. file. Is that right? Yes, sir.
01:38:50 Yes, sir. Again, are we talking about a deployment file?
01:38:53 file? Yeah, it would have been intelligence reports. Um things like that. It would not have been anything personal or said. Did it have documents in it about the
01:39:04 Did it have documents in it about the litigation which Mr. Francis brought against the MPS or not? No,
01:39:10 No, no, I don't think so. Actually, this was his deployment file, so it would have contained intelligence reports. Um, no, I don't think it had anything about the litigation. I I was aware of it sir
01:39:23 litigation. I I was aware of it sir because I had spoken with um
01:39:30 I do apologize uh HM123 obviously I I had met him before I joined and I know that they were very close because he told me
01:39:41 they were very close because he told me so and I think they had spoken about litigation um because as I say um certainly HM123 but I also got the impression Mr. Francis both felt they'd been very
01:39:53 Francis both felt they'd been very unfairly treated. Uh, your reason for looking at Mr. Francis as far was presumably because you were going to
01:40:04 you were going to Yes, sir.
01:40:05 Yes, sir. infiltrate uh similar groups. Yes, sir. I I I don't know how much you want to hear about. What I what I'd like to hear about is from reading his file,
01:40:18 to hear about is from reading his file, what impression did you form about the away team? Uh that this was a a stewarding group that happily worked with other
01:40:31 that happily worked with other anti-fascist groups in what we would term street confrontations. And what did what impression did you form about Frank Smith from what you
01:40:43 form about Frank Smith from what you read?
01:40:44 read? He was a member of the UAE team. Dan Gilman, member of the UAE team. Paul Heron. Um, yeah, I think he was in the file. And in terms of the impression given as
01:40:58 And in terms of the impression given as to the sort of conduct uh they indulged in when uh combating fascism. How accurate were they in comparison to
01:41:12 How accurate were they in comparison to the reality when you met them? I would say um accurate sir in all three cases.
01:41:23 Not Mr. Heron. Um, I didn't really get to know Mr. Heron until later on in my deployment. Um,
01:41:33 Um, but certainly Mr. Gilman and Well, I won't get into names, sir, but but certainly the other two. Um, that was the whole reason I sort of
01:41:44 that was the whole reason I sort of ended up alongside them. Sorry. What was the whole reason you ended up
01:41:50 ended up the the anti-fascist activity and the the stewarding as it was called by themselves the stewarding element but there was a physical aspect to it.
01:42:02 physical aspect to it. We'll come back to that in more detail later. But what I'd like to return to now is the litigation we touched upon a moment ago. Could we have up 738088
01:42:22 and if we go over the page to show you what it is, it's again a a note from your meeting with Operation Hearn in August 2013. This is one of the manuscript notes that was made of that
01:42:34 manuscript notes that was made of that meeting. If we could go to page 38, please.
01:42:41 And I'm interested essentially in the the bottom twothirds from contacted by DS Ray newspaper article to the bottom.
01:42:52 article to the bottom. Yeah.
01:42:54 Yeah. Give you a moment to uh refresh your memory uh about that.
01:43:27 Is this a reference to the litigation brought by the two officers against the MPS
01:43:38 possibly. Um I I think this was around the time that as it says there there was a news newspaper article printed and I think it did relate to uh
01:43:50 think it did relate to uh Mr. Francis. Um so yes
01:43:53 Um so yes because it says Francis and then redacted payout. Yeah. Yeah. And then underneath that it says sense of betrayal huge. Wanted to find them and sort them out.
01:44:08 First of all, what was the betrayal? Well, we we were a covert unit, sir. Um, obviously the sense of betrayal would be
01:44:19 obviously the sense of betrayal would be that uh a former officer on that unit had gone to the newspapers and effectively put everyone that was serving on the unit on offer. Um, I
01:44:31 serving on the unit on offer. Um, I think I think that's what it would have come down to. Was it just the newspaper article or was it also the fact that Mr. Francis had brought litigation?
01:44:43 brought litigation? For me it would have been just the newspaper article. I you know well that takes me to my next question who felt betrayed myself and I would imagine other
01:44:55 myself and I would imagine other undercover officers but again I can only speak for me sir. When you say you imagine,
01:45:01 imagine, did other underco other other undercover officers ever say to you either in relation to the litigation or the newspaper article uh that they felt betrayed or words to
01:45:13 uh that they felt betrayed or words to that effect? Yes. Yes.
01:45:17 Yes. Yes. Uh within the unit, uh how widespread was that feeling? Um, well, I can only speak there were people I was friendly with on the unit and people that we didn't really speak a
01:45:28 and people that we didn't really speak a lot. Um, I think it would be unnatural to not feel betrayed by something like this.
01:45:37 this. Wanted to find them and sort them out. Who wanted to find them and sort them out?
01:45:45 out? I can't remember, sir. Um, I think to be honest, that would have been figures of speech. Did you? No.
01:45:53 No. Did anyone else say that they wanted to? Possibly. I can't really remember for sure. No one springs to mind. I couldn't even tell you who spoke about these
01:46:04 even tell you who spoke about these things.
01:46:07 things. Sort them out. Yes, sir.
01:46:09 Yes, sir. That's plural. Was that a reference not just to Mr. Francis, but to both the officers who' brought the litigation? Yes, I believe so.
01:46:20 Yes, I believe so. Then at the bottom of that page, proper anger.
01:46:25 anger. They were selling out. Who was properly angry?
01:46:31 angry? I think as a as a unit we were angry. Um we felt we were being betrayed. Does that anger remain? No. Not for me, sir. No.
01:46:43 No. Not for me, sir. No. Why not?
01:46:46 Why not? A long time's passed, sir. Um, I feel at that time I think it was very personal um and raw, but I I I couldn't
01:47:00 personal um and raw, but I I I couldn't tell you the last time I thought about the gentleman in question, either of them, because I wish them well in their lives, but never ever did I seek to go and find them or anything like that. To
01:47:12 and find them or anything like that. To your knowledge, are any other uh undercover officers still angry? Not to my knowledge. Who have you spoken to since the inquiry
01:47:23 Who have you spoken to since the inquiry was announced amongst your former colleagues? Um
01:47:28 Um there are
01:47:31 there are two former colleagues from that unit that I am in regular touch with. Could you write down, unless you're sure they don't have anonymity, um,
01:47:43 don't have anonymity, um, they both do, sir. Could you write down their either their nominals or their names, please?
01:49:02 I'm just having trouble finding the other one. I do apologize, sir. Well, if you if you want to write down the name, that's equally acceptable.
01:49:50 You just give me a yes. No answer to this question, please. Have you spoken to either of those former SDS officers about the evidence in the inquiry?
01:50:03 about the evidence in the inquiry? No.
01:50:04 No. So, would that be a convenient moment to take the morning break? Certainly. We always have a morning break mainly for the benefit of the transcribers, but also for you. Um, do we need 15 minutes? 10 minutes?
01:50:16 do we need 15 minutes? 10 minutes? 10 minutes.
01:50:20 All right.
02:26:23 If we could have back up the document 526-923,
02:26:27 526-923, please.
02:26:32 Sorry, I beg your pardon. Uh 526893.
02:26:44 Thank you. We were looking at participation in offenses. Can we go to the paragraph below? Code of conduct. Yes, sir.
02:26:51 Yes, sir. I have discussed the SDS code of conduct with Detective Constable Saraki, who acknowledges the responsibility placed upon him and agrees to abide by it.
02:27:03 upon him and agrees to abide by it. Could we have a 526923
02:27:08 which we understand to be the code of conduct page two? Um,
02:27:16 Um, is this the code? Um,
02:27:20 Um, yeah. If you're telling me it is, so I I don't recall it. Could you have a look at the first two paragraphs, please?
02:27:36 Yes sir. Did you understand when you deployed that those two paragraphs applied to you?
02:27:45 you? Um
02:27:46 Um yes. Um the second paragraph I wouldn't say I would have completely understood it but yes. Had um your managers
02:27:57 it but yes. Had um your managers discussed it with you as recorded in the document we just looked at? They may have done sir. Um I I can't remember for sure. I know before
02:28:10 remember for sure. I know before deployment there was a discussion but as I say I I don't recall these paragraphs but it it was a long time ago I'm afraid. Can you help us with whether the
02:28:21 afraid. Can you help us with whether the atmosphere was such that if you'd been in any doubt as to your understanding, you could have queried it? Um, I think I could have, yes, because
02:28:33 Um, I think I could have, yes, because a discussion was always encouraged. However, it always felt very informal. Did you seek any clarification? No, not to my recollection, sir.
02:28:44 No, not to my recollection, sir. If you didn't fully understand it, is it fair to say you should have done? Uh yes yes yes indeed that uh section ends with a reference to
02:28:55 that uh section ends with a reference to the code of practice. If we could have up uh 526 the same document but at page four
02:29:08 we understand this to be the code of practice. Um if you can go back to the beginning of the document to show the witness that and then it's page four. I want to hit the next page.
02:29:22 want to hit the next page. You see it says code of practice and over the page again so we can look at 1.10. Thank you. Collateral intrusion
02:29:31 before or authorizing any undercover operations. Authorizing officers will take into account the risk of intrusion into privacy of persons other than the specific target of the undercover operation. Collateral intrusion.
02:29:43 operation. Collateral intrusion. measures will be taken wherever practicable to avoid collateral intrusion. Did you see this document? I can't say 100% but I certainly
02:29:55 I can't say 100% but I certainly recognize the term collateral intrusion and I would imagine that was probably where I learned that from or other Ripper related documents. Did you understand um that you needed to
02:30:08 understand um that you needed to wherever practicable avoid collateral intrusion? Um
02:30:15 Um yes.
02:30:17 yes. Yes.
02:30:18 Yes. And was that discussed with you with you when you spoke to uh HN53 and HN58 before deploying?
02:30:31 I I can't remember. I I would imagine it would have been and I've assume I've used both there but I need to clarify. Did you speak just to HN58 before deploying or to both of
02:30:42 HN58 before deploying or to both of them?
02:30:43 them? Um I believe it would have been just with HM58. So let me confirm. Yes, if we could go back now to page
02:30:55 Yes, if we could go back now to page to 526893
02:30:58 to 526893 and to page four of that document.
02:31:15 So 526893.
02:31:25 This is 923. If we could have 526893, please.
02:31:31 This is back to your initial tasking and authorization document. I want to take you to a different part of that document.
02:31:40 document. Page four, please. This uh is part of the authorization and tasking document. It's a section risk assessment that I want to show you now.
02:31:55 If we could just have the risk assessment. Thank you. Give you a moment to look at that. It's the first paragraph I'm particularly interested in.
02:32:23 You'll see the last sentence of the first paragraph says, "There have been no instances of physical retribution." Were you told that? I don't recall being told that. No, sir.
02:32:36 I don't recall being told that. No, sir. Wouldn't that have been quite reassuring to know?
02:32:40 to know? Um, yes it would. Um, as I say, I had previously, uh, before I had joined the unit, had a conversation with an officer who had
02:32:52 conversation with an officer who had served and had an issue. Um, and I think that was part of his, um,
02:33:00 um, problem with the NPS and his management. Um, well, I'm interested here just in what you were told. The end, the final paragraph says,
02:33:12 The end, the final paragraph says, although the present assessment would militate against a physical attack on an officer should he or she be exposed, it is important to be aware that these groups do contain violent and
02:33:23 groups do contain violent and resourceful individuals. Were you told that your deployment had been risk assessed and the risk assessment was that um there was little
02:33:35 assessment was that um there was little risk of physical attack? No, sir. Not that I can recall, sir. Would it have been helpful if you had been told that? Um, yes, it would have been helpful.
02:33:47 Um, yes, it would have been helpful. During your deployment, did you ever feel that if you had been compromised, you would be physically attacked? Uh, yes, sir. Can you help us with what made you feel
02:33:59 Can you help us with what made you feel that?
02:34:01 that? Um
02:34:02 Um I had seen on at least one occasion uh if not two where somebody who had joined the group um to my knowledge they
02:34:14 joined the group um to my knowledge they were not anything to do with my world. It had been decided that they were uh not desirable because there was something not right about them and I had
02:34:25 something not right about them and I had watched um certain members of the group threaten them with physical violence. Had any of them been visited with
02:34:37 Had any of them been visited with physical violence?
02:34:41 I think one had, but again, I I remember the confrontation. I think it was in more than likely in a pub somewhere, but yeah, there were two
02:34:52 pub somewhere, but yeah, there were two occasions. I think one was in London um and one would have been on one of our out of London trips. And on the occasion on which there was,
02:35:04 And on the occasion on which there was, was there violence on either of those occasions? I can recall, sir. So what's the basis for you saying that there had been violence in one case? Um because weapons were produced
02:35:15 Um because weapons were produced but not actually used. No, not that I saw. I stayed well away. What what weapons? Um well on one occasion um
02:35:26 Um well on one occasion um it it sounds stupid. It was literally a pen was pulled out and pointed into someone's eye and they were told to leave the pub.
02:35:35 That to me sort of looks like a threat of violence. Do you know whether the person concerned who issued that threat uh is anonymous
02:35:46 who issued that threat uh is anonymous or not?
02:35:47 or not? I think they're anonymous. Yes, sir. Could you write the name down, please?
02:36:07 Thank you. Thank you.
02:36:28 This is the person for whom we use the cipher Mario. So
02:36:38 can we take that document down now please?
02:36:43 please? Can we go back to the regulation of investigatory powers act? At the time you had deployed, can you remember whether or not you'd had any
02:36:54 remember whether or not you'd had any training uh about Ripper? Um yes, sir. In my uh service as a police officer, um yeah, I do think I
02:37:05 police officer, um yeah, I do think I had had Ripper training prior to going onto the unit. Uh, were you involved in the periodic reviews of the authorization for your
02:37:18 reviews of the authorization for your deployment? Not that I can recall, sir. I know there were periodic reviews done. The way you describe it in your witness statement is that you were told that your deployment was being reviewed
02:37:30 your deployment was being reviewed and the authorizations were being continued, but not the ins and outs. Yeah, absolutely. I I would confirm that. What were you told? You've been reauthorized.
02:37:42 You've been reauthorized. Were you given any reminders about the parameters of your deployment or any of the boundaries that applied to it? No, sir. None come to mind.
02:37:53 Were you at any time given any guidance as to the threshold of the type of gravity of offending or
02:38:04 of the type of gravity of offending or disorder uh that you were tasked to uh gain intelligence about?
02:38:13 I don't think so. No. Um section 81 subsection 3 of the regulation of investigatory powers act
02:38:24 regulation of investigatory powers act sets a threshold. It reads an offense for which a person who has attained the age of 21 and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected
02:38:35 convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more. Were you aware of that provision of the act?
02:38:46 of that provision of the act? I probably would have been at the time, sir. Um I certainly, you know, we're talking quite a time after now. I don't recall that, but certainly that would have if that was part of the ripper and
02:38:58 have if that was part of the ripper and the learning package we had. I'm I'm sure I would have become aware of that or been aware of that. Was it a provision that your SDS managers ever drew your attention to?
02:39:10 managers ever drew your attention to? Not that I No, not that I can recall. Sir,
02:39:12 Sir, was it a threshold that your SDS managers ever drew your attention to? No.
02:39:20 No. Was the concept of necessity ever explained to you in the context of undercover operations? I think there may have been discussion about obviously necessity and
02:39:31 about obviously necessity and proportionality. Yes. What what was your understanding of those concepts as applied to your deployment? Um we were deployed um primarily to uh
02:39:45 Um we were deployed um primarily to uh protect against public order offenses um which could involve serious criminal offenses. Um that was my understanding as to why I was put out there.
02:39:57 as to why I was put out there. What was your understanding of the prop of how proportionality might affect what you did undercover?
02:40:09 I can't really remember. Sarah, I I do apologize. You said that you did have some understand your My understanding of your answer was you earlier said you did have some understanding of the concept of
02:40:20 some understanding of the concept of collateral intrusion. Yes sir.
02:40:22 Yes sir. Can you expand upon your understanding of the concept of collateral intrusion in so far as it applied to your deployment? Okay. So for example um I am
02:40:37 Okay. So for example um I am attending a protest or an action against uh political opponents um
02:40:46 um that may or may not result in disorder. Um following that obviously I've provided uh the intel briefing prior to and if was deemed necessary whilst
02:40:59 and if was deemed necessary whilst involved but afterwards there is a big social at someone's house. Um not a public bar but in their house. Um that
02:41:10 public bar but in their house. Um that to me would have been uh proportionate uh collateral intrusion because it would have seemed really strange had I not attended something like that.
02:41:23 attended something like that. Would there be any boundaries to your mind um applied by the concept of proportionality as to how you should behave at such a party?
02:41:35 I don't I don't think so. No. my my going from memory and thinking back to those times um I've just tried to be
02:41:46 those times um I've just tried to be myself.
02:41:48 myself. Can we have up your witness statement please at 350 at page 11
02:41:58 paragraph 19.7.
02:42:03 Give you a moment to read that.
02:42:16 That's about the distinction between an intelligence gathering undercover officer in the SDS and a more conventional evidential deployment um by
02:42:27 conventional evidential deployment um by SO10.
02:42:29 SO10. Yes, sir. Uh can you help us with to what extent you thought that you were subject to ethical constraints
02:42:43 subject to ethical constraints whilst acting undercover?
02:42:48 Never really thought like that. We were told you you will not go into the evidential change. That is why we have the SO10 element. You are there to
02:43:01 the SO10 element. You are there to provide
02:43:02 provide uh intelligence about upcoming events etc. I I don't think I ever really gave that any thought if I'm honest with you. Sir,
02:43:13 Sir, did you understand that the rules that applied to you were those set out in the code of conduct in the code of practice we looked at a moment ago? Yes, at that time. Yes. I think I did.
02:43:27 Yes, at that time. Yes. I think I did. Could we take that down now? Can we go to sir tab C2? This is an MPS document 303710.
02:43:39 Moving now to your actual deployment. Yes, sir.
02:43:42 Yes, sir. This is a document, an intelligence report dated the 1st of August 2000. uh and it records uh that uh
02:43:53 uh and it records uh that uh no platform has been uh formed. Mhm.
02:43:58 Mhm. Can you help us? Uh did you have any involvement in the formation of no platform?
02:44:06 platform? No sir.
02:44:09 No sir. Uh and can you if we say look at the source com source comment the aim of the group is to provide a powerful stewarding arm for left-wing public order protests and to undertake the
02:44:21 order protests and to undertake the targeting of right-wing individuals stewarding at this early stage of your deployment what did you understand that
02:44:32 deployment what did you understand that a powerfully a powerful stewarding arm would
02:44:40 um at that time. Obviously, from what was the way it was explained to me was um if need be um provide physical
02:44:51 um if need be um provide physical um assistance, shall we say, and be there to sort of prevent opposition activists
02:44:59 activists um targeting, having a go at um the people that we were with and that we were walking alongside to protect left-wing demonstrators exercising their right to protest.
02:45:11 exercising their right to protest. Yep. We we talk about the uh march in Leicester there. That was certainly what it was about, but it was also explained to me that sometimes preemptive stuff worked well as well. So
02:45:24 preemptive stuff worked well as well. So disrupting and looking at their forming up areas and things like this. When you say disrupting how um through violence and intimidation,
02:45:40 was that explained to you in those terms?
02:45:44 terms? Um maybe not exactly those words, but yes, that that was what was explained to me.
02:45:52 me. Because you've written you've written to undertake the targeting of right-wing individuals. What did you mean by that? Um,
02:46:03 Um, I've got to say at this point, sir, I would not have actually written that report. I would have been debriefed by my cover officers. I understand that. U, but it says source comment.
02:46:14 comment. Yeah.
02:46:14 Yeah. And that means it's come from you, doesn't it? Yeah.
02:46:18 Yeah. So, if you want to take if if something isn't doesn't accurately express what you think, your reported say so. But otherwise, did did you
02:46:30 otherwise, did did you comment to the effect that no platform was going to target right-wing individuals. I understand that now. Thank you. So, yes, I would have said something along
02:46:41 yes, I would have said something along those lines. Definitely. And what was the basis for your understanding of that on the first as of the 1st of August 2000? It it would have
02:46:52 the 1st of August 2000? It it would have come from conversations that I had with uh the activists from that group. And what had they described to you by way of targeting?
02:47:04 way of targeting? Um working out where the opposition activists were. Um working out where they might live. Um obviously social
02:47:15 they might live. Um obviously social media was not such a big thing then but there were sort of leaflets, newspapers, all that kind of thing and it it would have been what I call intelligence
02:47:27 have been what I call intelligence gathering
02:47:29 gathering about their activities with a view to doing what? Um stopping them. Can we take that down? And can we have
02:47:40 Can we take that down? And can we have tab C3 MPS 303753?
02:47:46 This is two days later, 3rd of August 2000. Bears your cover name at the top and says it's intelligence about Jerry Gable. Frank Smith, a member of the
02:47:57 Gable. Frank Smith, a member of the Socialist Party away team, currently receives information on extreme right-wingers from Jerry Gable, the editor of Searchlight. H had you started to form um a relationship with Frank
02:48:09 to form um a relationship with Frank Smith by this stage? Yes, I' I'd met met him and others. Uh and what sort of information was Mr. Smith um receiving from the editor of
02:48:22 Smith um receiving from the editor of Searchlight? I I don't know. All I was told that they would meet um with Mr. Gable or his representatives and be passed uh
02:48:33 representatives and be passed uh intelligence about right-wing activity. And what was your understanding of the nature of Search Light as an organization? Um
02:48:43 Um they were basically a group that were interested obviously in the activities of the uh extreme rightwing as we used to call them back then.
02:48:54 Was it an organization that cooperated with the police? Um, I think I Yeah, I would say at that time possibly. And how did they cooperate with police? I I don't know.
02:49:07 I I don't know. I was never party to any search like stuff other than when I was out receiving information like that. Says Smith has occasionally use this
02:49:19 Says Smith has occasionally use this information in order to carry out serious assaults on right-wing activists. The recent example of this was the unreported assault on two members of the British National Party whilst they were canvasing in the Slade
02:49:31 whilst they were canvasing in the Slade Green Council election. Did you witness that? No, I was I I was not there, sir. This was a story that was told to me um as an
02:49:45 was a story that was told to me um as an example of where information and intelligence came from. told you by someone you were dealing with undercover
02:49:56 someone you were dealing with undercover or by someone in the SDS? Uh, from an activist from the people I was dealing with undercover, an activist whose name is unredacted or an anonymous activist.
02:50:07 an anonymous activist. Um, it could have been Mr. Smith. Um, it could have been one of the other activists that were in that group. Um, I recall from memory that it again was
02:50:21 I recall from memory that it again was probably at a social function where we were talking about this type of thing. And can you describe what was reported to you?
02:50:30 to you? Um, well, just there that they had been out looking for BNP activists who were canvasing and they had caught up with a
02:50:41 canvasing and they had caught up with a couple of them and assault them. They didn't go into greater detail than that because there was a bit of merrynt around it.
02:50:51 Did they make absolutely clear that physical violence had been visited uh on these two members of the BNP or was there room for doubt about that?
02:51:03 or was there room for doubt about that? No, they they made it clear.
02:51:09 When you say they, was Mr. Gilman one of those? He might have been, sir. I I cannot say for sure. It would have been within that
02:51:20 for sure. It would have been within that group
02:51:21 group or Mr. Batty. Again, I I couldn't say 100%. Is there evidence? You can't remember. Um I I don't think so, sir. I I think it would have been with that group. Um
02:51:33 would have been with that group. Um yeah, I wouldn't want to say more than that at this moment. Can we take that down? Can we have up from tab C4 MPS 303783.
02:51:54 This is a report dated the 14th of uh August. And if Thank you. says that on the 17th of August, the Hackne branch of the SWP have organized a picket outside
02:52:06 the SWP have organized a picket outside the offices of the CPS gives their address between 12:30 and two in order to demand that the police officers involved in the shooting of Harry Stanley should be put on trial. Numbers
02:52:19 Stanley should be put on trial. Numbers are unlikely to be high due to the time the picket has been organized for. Disorder is highly unlikely. Can you help us with the SWP's
02:52:32 Can you help us with the SWP's interest in campaigning about Harry Stanley?
02:52:38 Stanley? Not not really, sir. This would have been something that I probably picked up um in a local pub around Hackne. Um I
02:52:49 um in a local pub around Hackne. Um I can't really comment more than that. Did you have any understanding as to why the SWP wished to campaign uh on behalf of
02:53:00 SWP wished to campaign uh on behalf of Harry Stanley? Some kind of justice campaign.
02:53:07 To what extent did you get involved in that justice campaign? Other than to drink in a pub where there would have been some activists from that, not at all.
02:53:19 that, not at all. It it was not my reason for deployment. There was no interest um in me going over that way. That was purely anecdotal really.
02:53:31 purely anecdotal really. Are you able to help us in comparative terms as between the Metropolitan Police Services interest in the Harry Stanley
02:53:42 Services interest in the Harry Stanley campaign and its interest in the Steven Lawrence campaign? I'm I'm afraid not sir. Um, as I say, I had very little to to do with this.
02:53:54 to do with this. Did you get any management reaction uh having reported on an event relating to the Harry Stanley campaign? Not that I can remember.
02:54:09 You don't report here anything uh about the likely racial mix of those who will be protesting on behalf of Harry
02:54:20 be protesting on behalf of Harry Stanley. Would it have been different if you'd been reporting on a racial justice campaign?
02:54:27 campaign? I I don't think so, sir. No. Um and again I would say that I would have just put anecdotal information in there will be a protest.
02:54:38 information in there will be a protest. I wouldn't have put anything differently to this.
02:54:43 to this. If we take that down now and have up from tab C57, sir, MPS305054,
02:54:55 this is a further intelligence report about the Harry Stanley campaign, although it's it's later. It's from January 2001.
02:55:06 January 2001. Uh, I'll give you a moment to look at that.
02:55:40 Why are you reporting uh that a member of the SWP is going to accompany Harry Stanley's widow to a meeting with Lee Jasper?
02:55:52 meeting with Lee Jasper? to see if he could assist with the justice campaign because the gentleman in question told me um in a pub.
02:56:03 me um in a pub. I um got chatting to him uh because he had a very interesting dog that was very friendly and it just came up in the conversation.
02:56:15 What is the policing interest in the matters you've reported there? I I couldn't comment, sir. Um I I was
02:56:27 I I couldn't comment, sir. Um I I was tasked to report on information that I picked up. Um I would go in and be debriefed. Um and they would do the rest. Um so I I couldn't couldn't say.
02:56:41 Did you get any feedback in relation to this report? Um, I I don't think there was any interest. I never heard anything. Again, as as I say, the the reason I remember
02:56:52 as as I say, the the reason I remember this is because of the dog. Um, not the individual, I'm afraid. Could
02:57:00 Could we take that down now please and have up from tab C5 MPS 303824.
02:57:17 This is we're back to August 21st of August 2000 and this is an intelligence report attributed to you with the title
02:57:28 report attributed to you with the title Hackne Rubbish. I'll give you a moment to read that.
02:57:55 This the background to this is there was an industrial dispute wasn't there between Hackne Council and its workers. Yes sir.
02:58:06 Yes sir. Essentially about was it paying conditions? Don't know probably.
02:58:13 It says plans to privatize the department and make 48 employees redundant.
02:58:22 Do you recall that vaguely um
02:58:29 this type of activity would have been what we called legend building i.e. you are an activist. Um, and so where
02:58:40 are an activist. Um, and so where possible you will support activities. Um,
02:58:45 Um, I can't remember why I put this in, but again, as I say, I think I was just providing anecdotal information in case it became of interest. Was there an interest in the way in
02:58:59 Was there an interest in the way in which the Socialist Workers Party was getting involved in industrial disputes?
02:59:07 disputes? No, this was legend building for me. Was there an interest in how the Socialist Party was getting involved in industrial action?
02:59:19 industrial action? No. Um, it was the same. If this was pure legend building, why did you report it?
02:59:26 it? Um because we were basically told um report everything. You don't know when it's going to be of interest. Um if something had come out out around this,
02:59:38 something had come out out around this, this would have been just something to add to the file. and what might have been of interest um in relation to a dispute between Hacknne's refuge collectors and their council
02:59:52 collectors and their council um disorder assaults that kind of thing. So these things were just formed part of just keeping people informed of the general
03:00:04 general what was going on in the area. If we could take that down please. SWP's Brighton Counter Conference and the Labor Party. Uh can we have up
03:00:18 and the Labor Party. Uh can we have up MPS30960?
03:00:21 MPS30960? This is a report from the 19th of September about a planned counter demonstration against the Labour Party. Give you a moment to look at it. My first question though is going to be
03:00:32 first question though is going to be were you there? No sir, I was not.
03:00:38 Can we take that down then? And can we have uh from C11 MPS 303968
03:00:49 report on the same day about the Labour Party conference. Give you a moment to look at it. Thank you.
03:01:11 On the face of it, this report seems to be about a counter conference. Yes, sir.
03:01:18 Yes, sir. Not what might be termed a public order event.
03:01:22 event. Why reporting on a political conference?
03:01:30 This to me would have come off of a leaflet that I have probably handed in to my cover officers and they have created a report out of it. Um I cannot
03:01:43 created a report out of it. Um I cannot think of any other reason. Um even reading it um it just reads like that has come off a leaflet. But this was what you understood you were expected to report? I I would have
03:01:56 were expected to report? I I would have just handed that leaflet in. Um I would hand the newspaper in. Um as I say, what what the back office then did with it was beyond my um control.
03:02:10 was beyond my um control. Can we take that down now, please? From tab C14 MPS 30 4039 please.
03:02:20 28th of September 2000, the anti-fascist group no platform intend to target national front paper sales at football matches in the near
03:02:35 sales at football matches in the near future.
03:02:36 future. Uh
03:02:38 Uh did you
03:02:40 did you attend
03:02:42 attend any
03:02:43 any events at which such paper sellers were confronted? Um, I never saw paper sellers being confronted. I did attend events like
03:02:54 confronted. I did attend events like that. Um, but we did not, the group I was with did not see any national front paper sellers as far as I can remember. Other other bits because it would have all been divided up. May well have done.
03:03:07 all been divided up. May well have done. So, can I take it? You're saying that you went to football matches looking for National Front paper sellers but didn't find any?
03:03:15 find any? Um, yeah. I I think I never went more than a couple of occasions, but I certainly didn't. To my relief. If we could take that down now, please. Could we have from tab C19 MPS 304160?
03:03:30 We're moving on now to the 9th of October 2000. Uh
03:03:38 there's a report here on an individual who's employed as a photographer by the SWP, but unusually was also a member of the Socialist Mhm.
03:03:48 Mhm. party
03:03:50 party and was being asked by the SWP to stand as a candidate for the London Socialist Alliance forthcoming election, an invitation which he had declined.
03:04:03 invitation which he had declined. Would it be fair to describe this person as a rank and file member of the SWP? Um, if it's the person I'm thinking about, I'm fairly certain. Yes. Uh, no,
03:04:15 about, I'm fairly certain. Yes. Uh, no, sorry, my apologies. Um, to correct a rank and file member of the Socialist Party, not the SWPP. Was he um as a rank and file member of
03:04:26 Was he um as a rank and file member of the Socialist Party? Yes. and an employee of the SWP.
03:04:35 Why did why did you report on that person? I I think the reason for reporting of this would have been to show the divisions that exist or existed
03:04:47 show the divisions that exist or existed uh between the two parties despite the fact that they were both of a um am I allowed to sort of say what their politics were? that you can say. Yeah, they were of atrokist Marxist
03:04:59 Yeah, they were of atrokist Marxist disposition. Um, my impression was they hated each other. Um, I think probably describing the Montipython people's front of Judea would be a good way of
03:05:11 front of Judea would be a good way of putting it.
03:05:14 Had you been given any guidance about the level of interest that there was in the workings of the SWP and the SP?
03:05:26 the workings of the SWP and the SP? Not really. Uh uh our interest was the parts of both of those parties that would engage in physical confrontation. Who did you understand the customers for
03:05:38 Who did you understand the customers for this sort of intelligence were? No idea. I reported to the public order desk and the the I think there was a left-wing desk within my department. There isn't a a public order dimension
03:05:51 There isn't a a public order dimension to this information, is there? Uh no, but again it it would provide a uh flavor of the feelings between the groups. Did anybody explain to you that
03:06:03 groups. Did anybody explain to you that by this stage the security services interest uh in the SWP was to keep a watching brief and they
03:06:15 was to keep a watching brief and they were no longer interested in rank and file matters? No. At no stage was security service ever mentioned during my deployment.
03:06:27 ever mentioned during my deployment. Can we take that down now please? Could we have from tab C20 MPS304161?
03:06:37 This is 9th of October 2000 and uh it's about an N US uh demonstration that was being
03:06:48 uh demonstration that was being organized to protest um about uh student fees.
03:06:56 And then the source comment recruiting from the student fraternity are believed to be in the region of a thousand persons at this time of year. What was
03:07:09 persons at this time of year. What was it made you think you should be reporting on the recruitment efforts of the SWP?
03:07:15 the SWP? Um that that whole reason for that would have been to inform sort of policing plans if there were demonstrations planned um where the people came from. Um, that's all I can think of.
03:07:27 Um, that's all I can think of. Forgive me. This isn't a detailed I mean, you are reporting there's going to be a demonstration, but you're not providing any no
03:07:34 no details of that demonstration. You are reporting on recruitment numbers.
03:07:42 numbers. What was the point of keeping tabs on how many people the SWP were recruiting? You would probably have and I'm not being um you probably have to ask
03:07:54 being um you probably have to ask someone else. I I would have provided the information. I would have said this is what I've been told. They would have created a report from it as we can see and that would have gone to other people on a desk.
03:08:05 on a desk. Did anybody ever say that anything was off limits so far as reporting on the SWP was concerned? No, sir.
03:08:13 No, sir. Uh did anybody tell you that anything was off limit so far as reporting on the socialist party was concerned? No sir. It it was explained to me that anecdotal reporting which is what what
03:08:26 anecdotal reporting which is what what we probably would have called this all helped to build a picture up of what was occurring. Can we take that document down now please and have from tab C31 MPS30
03:08:39 please and have from tab C31 MPS30 4381.
03:08:41 4381. We're moving now to a report on Halloween
03:08:46 Halloween 2000.
03:08:48 2000. Uh, it's got your code name and underneath the title is Mrs. Sherry Blair.
03:08:55 Blair. On the 1st of November 2000, Mrs. Cherry Blair, wife of the prime minister, is due to visit a nursery school in Haringay. Her visit will coincide with a small demonstration by members of
03:09:07 small demonstration by members of Fightback in association with some mothers from neighboring Hackne where the nursery schools are under threat of closure due to Hackne Council's
03:09:19 closure due to Hackne Council's maladministration.
03:09:22 Under source comment, numbers of activists are unlikely to exceed three. Fightback are leading the campaign against Hackne Council's
03:09:34 campaign against Hackne Council's potential cuts to their services and are an amalgam of SWP, SP,
03:09:42 SP, and Unison. Were you one of the three demonstrators?
03:09:51 No, not from memory. Uh no public order risk is reported here.
03:09:59 here. Absolutely sir. However, we are talking about the wife of the then prime minister. She would have had some kind of protecting detail and this would
03:10:10 of protecting detail and this would purely have informed a policing plan. And are these uh three demonstrators were they nursery workers? I've got no idea sir. I am sorry.
03:10:23 got no idea sir. I am sorry. Can I take it from this report that there was no day minim rule when it came to what you were expected to report?
03:10:34 to what you were expected to report? Please forgive me. You you'll have to explain.
03:10:36 explain. There was no nothing too trivial to report.
03:10:40 report. Um again this this was anecdotal reporting sir which would have informed a policing plan because there would have been a police officer present because the wife of the prime minister was attending. So it was relevant to provide
03:10:53 attending. So it was relevant to provide something. Can you help us with the nature of fight back? You've you the handler's comments tell us that it's an amalgamation of the
03:11:04 tell us that it's an amalgamation of the three of the two political parties and the trade union which are there set out. Was it in the in the nature of a campaign that was being run against
03:11:17 campaign that was being run against local authorities uh because of perceived maladministration and cups possibly? Um I can't really remember sir I was looking at that I would have still
03:11:29 I was looking at that I would have still been legend building at that time. Well there's quite a lot of uh reporting that you put in in due course about fight back. Um I mean a lot of reports I could take you to. How familiar did you
03:11:42 could take you to. How familiar did you become with fight back? Um, I would attend socials. I would probably stand on a um a picket line for one of a better word or a demonstration.
03:11:53 one of a better word or a demonstration. I lived in Hackne at that time. Um, it was, as I say, part of my legend building, sir. Could we have uh take that down please and have up C47 MPS
03:12:06 that down please and have up C47 MPS 304867.
03:12:13 This is 12th of December 2000. I'll give you a moment to uh look at the report. It's about an individual's plan to stand for the council.
03:12:43 Why did you report on a member of the community's plan to stand in elections for the local council?
03:12:55 council? It would have been information I picked up at that time. What was it about that sort of information that made you think your bosses would be interested in it?
03:13:07 bosses would be interested in it? We had at that time uh there was a a leftwing extreme leftwing desk and I think they may well have asked me to provide information. Um why I don't
03:13:19 provide information. Um why I don't know. I just again anything I picked up I would report back when I was being debriefed. Can you recall what feedback you got for this?
03:13:29 this? No sir.
03:13:30 No sir. Well, but was it your understanding that this was the sort of information that the leftwing desk would be interested in?
03:13:37 in? I can't remember sir. Um as I say um I was legend building at this time. So any kind of uh activity that I could show I was committed was was important at that
03:13:50 was committed was was important at that time.
03:13:51 time. If we look at the source comment says as one of the only black organizers involved in the fightback campaign, he is the darling of the SWP hierarchy.
03:14:04 is the darling of the SWP hierarchy. Um why did you report on this gentleman's race? Um I think because uh this individual stood out and I think it was something that they were interested
03:14:16 was something that they were interested in at that time. Um I can't think why else.
03:14:21 else. Why did he stand out? Well, they they would have when I was being debriefed, I would have been asked for a description who this person was etc. and what I knew about them. So
03:14:32 etc. and what I knew about them. So that's why I would have provided that. I can't think of any other reason. Was there a concern that the SWP was uh trying to use race uh as a way of
03:14:47 was uh trying to use race uh as a way of advancing its political agenda?
03:14:52 No. Um, I think again it was interesting because it was something that at that time didn't happen a lot and I think
03:15:03 time didn't happen a lot and I think there may have been an interest because obviously it might appeal to certain sections of of society. But I can't say more than that. I think I just reported that back to my cover
03:15:15 I just reported that back to my cover officer and they put that in. Could we take the document down please? So would now be a convenient moment to break for lunch.
03:15:26 break for lunch. Certainly. Um we'll um break now until two