The hearing focuses on the reporting practices of undercover officer HN104, specifically the accuracy and proportionality of intelligence reports concerning political activists. The session covers discussions on potential attacks on a charity shop, reports on bomb threat codewords, the officer's signing of a code of conduct while in a relationship with Donna McLean, and the reporting of sensitive personal medical information of a target.
00:03:54 Mhm.
00:05:49 Mhm.
00:07:44 Mhm.
00:11:34 Mhm.
00:13:29 Mhm.
00:15:24 Mhm.
00:17:19 Mhm.
00:19:14 Mhm.
00:21:09 Mhm.
00:23:04 Mhm.
00:24:14 Good morning everybody. Today's proceedings will be live transmitted after a 10-minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to report what they have heard in the hearing room, but only after 10
00:24:27 in the hearing room, but only after 10 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. Yes, Mr. Barr. Thank you, sir. Mr. Seraki, just one
00:24:38 Thank you, sir. Mr. Seraki, just one point following up what we were uh discussing yesterday afternoon about the charity bookshop. Yes, if we could have up your witness statement,
00:24:49 could have up your witness statement, please, at 3550 at page 112.
00:25:02 Paragraph 252.
00:25:05 Mhm. Towards the very bottom of the page,
00:25:09 page, you say, "I do remember a charity shop being spoken about where the proprietor was said to be Ro- Robert Fiore. Mhm. He had a link to the extreme right-wing in Italy. I do not
00:25:21 extreme right-wing in Italy. I do not remember whether this was on New Year's Eve, but I remember there being drunken talk about going to the shop and attacking it. Dan Gilman was the person I recall
00:25:33 Dan Gilman was the person I recall bringing the issue up and making the suggestion about attacking the shop, but at the time I did not think this was a serious plan and was just drunken
00:25:45 a serious plan and was just drunken talk."
00:25:47 talk." Can you help us with what you can recall about
00:25:54 about the discussion of an attack? Um
00:25:59 Um Yes, sir. I I think the talk was about uh when the shop was opening open, entering it, and throwing things onto the floor and such like.
00:26:11 and such like. Um
00:26:12 Um That that's my recollection. Um and as I say, there was lots of talk about uh Mr. Fiore um and what he was involved in. Um but I I
00:26:22 I I didn't even know what the organization was that they were talking about. Um What is your best recollection of when that uh conversation took place? It It was a definitely a social
00:26:34 It It was a definitely a social gathering. Um
00:26:36 Um As As I've said with my statement, um it could have been at that time, sir. Um but I couldn't say for sure.
00:26:48 Could we take that down now, please? Could we have up from tab C139 Mhm. MPS0011596?
00:27:00 This is a report dated the 29th of January 2003. And it's about a forthcoming BNP
00:27:11 And it's about a forthcoming BNP uh meeting in Hornsey. If we look at the first paragraph,
00:27:26 it says that um there's an intention by the BNP to establish a branch in the area, and that no platform fully intends to oppose the meeting and carry out a physical assault on any BNP supporters
00:27:39 physical assault on any BNP supporters in the area. Can you help us with the basis for your reporting and intention to physically assault BNP supporters?
00:27:50 to physically assault BNP supporters? Um
00:27:51 Um I I As I've said with previous reports, um this would have been conversations that we had either in a meeting or in a social setting. Um and this would have been um
00:28:03 Um and this would have been um the things that were being talked about. So, again, trying to stop them get to the meeting by physical means if necessary. Um and just just preventing it happening. Um
00:28:15 happening. Um that that was what the group was all about. You're right to advert to the fact that we've we've had similar reports before. And what I'm interested in is are you reporting in each of these cases specific discussions about the
00:28:29 cases specific discussions about the specific forthcoming event, or are you reporting an intention to carry out physical assaults based essentially on previous conversations not related to
00:28:42 previous conversations not related to the specific event? Um
00:28:45 Um in in this case, I I think I would because there is a date and a location that this would have actually been spoken about at some kind of meeting and that I had been in attendance of.
00:28:58 and that I had been in attendance of. If we go to the source comment paragraph.
00:29:07 Let you read it, but I'm interested in the last sentence.
00:29:29 Yes, sir. Eight to 10 MP activists will take part in the eventual assault. Is it your evidence that your target group were
00:29:40 evidence that your target group were talking in militaristic terms like that of conducting No, sir.
00:29:45 No, sir. an assault? No. Um
00:29:48 No. Um I I know it says source comment, but even I wouldn't have spoken in terms like that. Um if I had talked about assault, it would have been from the point of view of um violence of some
00:30:00 point of view of um violence of some kind, um but no. Um the militaristic side to that, I understand what you're saying. It's not It's not even something I would have said or that to be fair, I would have heard said by
00:30:11 to be fair, I would have heard said by the people I was with.
00:30:14 And the number eight to 10, where would that have come from? That would have been people who voiced interest.
00:30:23 Interest in attending the event? In attending, yes. Um
00:30:28 Um from our circle. Can we take that down now, please, and can we have up from tab C190 MPS0011626?
00:30:42 This is about the same event still beforehand 30 the information obtained on the 30th of January 2003.
00:30:53 January 2003. If we look at paragraph one first, please.
00:31:10 So, the last sentence the MP activist will then attempt to attack the activist or disrupt the meeting. Attacking and disrupting two different
00:31:21 Attacking and disrupting two different things you which you have distinguished using the conjunction or. On what basis are you reporting? What is
00:31:32 On what basis are you reporting? What is it that's making report that it is one or the other? Um
00:31:38 Um I would have said this kind of thing because that's what I would have heard. Hence, I would have made that distinction. Can we take it from that that there was
00:31:50 Can we take it from that that there was no clear plan to attack? No,
00:31:54 No, there often wasn't. It was always a matter of what does opportunity present? And that that was why I would put in everything that I heard basically to try and cover
00:32:07 heard basically to try and cover all aspects. If we go to paragraph two, please.
00:32:20 Give you a moment to look at that.
00:32:29 So, this suggests there's going to be two
00:32:32 two essentially two groups. One conducting the main demonstration and the other doing something else. Yeah.
00:32:41 Yeah. The main demonstration, a conventional demonstration? Um, I believe so, yes.
00:32:48 Were you there on the evening of the 4th of February, 2003? I think I was. Yes, sir. Um, it does ring a bell. Um, however, I had served as a a uniform police officer in that
00:33:01 as a a uniform police officer in that area and so I might just visualize place, but I do I do think I was there. Uh,
00:33:07 Uh, which group were you with? Uh,
00:33:11 Uh, I can't can't remember, sir. This is why, as I say, I apologize, but um, we used to do lots of events like this, so
00:33:19 so I might be I'm confusing it. Are you able to say whether or not, in fact, on the night there were two groups? I don't I don't think there were. Again, I think this was one of those occasions where not enough people turned up,
00:33:31 where not enough people turned up, really.
00:33:33 really. What happened? From memory, nothing. A conventional demonstration? I believe so, yes.
00:33:42 Could we take that down now, please? Could we have up from tab C198, MPS20s18340?
00:33:53 Uh, this is dated the 3rd of April, 2003.
00:33:57 2003. It's entitled coded bomb threat warnings. If we could have the text of the first paragraph, please.
00:34:08 the first paragraph, please. Mhm. Steve Headley of No Platform has recently made it known to some activists who are close to him within MP that he is aware of an authentic code word that can be given to the authorities when
00:34:20 can be given to the authorities when making bomb threats. Headley mentioned the word. This was mentioned to two other associates within MP. Headley stated that he personally has ever used
00:34:32 stated that he personally has ever used the password but had been made aware of it by an Irish Republican associate no further details some years ago. Was ever supposed to be never. I believe so, yes.
00:34:45 What was the source of this intelligence? Again, so most of my deployments involved picking up information when we were at meetings or out on socials. Um I
00:34:57 were at meetings or out on socials. Um I think this would definitely have been at such an event. It says Irish Republican associate no further details. Mhm. Does it follow that you did not
00:35:09 Mhm. Does it follow that you did not know which Republican group was being referred to? Yeah. I I I obviously there are many bits to the
00:35:20 obviously there are many bits to the then Republican movement. Um I did not sort of have it confirmed that it was the more shall we say serious or violent outside but that it was some sort of support
00:35:32 but that it was some sort of support group was the impression I got. More than that I I do not know, I'm afraid.
00:35:39 afraid. If it was a support group, why would it have a bomb threat code word? I don't know, sir. As I say, I can't remember the exact conversation. This
00:35:51 remember the exact conversation. This does ring bells. And as I say, I think it was um as a result of chatter at a meeting or or at a social gathering. Can you help us with the context of this
00:36:03 Can you help us with the context of this chatter to meeting or a social gathering? Um
00:36:11 Yeah, I can try. We Obviously, when we were uh out and I think this was probably from some sort of show social gathering. Um
00:36:22 some sort of show social gathering. Um You would still talk about politics. You would talk about other um political groups who you might work with or you had disagreements with. Um and this I
00:36:33 had disagreements with. Um and this I think would have been something that got mentioned within that context. Uh
00:36:40 Uh Can I be clear? Is there any suggestion that No Platform was considering getting involved in terrorist violence? No. Any suggestion that No Platform was
00:36:51 No. Any suggestion that No Platform was going to get involved in bombing? No. No.
00:36:55 No. Any suggestion that Mr. Headley was ever involved in terrorist activity? Um no.
00:37:02 Um no. Any suggestion that he had any intention of doing so? Um no. The The report was about the fact that um mention had been made of an authentic codeword. Whether
00:37:14 made of an authentic codeword. Whether that was true or not, I do not know. So, literally mentioned in passing in conversation. Yes, sir. No more than that. That's all. Can we go to the source comment, please?
00:37:29 This may be of interest as it possibly indicates, confirms his previous sympathies. He does not usually speak about his Republican connections.
00:37:40 about his Republican connections. Sympathies. Yes. That's
00:37:44 That's fairly qualified and diluted, isn't it? Um yes. Yes. But you are still putting into the system a report which
00:37:56 putting into the system a report which is insinuating that Mr. Headley might be connected to serious terrorism. Um as I say, I I from reading that now,
00:38:08 Um as I say, I I from reading that now, I believe this was to do with support groups for the Republican cause. Um we were obviously at that time told to report things like this because again it
00:38:19 report things like this because again it it would inform or add to um any intelligence picture. You you didn't know when it might become relevant in the future. Creating official reports which suggest
00:38:30 Creating official reports which suggest there may be a link between an individual and terrorist can have serious effects upon their lives, can't it?
00:38:35 it? Ab- absolutely, sir. Um I I may be reading that wrong, but that was not the insinuation as I took it. I reported back that I'd heard talk of this authentic code word.
00:38:48 this authentic code word. Um
00:38:49 Um I think I might have even passed on the code word to my handler, but I couldn't I cannot remember it now. And I said "He knows people involved in the Republican cause." That would have been
00:39:00 Republican cause." That would have been my um thing. As I say, I would not have written this or even dictated the source comment. Um that would have been their interpretation as they wrote it. Have you um
00:39:13 given any guidance about the need to be very careful about factual accuracy of reports?
00:39:24 about factual accuracy of reports? No, sir. We we were told to report what we heard um and then it would be written up accordingly. Would it have been fairer to Mr. Headley
00:39:35 fairer to Mr. Headley to make it absolutely clear that there was no evidence that he ever had been or ever would be involved or ever had any intention of being involved in
00:39:47 any intention of being involved in terrorism? Um
00:39:50 Um Yes, it would, but that that was not for me to decide. I just reported what I heard.
00:39:57 heard. Can we take that down now, please? Can we have from tab B 73 748418?
00:40:11 This is um
00:40:18 Can you get page 16, please?
00:40:25 A large composite file at page 16 of it is a code of conduct for undercover Special Branch officers. Uh if you look at the um first two
00:40:37 Uh if you look at the um first two paragraphs there, please. Very similar to the document I showed you
00:40:43 you uh
00:40:44 uh on Monday.
00:40:47 If we go to page 17, please.
00:40:55 The difference is that this copy from the 10th of April 2003 bears your signature and it is countersigned by DCI Dell.
00:41:08 countersigned by DCI Dell. Uh
00:41:09 Uh Can you help us with the circumstances which led
00:41:14 which led to you being required to sign the code of conduct? I'm I'm afraid I can't, sir. Um
00:41:22 Um I
00:41:23 I Possibly, it might have been something that we were all required to sign. Um but I I can't really remember, if I'm honest. Was it anything to do, as far as you were aware, with the fallout from
00:41:36 you were aware, with the fallout from James Thompson's deployment? Um there was a lot of fallout. Um possibly, um but again, I I cannot recall. I I do think we were all asked
00:41:47 recall. I I do think we were all asked to sign documents of this kind. Um I just didn't give it a lot of thought. Um I wanted to continue in my role.
00:41:58 Uh and as of April 2003, you were in a relationship with Donna McLean, weren't you? Yes, sir. And I can take it that signing, being required to
00:42:09 take it that signing, being required to sign this document, uh didn't do anything to dissuade you from continuing the relationship. No, sir. As I've said, I I don't think I would have even recalled signing this
00:42:20 have even recalled signing this document. Can we go to page 18, please?
00:42:27 And this is a document about SDS field officers bank accounts conduct and use. I'll give you a
00:42:38 a moment to read that.
00:43:02 Yes, sir. And you will see from the third bullet point down, the first indent, any banking facility granted to an SDS officer
00:43:11 officer will only be used for the purposes of his or her SDS operation. Mhm.
00:43:17 Mhm. Uh if we zoom out, there's reference also to levels of indebtedness and overdrafts and so forth. That overdraft and indebtedness that had, as you mentioned yesterday, I
00:43:29 that had, as you mentioned yesterday, I think you've been given some guidance about that yourself. I I had.
00:43:33 I I had. Um yes.
00:43:35 Um yes. If we go over to page 19,
00:43:41 again, you're being required to sign that.
00:43:46 that. Yes, sir. Same question. Can you remember Can you remember why you were required to sign a document essentially about financial propriety? Um the the only reason I can think of
00:43:59 Um the the only reason I can think of would have been obviously with the officer James Thompson. Um I think these types of documents um in following what had happened there. I think The only reason I can think of.
00:44:12 think The only reason I can think of. In your case, you are pursuing sexual relationship with Donna McLean. Yes, sir. Your finances, your field finances will have been used in part to conduct
00:44:24 will have been used in part to conduct that relationship. Um
00:44:26 Um as I said yesterday, so and again the the back office had access to all of my current account statements at that time. They could see and it was part of the
00:44:38 They could see and it was part of the reason I was pulled in that I was actually putting money from my real life into that account. So, yes, it would have been a mix of both, I would say.
00:44:50 both, I would say. Putting money into your account from your real life, did that beg any questions? It did eventually when they noticed it, yes. As I say, I was I was pulled in and and spoken to. And it was all gone through.
00:45:02 And it was all gone through. And what were you asked? Um why why are you doing this? And what did you say? I just said I I spend a lot of time with my target
00:45:13 I spend a lot of time with my target group.
00:45:14 group. I spend a lot of time socializing. I don't mind doing this.
00:45:20 Into I'm not going to go back over the evidence you gave yesterday about the rent book, but you're receiving money as a result of the rental arrangements. You are living with Donna McLean. You're
00:45:31 are living with Donna McLean. You're getting money from the police to run your undercover life. Donna McLean is intrinsically linked into your intimately linked into your
00:45:42 intimately linked into your undercover life. Uh
00:45:45 Uh signing this document doesn't appear to have given you any pause for thought. Is that right? Um
00:45:52 Um No, it didn't so I I don't think as I say, we were just presented with these documents. I don't remember exactly when. and see obviously dates there.
00:46:03 obviously dates there. For us
00:46:05 For us for me personally, I was like, I need to sign this so that I can get on with doing my job and my deployment. Um however wrong that was, that was my
00:46:16 that was my way of thinking. And do you accept it was wrong? Um
00:46:20 Um with hindsight, yes, sir. But at the time, all I wanted to do was was get out there and do my job. But at the time, it must have must have struck you it was wrong.
00:46:29 wrong. Um yes, but as I say, um it was outweighed by wanting to get out and do the work.
00:46:36 the work. And continue the sexual relationship. Absolutely. Could we have page 20 and 21, please?
00:46:49 Uh this is uh about field officer's passports, and conduct and use, and you will see that suggests top left, the overriding principle is that such passports are
00:47:01 principle is that such passports are only used for operational purposes. And again, you're signing it on the same date, countersigned by DCI Dell. That's right. Um
00:47:13 Dell. That's right. Um Again, did that give you any pause for thought?
00:47:16 thought? Um not that I can recall. Um I think again,
00:47:21 again, my
00:47:23 my thought process, for want of a better word,
00:47:26 word, would have been that I was maintaining my legend. This was a part of the job I was doing, um and so it was okay to continue.
00:47:37 It should have given you pause for thought, shouldn't it? Yes, sir.
00:47:41 Yes, sir. And if you'd directed your mind to it, it would have done. Yes, sir.
00:47:47 Can we take that down now, please? Can we go to tab C178, MPS0010061?
00:47:59 This is a report about St. George's Day March due to occur on the 19th of April 2003.
00:48:12 the 19th of April 2003. Mhm. I'm interested in the comment at the bottom, which is about Mr. Hedley. Could we have that expanded?
00:48:23 Hopefully, privacy will mellow, Steve, and you'll see above with redacted for Mr. Hedley's privacy some reporting about his personal relationship. Yes.
00:48:34 about his personal relationship. Yes. But, it is unlikely, given that privacy privacy WT is likely What is likely is that more young Hedleys will arrive in
00:48:45 that more young Hedleys will arrive in this world, given his good Catholic propensity for fathering children. Exclamation mark.
00:48:55 mark. Is that your comment? No, sir. Whose comment is it? If you wish to have the document zoomed out or turned over, just say. Um I I think so.
00:49:06 turned over, just say. Um I I think so. I mean, I've I've read the initial paragraph at the top as well. Um but again, this would have come from me having a debrief with my cover officers.
00:49:16 officers. Um
00:49:17 Um Again, it will have figured in in conversations that we had, but um
00:49:23 um I
00:49:24 I Well, I I have no memory of writing that, and I definitely didn't write that whole report, sir. Did you have a laugh with your uh uh uh your manager or managers about Mr.
00:49:38 uh uh your manager or managers about Mr. Hedley's good Catholic propensity for fathering children? Um I can't recall exactly, but but yes, we've we would have talked, and we would have had uh humor as we chatted. Um
00:49:50 humor as we chatted. Um I'm Well, not unfortunately. It was that kind of kind of environment. Would you accept now that stereotyping on the grounds of religion?
00:50:01 Um yes, um I would sort of say it probably was not thought about in that way back then at the time. Was it
00:50:12 that way back then at the time. Was it thought about by you back then at the time?
00:50:15 time? Well, I'm I'm a good Catholic as well, sir. So, um I you know, could we could well have had a chat like this. Um I There is no secret that family is very
00:50:26 I There is no secret that family is very important to me. Um however, daft that may sound. So, entirely, you know, we could have been chatting and my cover officer would have been making notes and would have then written this up. So,
00:50:37 would have then written this up. So, yes.
00:50:38 yes. Can we take that down now, please? Could we have uh MPS0018503?
00:50:47 This is dated the 6th of May, 2003. It's entitled The Socialist Party and George Galloway. If we could have the text expanded, please.
00:51:00 I'll give you a moment to read it.
00:51:26 So, How did you get this intelligence? Um
00:51:32 Um pretty much the way I would get most of my intelligence. This would have been again, either at a a meeting, an official meeting, or just afterwards, or within a social event
00:51:44 afterwards, or within a social event where, and um the subjects were always would always generally revolve around politics at some point. Why did you report it? Um for for the same reasons uh that I've
00:51:57 Um for for the same reasons uh that I've said, I I would whatever I heard, I would I would go back and when I was debriefed, I would I would talk it through um and tell my my handlers um what I had heard, what
00:52:09 my handlers um what I had heard, what had been planned, what had been done. So, all up the only reason I can think of is that. From your knowledge uh and experience within Special Branch and from what your
00:52:20 within Special Branch and from what your managers may have said to you, was there Special Branch interest in Mr. Galloway?
00:52:26 Galloway? Um
00:52:29 but we we had uh an extreme left-wing desk, so I assumed that there would be. Um which would be why obviously the interaction and discussion
00:52:40 the interaction and discussion supposed um I don't know if it happened uh discussions with the Socialist Party um I thought would be of interest. So, I I would have recounted it Special Branch's interest in Mr. Galloway.
00:52:55 Branch's interest in Mr. Galloway. Um I I think I reported this uh sir from the point of view that the Socialist Party activists had met with George Galloway. Um
00:53:06 George Galloway. Um and as I say, obviously was around the time that he was either going to leave or be expelled. And I think that's why I reported it because it was of interest from that point of view
00:53:17 view that someone with a very high profile was talking to Socialist Party. To what extent did Special Branch take the view that
00:53:29 did Special Branch take the view that Mr. Galloway had Stalinist tendencies? Again, that would have probably come out in conversations. I'm I'm not sure that it would have been Special Branch that
00:53:41 it would have been Special Branch that took that view. Uh I think that again may have been stuff that was said in the conversations uh that I was involved in with activists. He He was viewed as having
00:53:53 activists. He He was viewed as having Stalinist tendencies. Well, it says, "Galloway continues to display his Stalinist tendencies." It doesn't say the Socialist Party thinks he has Stalinist tendencies. Again, I I didn't write this, sir.
00:54:04 Again, I I didn't write this, sir. Um
00:54:05 Um so I can only sort of give you um
00:54:08 um what I think, really. What was the reaction of your managers to this information? No idea. Um I don't think it was
00:54:19 I don't think it was um viewed as that important. But important enough to write up. Um as I say, yes, I I would report back everything that I had been involved in, seen, and heard with regards to
00:54:30 seen, and heard with regards to political activity. Were you given any guidance on reporting on members of Parliament? Um
00:54:39 Um obviously in terms of uh
00:54:42 uh detail, legal privilege, things like that, absolutely. Um I did not think this fell within that. I This This was people talking and gossip.
00:54:53 This This was people talking and gossip. Uh I still felt it was worthy of reporting that these meetings or this meeting might be taking place. This is a member of Parliament Yes.
00:55:04 This is a member of Parliament Yes. discussing
00:55:07 moving from the Labour Party to the Socialist Party voluntarily or otherwise. Listen.
00:55:17 Did you give any thought to the fact you were reporting on a sitting member of Parliament having a political discussion about which political party he should be
00:55:29 about which political party he should be aligned with? Um
00:55:33 Um no.
00:55:34 no. From reading that, no.
00:55:39 Did you ever get any guidance which should have rung alarm bells? Not that I recall, um other than to say obviously you have to tread very
00:55:51 obviously you have to tread very carefully, but this to me was a conversation um that I thought was noteworthy. I would go back, I would be debriefed. As I've said, I then left. They would
00:56:03 As I've said, I then left. They would then from
00:56:04 then from whatever notes they might have made, they would write up the intelligence reports. Who did you understand that this intelligence report would go to?
00:56:14 My reporting in the main, my understanding was that it it would go to obviously um what we called C Squad, which was the extreme left-wing desk and other such
00:56:27 extreme left-wing desk and other such uh protests and and activist activity groups that that were on there.
00:56:34 on there. And I assumed that this would go to them.
00:56:37 them. Um I didn't see that it would go to the public order desk. Um as I say, it was chit-chat. Would it go to the security service? No, sir. We we did not I mean, during my
00:56:49 No, sir. We we did not I mean, during my whole deployment, um I was never made aware of any interest from the security service about the work I was doing. What's the policing value of a member of
00:57:01 What's the policing value of a member of parliament political discussions as to which party he should align with?
00:57:10 In terms of Sorry, sir. But if it's not going to the security service, Yeah. um presumably for reasons of subversion, what's the police interest in
00:57:21 what's the police interest in what Mr. Galloway is doing? Sir, I I just reported this. I I can't can't say. Um I was involved with the Socialist Party. These were things I picked up and I
00:57:32 These were things I picked up and I reported them. Um as I say, what then happened I'm sure there would have been many things that I mentioned at our debriefs where they didn't bother or
00:57:43 where they didn't bother or you know, they saw no interest at all. Someone obviously saw some interest in this and decided to type it up. Were you ever any given any guidance to the effect that if a member of party was
00:57:55 the effect that if a member of party was a Stalinist then that would need to be reported? No, sir.
00:58:00 No, sir. Or any any guidance which would be wide enough to include that? No, sir. I don't recall that at all. Was your to your Was there to your knowledge
00:58:12 knowledge any Special Branch interest in Ken Livingstone? No. I I knew who he was, but no, there was no no Special Branch interest as far as I was aware.
00:58:24 as I was aware. You sure about that? Yes, sir. Did you give any thought at all to the constitutional propriety of the police reporting on the political
00:58:35 of the police reporting on the political attention political intentions of a sitting member of Parliament? I can't say I in any great depth, no. If you had, what would have been your
00:58:46 If you had, what would have been your conclusion?
00:58:49 Well, I I think the conclusion would have been
00:58:52 have been no, but as I say I I did not include this um within that. It was just I was relating something I'd heard.
00:59:03 relating something I'd heard. Do you mean by the answer no that no, it would not have been appropriate? Yes. Yeah, that's correct. Could we take that down, please? Can we have up from tab C207 MPS0022072?
00:59:23 This is a report. We believe it's from the 20th of June
00:59:30 June 2003.
00:59:34 Under the title, where it says title Craggy Island, about 1/3 of the way down, says no platforms, marriages, deaths, brackets possible,
00:59:45 deaths, brackets possible, moving house, and births. Only joking. Then there is, um, various information about various people
00:59:59 various information about various people associated with no platform, various personal information, that is.
01:00:07 that is. We've
01:00:08 We've had to redact some of it for privacy reasons. If you need to see what's under the
01:00:13 the uh, redactions at any stage, we can arrange that. But can you help us, first of all, what was the comment on births, only joking,
01:00:28 was the comment on births, only joking, a reference to? I I don't know, sir. I I did not write this. I do not recall this. I would have had a debrief looking at the
01:00:40 would have had a debrief looking at the information relating to the individuals referred to. Um, and as I say, this would have then been typed up, um, by somebody from the back office team. Um,
01:00:52 Um, I'm not sure who. Um, again, moving house and births, only joking. Um, again, as I say, I I feel there was some attempt at merriment there.
01:01:03 some attempt at merriment there. Was it an in-joke about the risk of undercover police officers fathering children in their undercover identities? Not that I ever heard, but as I say, you
01:01:15 Not that I ever heard, but as I say, you you didn't really talk about that. Um, there there was definitely the the saying births, deaths, and marriages. Um I can only think that this is some
01:01:26 Um I can only think that this is some sort of
01:01:27 sort of reference to that, but um again, I would have been debriefed. I'm looking at this. Quite evidently, this is information I would have passed across.
01:01:38 across. Um but it was then written up. Um We've been proceeding broadly chronologically through your deployment. We've seen
01:01:49 We've seen the report we looked at a moment to go uh referring to Catholic propensity to procreate. We've got this only joking about births, talking about
01:02:01 only joking about births, talking about possible deaths. There seems to be a more flippant
01:02:09 content to your reports in this period of your deployment. Can you help us with why that was? Um Not not really. Um I I think I was
01:02:22 Um Not not really. Um I I think I was always, if if I'm going to be honest, flippant when we were chatting because it was talking. Um they were getting information out of me, but there would be um
01:02:33 be um jokes pushed in and the rest of it. All I can think here is that the the people who were now writing this up um
01:02:41 um had either changed or their attitudes had changed. Um but, you know, I I readily admit when we used to have our debriefs, um
01:02:52 we used to have our debriefs, um you know,
01:02:53 you know, there was there would be jokes made, there would be laughter, and things like that.
01:03:01 Going to the first substantive piece of information, privacy, and we're certainly not going to name who we're talking about here, is undergoing tests for prostate cancer. Apparently, his
01:03:13 for prostate cancer. Apparently, his doctor feels there is a very good chance that he has it. He is awaiting the outcome of test results. This is only known by myself and his partner. This is
01:03:25 known by myself and his partner. This is clearly very personal and very sensitive medical
01:03:30 medical information. Why did you report such information to your managers? I can only say sir, it it would have just been
01:03:42 only say sir, it it would have just been in conversations because something like this I think, you know, it would have been in my head. Um,
01:03:50 Um, I think I would have been quite upset to hear this news. Um, so I'm thinking of the right person. And I think I probably just shared it without thinking. But absolutely, I fully accept very
01:04:03 But absolutely, I fully accept very private.
01:04:06 I'm not sure that I would have expected them to write that down, but there we go. I asked you some questions back on Monday at the when I was asking about your training in the outset of your
01:04:18 your training in the outset of your deployment about collateral intrusion and proportionality. Can I take it that no thought was given to collateral and intrusion or proportionality in this completely.
01:04:29 completely. I as I say would have shared this in the general debrief. Um,
01:04:36 Um, probably not thinking it would get written down. But obviously being very wrong about that.
01:04:45 Why would you share it if you thought it shouldn't be written down? Cuz I I wasn't thinking like that at the time evidently. Um,
01:04:55 Um, that's the only reason I can have for that.
01:04:58 that. And obviously, you know, I know it's serious and I am sorry about that, but I I didn't at that time give that that kind of thought. Could we take that document down now,
01:05:10 Could we take that document down now, please? Can we have up from C229 MPS0029555?
01:05:20 Uh this is moving on to President Bush's visit to the United Kingdom, which took place on the 20th of November 2003. This is a report from the 27th of October
01:05:33 is a report from the 27th of October 2003
01:05:35 2003 about no platforms planning for that
01:05:40 for that occasion. Can we have a look at the first paragraph on the left-hand page, please?
01:05:50 Give you a moment to read that.
01:06:15 Yes, sir.
01:06:20 Can you help us with how specific the intelligence was that you obtained that informed uh
01:06:29 uh this reporting on no platforms thinking? Um
01:06:35 Um from from reading that paragraph, uh I feel this would have come from a proper meeting, so to speak, where we discussed the visit and what we would
01:06:47 we discussed the visit and what we would be doing. Um
01:06:51 I'm just looking at those first couple of sentences, um that we'd not been asked to take part in any stewarding. Um and that that would have been the primary reason for having the meeting, um because it was something that the
01:07:03 um because it was something that the group used to do. Um
01:07:07 Um the rest of it, again, as say would have been stuff that was discussed at the meeting that I heard um and then it would have this would have been put in to assist with the policing plan for the event and
01:07:19 with the policing plan for the event and for the visit. Understood. It says please please this will give them the opportunity to roam around any hotspots and get involved in any disorder. Is it your evidence
01:07:32 any disorder. Is it your evidence that the No Platform activists you were talking to as a group wanted
01:07:39 wanted positively to get involved in disorder? It it would have been discussed, yes. Um
01:07:47 Um and so I I would have put that into my debrief. Um
01:07:52 Um If you get involved in disorder at an event like this, which is inevitably going to be heavily policed, Yeah.
01:08:01 Yeah. you're risking arrest and other consequences of a potential conviction. Completely, yes. How do you square that with the next sentence, "Many members of the group are
01:08:12 sentence, "Many members of the group are making sure they are off work during the visit"?
01:08:18 Well, people wanted to go out and protest um hence people were making sure that they were taking time away from work.
01:08:26 work. Um
01:08:27 Um as I say
01:08:28 as I say discussing and talking about becoming involved in disorder can can take many forms.
01:08:34 forms. Um
01:08:36 Um Well, there's an enormous difference between wanting to protest and wanting to get involved in disorder, isn't there?
01:08:43 there? Okay, so but my definition of disorder is refusing to move if you're blocking a road,
01:08:49 road, things like that, etc. But that can escalate all the way up obviously to the more serious stuff. Um I think this is what a flavor of what I was trying to get across because we would have been
01:09:01 get across because we would have been being asked by the public order uh departments what what do you know? This would have been it would this would not have just been coming in from me. This would have been coming in from across the unit.
01:09:14 been coming in from across the unit. Apologies. What were the people that you were mixing who had jobs to lose saying about their appetite
01:09:25 their appetite for breaking the law? I cannot remember, sir. As I say, please I know you know this, but no platform was made up of socialists and
01:09:36 was made up of socialists and anarchists. They would have been different attitudes and approaches to all of that. And so a report which talks about the group
01:09:46 group or portrays a group having an appetite to get involved in disorder as a group is overstating the position, isn't it? I I I disagree.
01:09:58 I I I disagree. There was a lot of anger about this visit.
01:10:02 visit. Um
01:10:04 As a result, the police the Metropolitan Police were very interested in anything that might happen or any any things that were being talked about.
01:10:16 Go a bit further down. The SP activists will remain with the SP contingent and the anarchists will remain within their block. However, plans have already been made to meet up on the demonstrations
01:10:29 made to meet up on the demonstrations when possible and particularly if disorder breaks out to come together and act as a disciplined unit.
01:10:38 unit. So, what you're portraying there is a plan for the Socialist Party contingent to get together with the Anarchist contingent so that no platform on mass come together and
01:10:52 no platform on mass come together and act as a disciplined unit. Have I understood that? Um yes.
01:10:57 Um yes. Um
01:10:57 Um reading that, yes.
01:11:02 Disciplined unit, again, has a militaristic I absolutely feel to it. Yes.
01:11:10 What did you mean by act as a disciplined unit? I I think, and I can only summarize from having read this now, um,
01:11:21 summarize from having read this now, um, I was probably talking about the whole stewarding side of it. Come together to protect the activists um, from our political groups. Um,
01:11:33 our political groups. Um, I don't think, um, I would have been indicating that there would have been anything else. Um,
01:11:39 Um, but as I say, I I I could have used the word disciplined, um, because certainly the stewarding, um, it was all about, um, discipline.
01:11:50 discipline. And
01:11:52 And taking directions, so that's all I can think um, that I would have meant. So, the vital to understand this properly, the vital words that are
01:12:03 properly, the vital words that are missing,
01:12:04 missing, if disorder breaks out, to come together and act as a disciplined unit to protect
01:12:12 Yes. The marchers. Absolutely. As I say, I I didn't write this. Um, I I definitely would have recounted all of this.
01:12:20 this. Um, but I I did not write it up. Can we zoom out, please?
01:12:26 Can we go to the source comment?
01:12:33 NP activists are keen to get involved in the Bush visit protests, as they see the visit as the first opportunity in a very long time for a situation to develop where mass public disorder could
01:12:44 where mass public disorder could develop. Most of the group are not strangers to protest of this kind, and and have experience in being able to agitate and aggravate a developing situation. Joe Batty and Frank Smith are
01:12:57 situation. Joe Batty and Frank Smith are particularly good in these situations and are very adept at slipping away. The Anarchist contingent of NP will be headed as usual by Mario and privacy. Both are hotheads
01:13:09 by Mario and privacy. Both are hotheads and will invariably get themselves into trouble.
01:13:16 Now, that is source comment. Is that therefore your comment? Yeah, would definitely have been something that I would have said to my cover officers.
01:13:27 cover officers. Um
01:13:28 Um again, as I say, they will have written up um
01:13:33 um on the back of what I had said. So, yes, definitely. Doesn't that portray a completely different picture to
01:13:44 to what you've just told us, namely that in the event of trouble, they will fall back to a conventional, disciplined, protective stewarding role?
01:13:58 disciplined, protective stewarding role? Yes, sir, but I I do feel that both can coexist together. Um part of the reason that I was with the Socialist Party was
01:14:08 was exactly what is there, that the the Anarchist side of that group were viewed both by police and I think um the Socialist that they were hotheads who
01:14:19 Socialist that they were hotheads who were more likely to get themselves into trouble.
01:14:22 trouble. Um
01:14:24 Um Mr. Batty and Mr. Smith, I I would always make a point of trying to be around them because they understood these situations um when they were turning nasty or if
01:14:36 um when they were turning nasty or if there was the uh possibility of turning nasty um far better than I did. And they would get us out of trouble. Um
01:14:46 Um as I say,
01:14:47 as I say, I identified that quite early on. Um and I did try and make sure that I was was with them if things were were going that way.
01:15:01 So, getting out of trouble, exercising a protective role. Absolutely. Um you know, what may have happened before though was was you know, you were there, there would be a large
01:15:12 you were there, there would be a large group of people, there would be lots of different things happening. Um
01:15:16 Um whether it was Mr. Batty or Mr. Smith who were initiating that, that that's not really the point I think I was trying to make. I was trying to say that if it kicks off,
01:15:27 say that if it kicks off, I'm sticking with those two. They were men who were certainly not going to get charging to battle fearless fearless to the point of madness, were they?
01:15:39 the point of madness, were they? They were not anarchists. Um yeah, I would agree. And they were for me and from my point of view, um in that sick type of situation,
01:15:50 in that sick type of situation, uh they were a safe pair of hands for want of a better word. Could we take that down, please? And could we have uh T232
01:16:01 could we have uh T232 MPS0029772?
01:16:09 Uh this is the 13th of November, 2003. Uh and if we go down, please. I think it's the fourth paragraph.
01:16:20 paragraph. Yes. Just above comment. Again, if a further report a little closer to the time. Later on in the day, the SP activists from MP intend to meet up with their counterparts. They will
01:16:32 up with their counterparts. They will only do so when they are happy that their SP comrades in the SP block are safe. Should there be mass public disorder during the day, it is likely that they will be directed I think it should say by the SP
01:16:44 I think it should say by the SP executive committee to remain with the SP contingent. In other words, in that defensive role that you were just talking about. that would have been further reporting that I would have found in. As I say, we were
01:16:55 were leading up to this visit, we were putting an awful lot of information in. And if we could take that down and get up to C235 MPS 0029798.
01:17:15 Give you a moment to look at the first paragraph of this report, which is again about the forthcoming visit. This time 3 days beforehand. Mhm.
01:17:42 And this report makes far more clear the distinction, doesn't it, between the SP part of NP and the anarchist part of NP? Yes, sir. And their different Yes, sir. intentions.
01:17:55 Can we go to the handler's comment paragraph here?
01:18:02 Dissemination to MPSB and NPOIU for information only. Please refer to the originator where further dissemination is concerned or where executive action is likely.
01:18:18 executive action is likely. Were you told in the run-up to this major
01:18:24 major demonstration anything about MPOIU involvement? No, sir. I was aware that the MPOIU
01:18:35 No, sir. I was aware that the MPOIU existed, obviously. But
01:18:38 But my uh
01:18:40 my uh impression, feeling was we were very distinctly we set apart. Um, I as far as I can recall was never ever debriefed from anyone from MPOIU.
01:18:52 debriefed from anyone from MPOIU. Uh, it would always be either my back office staff and on rare occasions by the desks. Did you get any briefings from your own managers to the effect as
01:19:03 from your own managers to the effect as to what the MPOIU were doing to gather intelligence demonstrations? All we would have been told was that they would have had assets out there as well. Did you ever meet those assets? I did
01:19:14 Did you ever meet those assets? I did not, no. I don't want you to identify them, uh, verbally, but were they ever identified to you? Not that I can recall. At that time when I was serving on the unit, no.
01:19:27 I was serving on the unit, no. Can we take that down and can I take you to the day of President Bush's visit itself? Were you there? I think I was, yes.
01:19:37 yes. Can you help us with what happened? Uh, I think it was a a sizable demonstration. Um
01:19:45 Um I don't have a lot of rec- recollections of
01:19:49 of anything very, very exciting happen other than there were lots of police, there were lots of demonstrators. Um
01:19:58 Um I tended a lot of demos, so Did you see anybody from No Platform being violent? Um, I would have been with the socialist contingent. Um, no would be the answer.
01:20:10 contingent. Um, no would be the answer. Did you see anybody from No Platform involved in public disorder? Not that I recall, no. Was anybody from No Platform arrested at that event? Um,
01:20:21 No Platform arrested at that event? Um, I don't think so, no.
01:20:25 And was that because they were there to protest and to protect? Um
01:20:32 Um That was why I was there, certainly, so I would imagine they had Yeah, the same reasons for being there, as far as I'm aware.
01:20:38 aware. Can we go to tab B83, sir, MPS0030590?
01:20:51 This is a file note dated the 25th of two of November 2003, 5 days after the event.
01:20:58 event. Mhm.
01:20:59 Mhm. It titles Operation Caprice,
01:21:03 Caprice, which we understand to be the operation name given to the policing of the visit of Mhm. President uh Bush. I will give you a moment just to
01:21:15 Bush. I will give you a moment just to have a look at the detail.
01:22:06 And if you go over the page,
01:22:11 you'll see it's signed by DCI or bears DCI Dells' name Yes. at the bottom. And this is a document which records
01:22:23 And this is a document which records that essentially the SDS was very pleased indeed with its contribution to policing on the day. And felt that it had made the major
01:22:35 And felt that it had made the major intelligence contribution. Is that right?
01:22:38 right? Um it seems to reference one person. ever passed on to you? I I don't remember. Um it could well have been, but I don't recall, sir.
01:22:50 recall, sir. Could we take that down now, please? And can we have up from tab C 236 MPS 0031153?
01:23:02 This is a four-page note, a briefing note, Yep. all about no platform data the 15th of December 2003.
01:23:14 2003. Can you help us with whether you wrote this
01:23:18 this or participated in its writing or contributed in any other way? Sure. Yeah, absolutely. I I would have contributed. Um again, it I don't think
01:23:29 contributed. Um again, it I don't think it would have been written by me because that wasn't the way we did things. Um we would meet up, we would sit down. There would be notes getting taken. Um usually there would be at least two
01:23:42 Um usually there would be at least two or three other people. Um because this would have then been passed up to the desk um as a sort of well, a briefing note, basically. Um
01:23:53 well, a briefing note, basically. Um but yeah, I I would have attended and we would have talked through all of this and it would have been they would have taken their notes and then written up the report. Can we have page three sub paragraph C?
01:24:09 This is in a a section of sub paragraphs which uh fall under the introduction. The London section, however, has not made any proactive interventions on the far right this year for a a of reasons.
01:24:21 far right this year for a a of reasons. Mhm. C, the biggest reason has been the police intelligence and tactics used against MP. Good quality intelligence has meant that MP activists are disrupted very early on in any activity
01:24:34 disrupted very early on in any activity and prevented from using the intelligence they have about the whereabouts of the fascists. MP activists are photographed, filmed, and spoken to by uniform units early on
01:24:47 spoken to by uniform units early on during an event, and this puts them off criminal activity when the opportunity arises, as they are aware that the police evidential chain has already begun. The firm manner in which MP
01:24:59 begun. The firm manner in which MP activists are usually dealt with by police is also effective, as they are left in no doubt about the police response should they commit offenses.
01:25:09 offenses. These tactics have put off many new MP activists.
01:25:15 Can you help us with the extent to which uniform police could use these tactics anyway without SDS intelligence?
01:25:29 tactics anyway without SDS intelligence? Um I Obviously, they would be present. Um
01:25:33 Um I
01:25:34 I I think back then they would have obviously, as they do now, get intelligence from other sources. Um and so of course they would have, you know,
01:25:44 know, they would have had opportunities. Um
01:25:48 Um I think for me the the reason that we were also used was because we were able to provide, for want of a better word, on the spot.
01:25:59 for want of a better word, on the spot. We were there. We were with the the people. And so
01:26:03 And so there would be no ambiguity or doubt for the uniform police. They were looking for certain groups. The FIT teams can photograph, film, and
01:26:15 The FIT teams can photograph, film, and speak to people anyway, can't they? Yeah, back then, yes, certainly. And they can be firm, anyway, can't they? Yes.
01:26:27 Yes. Might it be said that you're in a position, perhaps, to identify people from photographs?
01:26:35 From police photographs? Yes. Yeah, yes, of course, yes. Yes. So, you may make a contribution in that sense. Yeah, absolutely. But otherwise, would it be fair to say that the police
01:26:46 would it be fair to say that the police the uniform police can do all of this, anyway?
01:26:49 anyway? Yes, but the only problem was it was about where to best direct the resources, because obviously there were not endless fit teams, uh or endless TSG carriers. And so, it was
01:27:02 carriers. And so, it was part of the reason I was out there was to try and assist with that, so that they could better direct their tactics.
01:27:11 Better dispose their assets. Yeah, that's much better way of saying it. I'd say, yes. If we could take that down now, please. Uh
01:27:20 Uh can we go
01:27:22 can we go uh to
01:27:24 uh to uh tab 240, MPS 0010199.
01:27:30 This is moving into 2004, 22nd of January, 2004. It's about confronting the BMPs canvassing
01:27:42 canvassing on the Pimlico estate. Mhm. Uh and its significance, so far as we can see, is that it's the first reference to Antifa. Yes, sir. So, if we
01:27:55 reference to Antifa. Yes, sir. So, if we could have the text expanded, please.
01:28:07 Is this about the time that Antifa was formed? I think so. I think so, sir. We It It For me, it was, as I say, a change of
01:28:19 For me, it was, as I say, a change of name.
01:28:20 name. Um
01:28:22 Um Antifa had been spoken about around this period.
01:28:27 period. Um and I took it to mean um they were German-based anti-fascists, and and this was the name for the group. I I'd not heard the term until this period.
01:28:38 this period. Can you help us with how and why Antifa came to be in this country?
01:28:49 to be in this country? Um yes,
01:28:51 Um yes, the anarchists within the Anarchist Platform group had ties uh across Europe with other anarchists. Um I believe that this is where the name
01:29:02 Um I believe that this is where the name came from, and it was viewed as a way of of bringing it all together, uniting the the anti-fascist movement. Um because obviously, if you've all got the same name, it it
01:29:14 if you've all got the same name, it it will resonate around Europe.
01:29:18 That addresses the anarchist side of MP. Can you help us with where the Socialist Party side of MP
01:29:29 Party side of MP are left with the formation of Antifa? Um
01:29:32 Um my
01:29:34 my uh impression was they were not happy about it because obviously, it was a a sort of umbrella group. So, whilst from what I can remember, I think a lot
01:29:45 from what I can remember, I think a lot of the discussions were that they would work together and continue to work together, um but
01:29:53 um but leadership of the Socialist Party uh would not countenance or be happy with people um becoming full-time within Antifa. As it it was basically viewed that we would
01:30:05 it it was basically viewed that we would lose membership and lose people at that stage. In practice, on the ground, what difference did the emergence of Antifa make?
01:30:18 make? The only difference really that I can remember was that there had been people from anarchist other anarchist groups who had always been quite unhappy about working within the No Platform
01:30:31 about working within the No Platform framework
01:30:32 framework due to connections to the Socialist Party.
01:30:36 Party. Um I think that that is was the main difference that it attracted more people who who probably wouldn't have come near us. More anarchists? Yes, sir. Yes.
01:30:49 More anarchists? Yes, sir. Yes. Did No Platform continue to exist? I think it did, but it definitely became very watered down because, as I say, we
01:31:00 very watered down because, as I say, we were calling ourselves Antifa. Um the socialists said, "Well, we we will work within it, but we will not join it." Um that was the distinction.
01:31:12 Um that was the distinction. What's the difference between working within and joining? Um well, joining is you you know, you you're becoming a member a membership. Um working with is you are still,
01:31:24 Um working with is you are still, uh for want of a better word, retaining your own decision-making about events that you're attending. For the Socialist Party members of uh No Platform, did it mean they still
01:31:36 No Platform, did it mean they still continued
01:31:38 continued uh to work with the anarchists, or did it mean that they gravitated back towards
01:31:45 towards purely Socialist Party activities? No, no, they they continued to work with the anarchists. Um by this stage, from what I could see, I mean, I'd been involved for a few years, and and there were
01:31:57 were uh not not just political uh
01:32:01 allegiances to each other. There were friendships there. And so, again, it was discussed and trying to find a way to continue sort of assisting each other.
01:32:13 other. Where were you in this period of flux? This was a difficult time for me. Um
01:32:22 Um Antifa, obviously, was of of interest to my handlers. Um
01:32:28 Um the problem was that it was predominantly anarchist-based, um at that time, and was looking that way. Um so, for me, I was still having to be careful because
01:32:41 careful because there was always a chance that there would be uh more serious violence on that side of things. Um so, I I again my close relationships were with the
01:32:52 my close relationships were with the members of the Socialist Party. Um so, I sort of trod the middle ground, but but I I remained a member of the Socialist Party at that time.
01:33:03 time. Did you try to steer events in any particular direction? No.
01:33:12 Can we take that down now, please? Could we have up from tab C250 MPS0032327?
01:33:20 This is moving on to the 29th of March 2004.
01:33:25 Sir, a report about the extreme left-wing supporters may join the new police complaints Could we have uh the text expanded, please?
01:33:38 I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory.
01:34:04 So, can you help us with the phrase, "It is viewed as an opportunity to really cause damage to the Met Police"?
01:34:15 damage to the Met Police"? Um
01:34:17 Um Absolutely. I I obviously um would have said this to my handlers or they would have
01:34:23 have written it in that way. Um they didn't like the police. Um they viewed
01:34:29 viewed the Met Police, um but police in general, as racist, sexist, and all the rest of it. Um
01:34:37 Um and so this would have been part of the conversations uh about the new Complaints Commission. So, what was the fear?
01:34:50 I I don't follow, sir. I'm sorry. "Really cause damage." What was the fear? Uh to interfere with police investigations where where things had
01:35:03 investigations where where things had gone wrong or there was there was uh a belief that things had gone wrong. Um it was seen as from what I can remember, the types of conversations were ways of um gumming up
01:35:15 conversations were ways of um gumming up the system.
01:35:19 What did people What were the people you were mixing with saying about this opportunity? Um
01:35:29 Um Yeah, as as I said, um it was viewed as a way of getting in and and causing issues
01:35:35 issues uh for the workings of police investigations. Can I'd like to be clear about precisely what was being said. Were they keen to get into a role where they could
01:35:47 keen to get into a role where they could participate in holding police to account for failures.
01:35:57 Or was it more than that? I I couldn't say, sir. Um this is
01:36:02 this is what I would have picked up and thinking back to this, this would have been probably in a social setting where we were talking about finding jobs, working, all the rest of it. Um it would
01:36:13 working, all the rest of it. Um it would have definitely been something I can't remember where it says it here, but it had been printed in publications associated with homeless work, social work. Um and so it would have been
01:36:25 work. Um and so it would have been mentioned by Mr. Batty uh probably in a a social setting. Was there a fear that these people might not be objective
01:36:36 that these people might not be objective and fairly determine complaints if appointed? Entirely possible, I guess, yes. Um It's entirely possible. I'm asking you what you were thinking. I I wasn't thinking
01:36:47 you were thinking. I I wasn't thinking like that. Were you thinking these were the last people who should be determining police complaints? No.
01:36:53 No. Well, what were you thinking then? Um I was reporting on things I had heard. Is exactly what I was thinking. I thought it was interesting that this would be looked at, but as I say, I
01:37:05 would be looked at, but as I say, I that was it, really. Did anybody use the word cause damage to the Met police? I can't remember. Um it would have been words along along those lines, I would
01:37:17 words along along those lines, I would imagine, but again, this would have been written by one of my colleagues and that was down to their interpretation. Another
01:37:26 Another way of viewing the opportunity would be a way of participating in improving police behavior. Was it been ex-
01:37:34 ex- that expressed in that way? I don't remember that. I don't think it was, but again,
01:37:41 again, I would have reported this back. Um my handlers would have basically written it out
01:37:48 it out um as they thought I was saying it to them.
01:37:53 The end it says under handlers comments dissemination to MPSBC squad for information only. Please refer to the originator where further dissemination is so concerned.
01:38:05 is so concerned. Mhm. Or where executive action is
01:38:10 is likely.
01:38:11 likely. Mhm. Did anybody refer back to you about this information? No.
01:38:17 No. Um this this was again um something that rightly or wrongly would have come out in conversations that I was having when I was being debriefed. Um
01:38:28 I was being debriefed. Um my interest in that stopped there. I I delivered what I'd heard. Um my attitude was you guys are get going to get on with it. I might have seen this at some point um when I was
01:38:40 seen this at some point um when I was looking at my product file. But um I did not look at my product file sort of every week. It was you know, every few months if I was lucky. And again, I would flick through. Um
01:38:52 Um yeah. Why why was this handlers comment added to the report? I don't I don't know, sir. Um Was it to ensure that the way in which the
01:39:03 ensure that the way in which the intelligence was used did not compromise you? Oh, that's yeah, entirely possible. Yes. Yes.
01:39:12 Yes. What executive action might have been taken? I don't know. Um I mean, looking at what I've said there, uh none.
01:39:23 there, uh none. Did your handlers discuss with you the need to protect you as a source? Uh
01:39:30 Uh yes. Ov- over the years, yes. They would obviously
01:39:33 obviously attention to source protection was something that they they had to be aware of.
01:39:37 of. In relation to this intelligence? Um I don't recall them discussing this explicit- explicitly with me. No. Did they discuss with you what executive action might be taken? No.
01:39:52 Were you ever told what was done with this intelligence? No.
01:39:56 No. Were you ever told whether any action had been taken to thwart Mr. Bate's aspirations uh to join the IPCC? No.
01:40:10 Do you know whether SDS intelligence was ever used in this way to prevent people believed to be subversive from assuming particular offices? No, sir.
01:40:22 particular offices? No, sir. Do you know whether it would be used for vetting?
01:40:25 vetting? Um
01:40:25 Um No, sir. I'm I'm having been through vetting processes, I would be very surprised if it was. Do you
01:40:34 Do you know anything about the Economic League? No, never heard that term. Was it ever raised with you within the SDS? No. Do you know anything about the Consulting
01:40:45 you know anything about the Consulting Association? No. Was that body ever mentioned whilst you were serving in the SDS?
01:40:51 SDS? Do you know whether information gathered by the SDS was ever leaked outside the police to blacklisting organizations? I'm not aware of that, sir. Um obviously
01:41:03 I'm not aware of that, sir. Um obviously over the years I've subsequently read things about that, but I was never aware that anything that I was reporting back was being used for those purposes, but as I say, I would put my reports in and
01:41:16 as I say, I would put my reports in and that would be the last I would think about it.
01:41:18 about it. Can we take that down now, please? Could we have up from tab C257 MPS0034636?
01:41:30 Uh this is about an Antifa day of action against the BNP set for the 26 24th of April 2004. It's an ex post facto report intelligence
01:41:43 an ex post facto report intelligence coming from two days later. Mhm.
01:41:50 I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory, but my first question is going to be whether you were there. Um I do recall being there, so yeah. Just read through it.
01:42:01 Just read through it. And this is confronting the BNP, isn't it? Yes, I I think the whole point of the day was to uh
01:42:12 point of the day was to uh disrupt them their meeting point. Um
01:42:17 Um Sorry, just can't I'll get Well, once you've refreshed your memory, let me know.
01:42:49 Ready, sir. Sorry about that.
01:42:53 Can you describe to us what happened on the day? Um
01:43:01 Um as best I can remember, um
01:43:04 um we we'd been asked for assistance uh by uh Southend and Essex parts of the group.
01:43:11 group. Um obviously cuz we were in London, we went out there. And my recollection is we we spent a lot of time
01:43:18 of time uh around or near the train station. Um
01:43:23 Um I think I think as I say, there were other anti-fascist groups there, um and we we just sort of kept to ourselves, but we mingled in with them. Um I don't recall there was
01:43:34 with them. Um I don't recall there was there was it was loud, it was vociferous. The policing was firm. I think there was one occasion because it was one of the things that sticks sticks in here. Um some local uh
01:43:47 in here. Um some local uh some local people uh didn't take very kindly to uh not just us, but to the counter-demonstrators being there. And there started to be sort of verbal
01:43:58 there started to be sort of verbal confrontations, which um in my view were on their way to becoming violence. Um and as I say, at that point, there was a big uniform police
01:44:09 point, there was a big uniform police presence.
01:44:10 presence. And um
01:44:12 And um from what I can remember, the police intervened. So, that information was received, however, from a Searchlight source that the redirection point for BNP activists
01:44:23 the redirection point for BNP activists was the town's railway station. Mhm.
01:44:27 Mhm. Did you
01:44:29 Did you obtain that in Did you know that when the information came in on the day? I I'm I'm sure it was um would have been uh
01:44:39 uh voiced to us that we would have been told that because I do recall being uh around the environments of the railway station.
01:44:46 station. Um
01:44:47 Um Were you able to report where the redirection point was believed to be
01:44:55 to be to your superiors at the time? I I cannot remember, sir. I'm sorry.
01:45:03 Was there in fact any violence? Um there was certainly potential for violence. As I say, there were groups of opposing activists um in
01:45:14 groups of opposing activists um in fairly close proximity to each other. But as I say, there was uh quite a swift intervention by the uniform police who were putting in cordons, etc., to prevent people
01:45:25 prevent people um
01:45:26 um getting too close to each other. What does the phrase firm physical means mean?
01:45:33 mean? Um
01:45:35 Um officers will link up, they will form a cordon, um they will push people away. That that kind of thing um is what I saw. The these were not um what common parlance you would call riot
01:45:47 what common parlance you would call riot police. They were not as far as I can remember kitted up in in public order equipment. Um but they jumped out of uh police carriers, mini buses, and very
01:45:58 police carriers, mini buses, and very quickly moved across
01:46:02 So, effective public order policing. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. How did the uniform police know to be at the railway station? I don't know, sir. Um
01:46:14 I don't know, sir. Um as I say, I I do not recall putting in that information. Um so, I I I don't know, I'm afraid. If we could take that down now, please. Can I move to the time when you
01:46:28 Can I move to the time when you at
01:46:30 at you move
01:46:32 you move out of Donna McLean's flat. Yes, sir. Our understanding is you move in with Steve Headley and later Joe Batty. Yes. Uh
01:46:43 Uh I'm getting For reasons which may become clear, I'm going to start with the second of those moves, Joe Batty. If we have up, please, NPS 0527068.
01:47:01 Go page 11, please.
01:47:08 If we could expand that. This is a letter if you could have it scrolled up. Thank you. This is from Mr. Batty
01:47:19 you. This is from Mr. Batty um
01:47:21 writing about his accommodation and it says about halfway down the page, "I've already left the property, but my friend Carlo Neri will be available to
01:47:32 friend Carlo Neri will be available to look after the flat from the 1st of June 2004.
01:47:37 2004. We would like to request permission for this arrangement to be in place for 6 months, although it may be less than that." You see the date of that letter is the 12th of April 2004.
01:47:51 is the 12th of April 2004. "Can you help us with what has passed between you and Mr. Batty
01:47:59 Batty in the period leading up to the 12th of April when he writes this letter to secure permission for you to live in his flat
01:48:10 such that you know that you want to move into it?"
01:48:16 As far as I can remember, sir, um I don't I don't recall that obviously Mr. Batty's mother was unwell, but um he was and had told me that he was going to
01:48:27 was and had told me that he was going to move back up north to Manchester uh just to try it out. Um
01:48:34 He was talking about not sure what was going to happen with the flat because both himself and his partner were were going up there, I think.
01:48:43 think. And
01:48:44 And I think he might have just asked me "Do you know anyone? Was I interested?" Um and I think I I said, "Yes." Um more more than that, um
01:48:55 Um more more than that, um I don't really know. Um that was very much the impression I got. Why in the spring of 2004 did you want to say yes to that offer?
01:49:08 It was convenient at the time for me, but um
01:49:12 but um it it was just an offer that came up. It was an opportunity and I said, "Okay, that."
01:49:17 that." Can you recall whether when the offer was made you were already living with Mr. Headley or whether you were still living with Donna McLean? I I think I would have been with Mr.
01:49:29 I I think I would have been with Mr. Headley, um but I I cannot say for sure. I am sorry.
01:49:36 When you moved into Mr. Batty's flat, who was living there? Was it just you or was it you and others? No, just me. Did there come a time when Mr. Batty
01:49:47 Did there come a time when Mr. Batty moved back into it?
01:49:52 As I recall, uh his partner um I I had to vacate the the the flat cuz his partner was coming back and Joe was
01:50:03 was working out what he was going to do. So, am I understanding it rightly? You move into Mr. Batty's home
01:50:14 home Mhm. around the 1st of June 2004. Yep. You live in that accommodation alone Yes, sir. until there comes a time when you're
01:50:26 until there comes a time when you're asked to vacate it. Yes, and and that was uh always the agreement. Um it was, you know, this isn't forever, mate, but it would do us it would help if we have someone in
01:50:37 it would help if we have someone in there that we have uh sort of recommended that we know. But if we change our mind, you must move out. And I had obviously no issues with any of that.
01:50:49 This is These documents Did you hand these in to your managers? Yes, sir. I don't remember, sir. another letter after which afterwards
01:51:01 another letter after which afterwards which
01:51:02 which I I don't remember, sir. grants permission. I don't I don't remember, sir. To what extent did you keep your managers informed about the fact you were moving into Mr. Batty's home? I I'll I I would have kept them informed
01:51:13 I I'll I I would have kept them informed um because even with regard to uh lodging with Mr. Headley, um I I definitely would have informed them about that. So, I've I think I would have informed them about
01:51:24 I think I would have informed them about this.
01:51:26 this. And how inquisitive were they about details such as what the property was like, who you'll be living with, that sort of thing? There was not a lot of interest within
01:51:39 There was not a lot of interest within that. Um it would be checked by them. They would look up I would imagine council tax registers and things and then they they would say yes or no. They would ask you, "Well, how long is this going to be?"
01:51:50 going to be?" Um you'll try and give them an idea. Um more more than that, I don't think there was a a great deal of of interest.
01:52:00 Can I go back now to your move in into Mr. Headley's premises? Yes.
01:52:08 Yes. Dealt with this one first because it may help anchor it in time. Okay, thank you. We'll take that document down uh now. What did you tell your managers about
01:52:21 What did you tell your managers about why
01:52:23 why you were
01:52:25 you were going to move from Donna McLean's flat into Mr. Headley's accommodation? I I can't remember, sir. Uh in all honesty. Um obviously, I would
01:52:37 Uh in all honesty. Um obviously, I would have told them I was moving, but I I cannot remember. Presumably, they would have wanted to know why.
01:52:44 know why. Ag- again, as I said, they were it it was not the highest priority um for them. What they wanted to know was, "Where are you staying?" Um so, that if
01:52:55 "Where are you staying?" Um so, that if they ever
01:52:56 they ever had to come looking for me, um they would be able to do that.
01:53:01 And can I take it from that that you would have told them that you you moving in with Mr. Headley. Yeah, I believe I did. Um
01:53:10 Um I thought I think the only interest there was that it would be uh a a temporary arrangement, very temporary. Why was it going to be very temporary?
01:53:21 Why was it going to be very temporary? Um because again for the same reasons um you're you're living with uh a political activist. Um there were reasons why they wouldn't want you there. Um I think I also said that to him. It just
01:53:32 I think I also said that to him. It just for me it just seemed like a convenient idea.
01:53:37 idea. And the reality was that you were in fact getting yourself out of uh Donald Maclean's flat because you were putting some distance into that relationship.
01:53:48 some distance into that relationship. Yes, sir. And you didn't tell your managers that. Um I can't remember, sir. I mean I don't remember. Well, did you or didn't you? Um
01:53:59 Um I can't remember. Um the timeline at some point my managers were aware, but at that time, no, I guess.
01:54:09 When you moved into Mr. Headley's flat, what did you tell Mr. Headley?
01:54:16 Headley? I I think it would have been that I'd gone through a breakup. Um I needed somewhere to stay.
01:54:24 And he very charitably said, "Come and live with me." Absolutely.
01:54:30 Who else was living in the premises? For the most part, uh uh it was myself and Mr. Headley. Um I think he would be visited by his
01:54:41 I think he would be visited by his family.
01:54:42 family. Um but that wasn't um all the time. Um for the most part, it was myself and Mr. Headley. Did Mr. Headley have a partner living with him at any stage? Not there. I think he did
01:54:54 at any stage? Not there. I think he did have a partner, but they were living elsewhere. Uh did his daughters stay at his premises whilst you were living I I don't think it was a regular a regular
01:55:06 I don't think it was a regular a regular occurrence, no. an answer to my question. Did his daughters ever stay overnight? Believe so, yes. How often? It was not regular, as I said earlier.
01:55:20 In the conversations you had with your managers about moving in to live with Mr. Headley, did how inquisitive were they about that move?
01:55:31 move? I I think I would have given them those details because they would have asked me about the setup of the house. Um I certainly recall the when I was staying with Mr. Headley,
01:55:42 the when I was staying with Mr. Headley, um my coffee consumption went up immeasurably and I wasn't getting a lot of sleep because we would sit and talk a lot. Um When you say those meant those arrangements, what arrangements
01:55:54 those arrangements, what arrangements would you have communicated to your managers? Um that that's my point. That would have been the times when we would have talked about visitors and things like that. Um and family. Is it your
01:56:06 like that. Um and family. Is it your evidence that your managers knew you were living with a man whose children would have sometimes come and stay with him?
01:56:13 him? Yes.
01:56:14 Yes. What was their reaction to that? None that I remember. Nothing notable. And uh being very careful about anonymities, which managers uh knew
01:56:26 anonymities, which managers uh knew that according to you? I I could not say, sir. These were the conversations that were going on with the back office. It would have been my cover sergeants definitely at the time, but I can't even remember who they were at that time.
01:56:40 remember who they were at that time. Did DCI Dell know?
01:56:43 I would assume he did because it would have been conveyed to him. Um I do not recall speaking directly to him. DI HN53
01:56:58 Again, I don't recall speaking directly to him. Did anybody give you any advice about how to conduct yourself living in
01:57:09 about how to conduct yourself living in a home with an activist and on occasion his daughters? No one gave me any advice, no.
01:57:19 Why didn't you revert to just getting a dust address? I don't I don't know why. I don't know what the reasons were. Um I went back to
01:57:31 what the reasons were. Um I went back to the back office. Um I think it would have been as part of the legend building because again I was a a newly single man who was looking to
01:57:43 who was looking to sofa surf for want of a better word. Um and I think that was part of the um the thought process behind it. Was a conscious decision arrived at as a
01:57:56 Was a conscious decision arrived at as a result of discussion with your managers that it would be better for your cover to be the sofa surfing single male?
01:58:09 Yes. Um we definitely had that discussion and it was feeders um useful for the legend. Yes. So, would that be a convenient time to take the morning break? Certainly. We'll
01:58:20 take the morning break? Certainly. We'll um break for 15 minutes.
02:00:49 Mhm.
02:02:44 Mhm.
02:06:34 Mhm.
02:08:29 Mhm.
02:14:14 Mhm.
02:14:41 Thank you, sir. Mr. Saraki, back to Antifa. If we could have up from tab C 260 NPS0035130.
02:15:00 This is a document that we've recovered referring to you Craggy Island Antifa action statement. If we could have that
02:15:11 statement. If we could have that text from Craggy Island down to the bottom of the text expanded, please. Starts with another example of the less formal approach to reporting. Yep. The following is the text of Antifa's
02:15:23 following is the text of Antifa's website action statement, even the wearers have gone corporate and now have a statement of common purpose. Enjoy.
02:15:32 Enjoy. And
02:15:34 And am I right to understand that what follows is text from the Antifa website?
02:15:43 website? Yes. Um, I think so. If we
02:15:47 If we go down to the third paragraph of the text of the website Antifa aims to tackle fascism from two angles. Mhm. First, ideologically, we
02:16:00 angles. Mhm. First, ideologically, we intend to expose the BNP and other far-right parties for what they are, lying racist politicians with no solutions for the British working class. We intend to counter the fear and lies
02:16:12 We intend to counter the fear and lies spread by such groups and fight a hearts and minds struggle with them. Countering their policies and taking away the basis of their support is a massive part of
02:16:24 of their support is a massive part of what Antifa will do and arguably the most important. Did that sentiment accurately reflect what they did?
02:16:36 what they did? Um
02:16:38 Um yes, um at that time um I'm I'm just trying to
02:16:42 trying to remember if if I actually downloaded this or if I just pointed the back office to it. Um not that it's that important, but yeah, I mean that was the the group's
02:16:54 I mean that was the the group's statement as it were. And if we could go now, if we could take that document down, unfortunately something's gone awry with our our electronic filing. The next page of this
02:17:06 electronic filing. The next page of this uh document is in on another file. Okay. Uh and so could we have up, please, 35131?
02:17:38 And you'll see the document continues secondly,
02:17:42 secondly, Antifa intends to tackle fascism physically, head first, on the streets. Fascism is not an extreme version of
02:17:53 Fascism is not an extreme version of conservatism. It is an ideology based on violence and terror of
02:18:00 of Seems to have been some problem there. Opposition. It is no coincidence that whatever far-right groups become active, there is an upsurge in racial violence. The aim of street mobilizations is to
02:18:13 The aim of street mobilizations is to give the image of controlling the streets, very much in the tradition of the blackshirts of Oswald Mosley, the dead British fascist aristocrat who led
02:18:24 dead British fascist aristocrat who led the old British Union of Fascists both before and after World War II. Yes. From your dealings with Antifa, does this act- actively reflect their political
02:18:35 act- actively reflect their political analysis of the fascists? Yes, I did these
02:18:40 these These would indeed, yes, sir. If we go into the next paragraph.
02:18:50 As such, militant direct action against fascist mobilizations is an essential part of the overall struggle against fascism.
02:18:58 fascism. When successful, they destroy the image of hard-nut untouchable Aryan skinheads that these groups like to push for themselves. Remember, only they believe
02:19:11 themselves. Remember, only they believe in a master race, and they can take a kicking just like anyone else. Successes have already been made in this field with two BNP being attacked on Barra
02:19:24 with two BNP being attacked on Barra High Street, London after leaving a picket, and four says WNP, but I suspect it's supposed to say BNP was stopped from leafleting in
02:19:35 say BNP was stopped from leafleting in Portrush, Northern Ireland, and had all their material, including one flag, confiscated by anti-
02:19:45 by anti- fascists.
02:19:47 fascists. Overtly violent. Um yes, sir. On their website. Yes, sir.
02:19:54 Yes, sir. And then, if we move to the next paragraph, I won't read it all out, but essentially it's a recruitment call based on
02:20:06 based on the two pillars of Antifa's policy that we've just been through.
02:20:17 To what extent was the sentiment that fascists could take a kicking just like anyone else um something that permeated Antifa?
02:20:29 Antifa? Um
02:20:30 Um from my experience um as I said earlier, Antifa being a primarily based in anarchist activity, there was definitely a much higher
02:20:41 there was definitely a much higher chance of there being violence. Um as I've said earlier in our discussions, part part of the reason my deployment into the Socialist Party uh was important was um
02:20:53 uh was important was um they were very conscious that with an anarchist group there was more chance of getting involved in uh serious uh assaults and things like that. So, it it definitely permeated through, yes.
02:21:06 it definitely permeated through, yes. The uh
02:21:07 The uh reference to two BNP members being attacked on Borough High Street,
02:21:16 Street, do you know anything about that attack? No, I missed that one. And can I assume you know nothing about the attack in Northern Ireland? Uh no, I may I may have either read it on this site or heard about it in our various
02:21:27 heard about it in our various gatherings, but um I've no knowledge of of that.
02:21:32 of that. Could take that document down now, and could we have up uh tab C267 MPS0035239.
02:21:43 This is uh the 3rd of June 2004, titled Antifa extreme right-wing targeting. Mhm. Uh if we have the first paragraph up to
02:21:55 Uh if we have the first paragraph up to scene set.
02:21:58 Antifa activists are currently looking at the BNP electoral lists and making inquiries into the addresses of their candidates and their agents. This is all being done as discreetly as possible and
02:22:10 being done as discreetly as possible and activists intend to act upon the information whether these candidates are elected or not. Can I be clear? Is this Oh, this is publicly available material
02:22:21 Oh, this is publicly available material about the names and addresses Yes, sir. of political candidate election candidates and their agents? Yes, yes, indeed. Electoral rolls, things like that. And how did you um establish that
02:22:34 um establish that Antifa
02:22:35 Antifa were collating this sort of intelligence? Um this would have come from uh either again, a meeting or a social, um this type of thing.
02:22:46 thing. I'm not sure we would have talked about it down the pub, um so to speak. Um this would have come out at meetings uh where tactics and activities were being discussed. And where were these
02:22:58 being discussed. And where were these meetings being held? Um I think some of the meetings there was um
02:23:04 was um an anarchist bookshop around Whitechapel. Um we definitely used that a few times cuz I remember going there. Um
02:23:14 Um Was that the Freedom Bookshop? Sorry, sir. I I know it was it was sort of
02:23:21 of Oh, was it Whitechapel further down? Yeah, yeah, it could have been the Freedom Bookshop. I can't remember anymore, but um it was sort of next to a pub. Uh I think called the White Heart or
02:23:32 Uh I think called the White Heart or something. Um but Could we zoom back out and have paragraph two, please?
02:23:41 Antifa has already held discussions about what its reaction should be to any BNP gains in the elections and activists are preparing themselves for a busy time in the next few months. The group
02:23:52 in the next few months. The group intends to make use of any mass protest against the BNP by using any large demonstration as a cover for its activities. In addition to this, the group also
02:24:03 In addition to this, the group also intends to individually target BNP representatives and where possible attack them. If this is not possible, then it will seek to intimidate them
02:24:15 seek to intimidate them or vandalize their property.
02:24:19 property. Again, is it your evidence that you you obtained this intelligence from meetings at places like the bookshop? Yes, sir.
02:24:27 Yes, sir. Yes.
02:24:30 Yes. What actually happened? In relation to this one, um I I
02:24:37 I I I have no knowledge of anything taking place. Um
02:24:40 place. Um again, as I say, I used to go to these meetings, but the were predominantly attended by the anarchists at that time. Um and I I don't have any knowledge of if
02:24:52 I don't have any knowledge of if anything actually was ever carried out. So, you're not able to help us with whether or not anyone was physically attacked? No, sir. Intimidated? No, sir. Or the subject of the vandalization of
02:25:05 Or the subject of the vandalization of their property? Um no. Can we take that down now, please? Could we have from tab C271 MPS0035343?
02:25:20 This is a 21st of June 2004 report about elections which had been held on June the 10th of that year. It's
02:25:32 held on June the 10th of that year. It's headed The Socialist Party and the June the 10th
02:25:36 the 10th elections. I'll give you a moment to familiarize refamiliarize yourself with the document. My first question is going to be
02:25:46 be what role you played in its production.
02:26:36 Um, I I would have provided uh at least um
02:26:40 um one of the briefings for this. I don't think
02:26:43 think it would have come from anybody else but me. Might have been sort of leaflets in the newspaper, but um but yes, I I would have provided verbal briefing on this. Do you know who actually wrote it?
02:26:56 actually wrote it? No.
02:26:57 No. Would it have been somebody It says at the top left, "Note for desk, C Squad." I I think it it would have come from our back back office, obviously, because that's who I reported to. Um
02:27:09 We look at the first paragraph under the heading "Intelligence." Mhm. This note concerns the recent elections on June the 10th with particular reference to the Socialist Party. It will not concentrate on those areas that
02:27:21 will not concentrate on those areas that may be found in the public domain, but will deal with the mood of the Socialist Party following the election results and the possible future plans for the party. Can I take it that you the report the
02:27:32 Can I take it that you the report the sort of reporting we've looked at that you were putting in about the Socialist Party
02:27:38 Party informs
02:27:40 informs what the SDS can report about the mood within the party and its possible future plans that are not in the public domain. Um
02:27:51 Um obviously that that that is what I did. I think part of the reason for this being put in, obviously there was this concern that the BNP were running candidates in areas. Um there was also the advent of the
02:28:03 Um there was also the advent of the Respect Coalition um which again they were looking at as taking votes away and I I think I was just giving a a general overview. Um But we can see, can't we,
02:28:15 overview. Um But we can see, can't we, from this that overview you were giving or perhaps put another way, that insight Yes. into what the Socialist Party was doing was plainly of interest to those
02:28:27 doing was plainly of interest to those uh who were managing you. Yeah, absolutely. I I wouldn't have um passed on this information had it not not not to this uh detail. And if we go
02:28:39 not not to this uh detail. And if we go to page two, paragraph three,
02:28:49 Socialist Party will seek to maintain its good relations with the more militant trade unions and will continue to seek to enhance their relationship with them. The main priority of the Socialist Party
02:29:02 Socialist Party remains firmly committed to the electoral process. Yes, sir. As it sees this as its best opportunity to precipitate the revolution from within the system. Therefore, it still calls
02:29:14 the system. Therefore, it still calls itself
02:29:15 itself a revolutionary party.
02:29:19 party. So, is it fair to say your understanding of the Socialist Party's aims was to bring about a revolution using the democratic process? Yes, sir.
02:29:32 Did that commitment to the electoral process have any impact on SDS interest in the Socialist Party?
02:29:42 I'm not sure I'm the right person to direct that to, sir. Um obviously from my point of view, yes it did because I was providing the reporting, but um You took You continue to report on the
02:29:55 You took You continue to report on the Socialist Party though, don't you? Yes, sir. So, can I take it that there was no suggestion that because they were committed to the electoral process, you should stop reporting their mood and plans?
02:30:05 plans? No, I understand that. No. Um I was never told not to report stuff like this back.
02:30:12 back. Uh and if we go to the bottom of um page two,
02:30:21 the Socialist Party in it is and will for the foreseeable future be limited by lack of resources in any big election campaign.
02:30:30 campaign. It will continue to feature in small scale in local elections, picking up seats by appealing to sympathetic communities it targets. At present, its main aim is to continue to build within
02:30:43 main aim is to continue to build within the trades union movement and by a process of entryism seek to put its members in positions of influence and control. If they manage to create such a
02:30:55 If they manage to create such a platform, the executive believes that a mass workers movement can be created. This would eventually wrest back control I think you should say of the Labour
02:31:06 I think you should say of the Labour Party from Blairites or even create a mass workers party in the image of the Socialist Party over which it would have a great deal of
02:31:17 a great deal of influence. It could then use the resources from such an organization to push through policies and become a truly revolutionary party.
02:31:28 party. First of all, the reference there to entryism. Mhm.
02:31:34 I asked you some questions about this earlier in the week. Yes, sir.
02:31:40 And you told me that Socialist Party members were usually members of trade unions. They often held office within the trade unions, and they were open
02:31:52 the trade unions, and they were open about their politics. Do you mean entryism in that sense, or do you mean entryism in any other sense? Um definitely in the sense you've just
02:32:03 Um definitely in the sense you've just described. Um I think from a lot of the literature I was given to read and to be indoctrinated, there was also
02:32:13 was also the talk of entryism as a Trotskyist tactic. Um and again, maybe I was referring to that. Were they doing anything covertly?
02:32:24 Were they doing anything covertly? I I tried to No, sir. I I I didn't have anything to do with the trade union side of things, so um
02:32:30 um as I say,
02:32:32 as I say, it's entirely possible as well, uh Mr. Barber, this definitely came verbally from me, but I might have even pro- provided literature as well um to write this up. Did you at at any
02:32:44 um to write this up. Did you at at any point in your many years infiltrating the Socialist Party ever hear of them doing
02:32:52 doing anything covertly within the trade union movement?
02:32:57 movement? Not shared with me, no.
02:33:02 Wresting back control of the Labour Party.
02:33:08 Party. Mhm.
02:33:09 Mhm. Can I take it from that that if they had been successful in that aim, they would then have controlled the Labour Party? Yes, sir. I I took that to mean in the I
02:33:21 Yes, sir. I I took that to mean in the I think it was called the Militant Tendency,
02:33:24 Tendency, um which is I think the Socialist Party came out of that, had been a big part of the Labour Party.
02:33:31 Party. And there was still a lot of bitterness around when they'd been forced out. It was part part of their history. I was talking about obviously
02:33:43 getting revenge for one of a better word, getting control back. Why was the SDS interested in who controlled the Labour Party? I don't know, sir. I just reported these
02:33:54 I don't know, sir. I just reported these things.
02:33:56 things. Could we take that document down now, please, from tab C276? Could we have up next MPS0036444?
02:34:10 This is a report which is undated. I'd like to draw your attention to the second paragraph of text.
02:34:28 This is about Mr. Gilman. Mhm. And if we zoom out there, and can we go to the comments, and in particular, that's it. Thank you.
02:34:44 But what it says about Mr. Gilman in the comments. Mhm.
02:34:58 It's in particular that second paragraph under comment. It says it I think there's a typo. If Gilman got the opportunity, he would still resort to physical means when dealing with extreme
02:35:10 physical means when dealing with extreme right-wing activists. However, he would only do so if there were very little personal risk to himself both physically and with regard to attention from the
02:35:21 and with regard to attention from the police. He remains very paranoid about his activities affecting his job and his relationship with his partner. Can you help us with whether that was
02:35:32 Can you help us with whether that was just your judgment about Mr. Gilman or whether it was informed by anything specific that Mr. Gilman said or did?
02:35:46 specific that Mr. Gilman said or did? I I think we would have spoken this about this. This would have been as a result of a conversation um
02:35:55 um more than likely within within the pub um where we were talking about matters like this. Um
02:36:01 Um reading through that um that's that's my belief.
02:36:07 Just to explore that a little bit further, did Mr. Gilman ever say to you that he wanted uh to uh attack anybody physically?
02:36:20 Yes. Did he ever actually do so? Not to my knowledge, no.
02:36:32 Did you ever hear of him doing so? Um yes, there was lots of talk um but I was not present. Um
02:36:42 Um I
02:36:43 I know you sort of scenarios when that happened. What talk was there? Uh just about uh interrupting BNP leafleting teams, things like that. Um roughing them up
02:36:54 roughing them up um as part of a team. Uh that's the main story that comes to mind. That's not quite the same as Mr. Gilman personally attacking anybody, is it?
02:37:05 personally attacking anybody, is it? Depends. Um I do apologize on your definition. If you're part of a group of people that approach and rough up a group of
02:37:13 group of people who were just leafleting and things. That That to me is a sort of personal attack and I apologize I if I've got that wrong. Can you when Can you help us with what
02:37:24 Can you when Can you help us with what understanding you had of what Mr. Gilman had done personally in any such incident?
02:37:32 incident? The The There was always this story about Slate Green where he had been part of a group that had got hold of some BNP leafleters and had given them a
02:37:44 leafleters and had given them a a bit of a slapping, I think was the term.
02:37:47 term. Um
02:37:48 Um part of that was also that one of them had been thrown over a wooden fence and it was highly highly hilarious. By whom? By the group.
02:38:01 If that happened, sir, I was not there, but I can always remember that story um because it also made me smile um the thought of what took place, but
02:38:12 thought of what took place, but Can you assist us at this remove in time with the way in which Mr. Gilman was expressing himself to you in the pub about physical violence?
02:38:23 about physical violence? Not really, sir. Um I think that the first paragraph um
02:38:28 um that would have definitely been him explaining why he was moving away from certain aspects of the anti-fascist activity. That could have been to do with his work or with pressure from from
02:38:40 with his work or with pressure from from home and partners. Um but
02:38:43 Um but I I don't know exactly, but that would certainly have been where it came about. He wanted to confront the fascists, but without getting into trouble. Um I'd say he wanted to confront them,
02:38:56 Um I'd say he wanted to confront them, to disrupt them, to stop them obtaining a platform.
02:39:03 Could we take that down now, please, and have from C277 MPS0036445.
02:39:18 Uh this again is about uh Mr. Gilman. And if we could have the text expanded.
02:39:28 And the comment section especially. Let you read that.
02:39:47 So. Uh the suggestion here is he is also able to pass on information to Antifa when a more militant physical response is required. Gilman likes this
02:39:58 is required. Gilman likes this responsibility as it still gives him a high standing amongst left-wing activists and boost his already big ego. This paints a picture of Mr. Gilman
02:40:09 This paints a picture of Mr. Gilman receiving
02:40:10 receiving information from Searchlight about people from the far right and passing it on to Antifa for a physical response. Is that what's intended to be conveyed?
02:40:22 intended to be conveyed? It Yes. Um again, as I say, I would not have written this um but whoever has has again, probably got this information from me. So, yes.
02:40:35 Did Mr. Gilman ever do that to your knowledge? Um
02:40:43 Um No. I I was aware that he would mention that he regularly met with Searchlight activists and that there were exchanges of information. Um nothing further. I
02:40:54 I I'll
02:40:55 I'll Information can be exchanged with Searchlight for the purposes of ensuring one could go and protest against the far right.
02:41:04 right. Absolutely. That's very different from using the information for the purposes of attacking them, isn't it? Mhm.
02:41:13 To the best of your knowledge, was Mr. Gilman ever involved in passing information for the specific purpose of physically attacking somebody?
02:41:24 physically attacking somebody? Um are we talking antifa or are we talking no platform or both? Well, let's start with antifa. To my knowledge, no. No platform? Um yes, because I I know for a fact there
02:41:35 yes, because I I know for a fact there would be phone calls about where to plot up, as we would say, on on uh opposition groups.
02:41:42 groups. Whether attacks then took place, I don't know.
02:41:46 know. Well, again, is that for the purpose Was that passed for the purpose of attacking or for the purpose of confronting?
02:41:54 I struggle with the fine line, sir. Um confrontation can develop into uh a fight quite quickly. It just depends on other circumstances. Um my whole reason for being deployed was
02:42:07 my whole reason for being deployed was to try and stop things like that happening. Um and so I I did not see things like that. Um
02:42:16 I don't know if that really answers it totally, Mr. Bob, but I understand the distinction you're making about your role, which is to prevent public disorder. Yeah. But it's a very important distinction
02:42:27 But it's a very important distinction for Mr. Gilman about whether it's being said that he is passing information for the purposes of physically attacking somebody
02:42:35 somebody as opposed to confronting fascists in circumstances which might develop into trouble. In my opinion, I would say yes, he was.
02:42:48 In my opinion, I would say yes, he was. However, Yes, he was what? He was passing information that could lead to opposition political groups being attacked. Um Could lead to? Absolutely, because it you still need
02:42:59 Absolutely, because it you still need things to come together, don't you? Um, however,
02:43:02 however, I will also say that I never saw anything acted upon that he had passed across.
02:43:10 across. Um, it's it I'm trying not to be vague, but it's a difficult one for me, I'm afraid.
02:43:17 afraid. Do you mean could in the sense that if you go and confront the far right, they may well be violent towards somebody? Yeah, totally. Um,
02:43:29 Could we take that down, please? Could we have up uh tab C289 MPS0040376?
02:43:43 Uh, this is another undated uh report. At the top though, it refers to um a young and increasingly prominent
02:43:54 a young and increasingly prominent member of Antifa was part of the team that recently assaulted two members of the National Front who were traveling from London Bridge to Waterloo
02:44:05 from London Bridge to Waterloo for a National Front march. Yes. What do you know about that assault? Um,
02:44:17 just reading that bit and I had a quick look after um this type of information would have come to me through probably more than likely in in a pub or social environment. Um,
02:44:31 social environment. Um, I would have heard this, I would have fed this in, and it would have been written up because my understanding was they would then go away and obviously look for incidents like that that had been reported to
02:44:42 like that that had been reported to police because it it might assist with the investigation. Were you involved with the team that carried out the assault? No, sir.
02:44:52 No, sir. Did you hear on the ground anything about it?
02:44:56 about it? No, sir. Other than than what I reported there.
02:45:01 Are you able to help us with how serious it was? I'm afraid not. No. Are you able to help us with what is meant by the team?
02:48:44 Mhm.
02:50:39 Mhm.
02:52:34 Mhm.
02:54:29 Mhm.
02:58:19 Mhm.
03:00:14 Mhm.
03:02:09 Mhm.
03:04:04 Mhm.
03:07:30 Would you prefer to deal with um any private matter before we move on to managerial knowledge, if there is anything you would like to say about private matters?
03:07:42 private matters? Um before we move on to that, or are you content to move I'm happy, sir, to You're content to move on to discussion with managers in public. More than happy if that used. Yes.
03:07:52 Yes. Thank you.
03:07:58 You gave some evidence a moment ago to the effect you'd secured permission to tell your current partner who and what you really were. Yes, sir. Had they told you that you could do so,
03:08:11 Had they told you that you could do so, but only on condition that she told nobody else, or had they not imposed any conditions? No, sir. They They
03:08:20 They They There was no imposition of conditions. Um the manager managers that I spoke to um were obviously concerned. Um
03:08:31 were obviously concerned. Um however,
03:08:33 however, I was coming to the end of of my deployment and they knew just quite how difficult a time I had created for myself
03:08:42 myself and other things that had happened. Um
03:08:46 Um I I I think to be honest with you, they trusted what I said to them, that I felt there was a future here with this person. Um
03:08:58 Um And
03:08:59 And they would have to go with it. Did they express any concerns at all about operational security? Uh
03:09:07 Uh absolutely, but um I I made it quite clear to them uh that I
03:09:13 uh that I I needed to do this with for this person. Um because I did think that there was a chance for me to rebuild my life a little bit.
03:09:25 rebuild my life a little bit. What concerns did they ventilate to you about operational security?
03:09:33 It It would have been the the usual, you know,
03:09:36 know, "Are you sure? This could lead to, you know, massive ramifications for both you and this person." Um I As I say, I I did say to them, "I'm not going to her she cannot speak about
03:09:48 not going to her she cannot speak about this. Um
03:09:50 this. Um it's not my decision to make for that person."
03:09:54 person." What was their reaction to that?
03:09:59 They they didn't really react. It was, "Well, okay. Um
03:10:03 okay. Um if you're going to go through with this, you're going to go through with it." I've been using they. Being very careful about anonymity.
03:10:14 Being very careful about anonymity. Which
03:10:15 Which managers did you talk about your current partner to?
03:10:24 I'm I'm just writing it down. Yeah, is that okay? Just I found that easier.
03:11:23 Thank you very much.
03:11:26 Thank you.
03:12:36 The names you've written down are Detective Chief Inspector Flood, you said separately, and later
03:12:45 and later to HN72,
03:12:48 to HN72, possibly also sergeant, but not sure. Yes, it it was definitely the inspectors, um not my supervising sergeants at the time. It may well have come out after
03:13:00 time. It may well have come out after and we talked about it. Was DCI Flood the first manager you told? so, yes. Um because the conversation
03:13:11 so, yes. Um because the conversation I think with um the other inspector um took place in a a public house. It was more informal. Um
03:13:21 Um but with
03:13:22 but with Mr. Flood, uh I think I was in his office.
03:13:26 office. With DCI Flood, what is your best recollection of when you told him? Yeah, maybe around that period, sir. We we definitely had a conversation
03:13:37 definitely had a conversation Around what period? Um in 2006 when I was coming towards the end because it was around the period I believe where I was also being asked if
03:13:49 believe where I was also being asked if I wanted to go and do the SO10 NATAK course.
03:13:54 course. I I don't have exact recollections so, but it would have been around that period I think.
03:14:02 We've been able to obtain a witness statement from DCI Flood. Mhm.
03:14:08 Mhm. He expressly denies permitting you to tell your current partner your
03:14:17 your Okay.
03:14:18 Okay. real
03:14:20 real identity. Okay. There would have been very strong operational security reasons Totally. for him
03:14:33 for him to
03:14:37 reject that request, wouldn't there? Yes, sir. But I I can only tell you what I did um and I went and spoke to my inspectors. Did you actually speak to him about
03:14:50 Did you actually speak to him about this? Yes, sir.
03:14:59 Did you ever speak to DCI McKinney? Um no, sir. Or to McKinn- or after he'd been promoted I think to superintendent McKinney? He used to visit us occasionally, say hello, um but I didn't
03:15:11 occasionally, say hello, um but I didn't engage with with Mr. McKinney.
03:15:17 HN72
03:15:23 you say that you communicated it to HN72 at a later date. Yes. I'm not going to identify I'm
03:15:34 date. Yes. I'm not going to identify I'm not going to identify HN72 by gender.
03:15:39 gender. Okay.
03:15:41 Okay. Was this much later? Cannot remember. Was it whilst you was disserving on the SDS or afterwards?
03:15:53 I think it would have been around the time that I was being withdrawn. I think I was still was on the SDS on paper.
03:16:04 HN72's evidence is that they met
03:16:10 they met you and your partner in a pub perhaps around 2008. How much of that do you agree with? I I definitely know that my partner met
03:16:23 I I definitely know that my partner met the inspector we're talking about um I I couldn't tell you the date. Um but there had been I think previous conversation as I've said.
03:16:35 conversation as I've said. But yes.
03:16:36 But yes. I definitely know that that um Can I explore previous conversations? How strong is your recollection of a previous
03:16:47 your recollection of a previous conversation about your new partner with HN72?
03:16:55 We definitely spoke about it. Um more than that as I say I also spoke prior to that to the DCI Mr. Flood.
03:17:08 Did you ask for any permissions of HN72 or was that in the hands of DCI Flood? I did not ask HN72 for permission. Um
03:17:22 I did not ask HN72 for permission. Um in terms Mr. Flood, we as I say he quite a long meeting about it.
03:17:31 What is your evidence of
03:17:34 of DCI Flood's reaction to your telling him you were in a sexual relationship with a member of the public?
03:17:47 I think he was concerned as to whether this was a political activist. Obviously, he was aware of my history. When you say that, what do you mean?
03:18:00 When you say that, what do you mean? Well, we we talked about Donna McLean and Lindsey. I think he was relieved that there was not that side to it. More than that,
03:18:12 More than that, I I don't know. I can't speak for Mr. Mr.
03:18:15 Mr. How was he aware of what you describe as your history? I think he would have been briefed by other
03:18:23 other supervisors. And you think he knew or you know? I think. I Did he say anything to you which revealed that he did actually know
03:18:35 which revealed that he did actually know about your sexual relationships with Lindsey and Donna McLean? Yes, because not
03:18:41 not in relation to this, but as I say, he had asked me to uh Well, not asked me, he'd offered me a course on the SO10 matter course. And
03:18:54 a course on the SO10 matter course. And I had voiced what my issues were around that. I mean, I had had two intimate relationships. I also explained to him that I had a young family, that I
03:19:06 to him that I had a young family, that I had made a real mess of my life, and I was trying to pick it up, and I wasn't sure that it would be the correct role. He
03:19:15 role. He said to me that he was aware of all that, but that I was looking at it the wrong way, because it was not a long-term deployment role.
03:19:27 What was HM72's reaction when they first found out that you were involved in a sexual relationship with a member of the
03:19:39 relationship with a member of the public?
03:19:41 public? I think
03:19:42 I think very similar. Um I I don't think happy to start with, but I cannot remember for sure, sir. As I say, the first conversation I had was with the more senior officer.
03:19:58 No names at this stage. Were any
03:20:02 Were any managers higher up in the chain of command aware of
03:20:10 of any of your sexual relationships undercover to your knowledge? I I do not know, sir. Um
03:20:19 Um that was as high as I got, so to speak.
03:20:24 Were Again, no names. Were any other of your fellow UCOs, whether serving or former
03:20:35 or former UCOs,
03:20:37 UCOs, aware of your relationship with your new partner?
03:20:44 I think I I kept it private uh for quite a while, sir. So, no. When you say quite a while, at what stage did you open up?
03:20:56 Certainly, it would not have been before at least 12 months or so that that we were living together, as it were. I think
03:21:06 they would have been aware that I was seeing somebody, but there was no um social crossover or anything. So, it it it It quite a while, so.
03:21:18 it It quite a while, so. Did you declare your new partner to the vetting authorities? Yes, I did. When did you do that? Um well,
03:21:28 I I left um the Metropolitan Police quite soon after my deployment had finished. Um I had great difficulty settling back into the real world of policing.
03:21:41 into the real world of policing. And so,
03:21:43 And so, my my vetting lapsed um because I'd left, and I then stupidly, I missed uh the the work and the job, and uh I was I reapplied, went
03:21:56 the job, and uh I was I reapplied, went back in,
03:21:58 back in, and at that point, um the vetting officer came out to see us.
03:22:04 Were you fully open and frank with the vetting officer?
03:22:09 officer? Uh yeah, I believe so. Did you understand there to be any permission to be less than frank with a vetting officer? Uh absolutely not. Was always frank and
03:22:22 Uh absolutely not. Was always frank and honest with vetting officers, but uh again,
03:22:26 uh again, I I
03:22:27 I I I don't fully understand where where this is going. Did you understand that it was always important to be very open Uh absolutely, sir. Yes.
03:22:39 to be very open Uh absolutely, sir. Yes. Yes.
03:22:40 Yes. So, would that be an appropriate time to break uh
03:22:44 break uh break for lunch? Certainly. Um are you able to remember when
03:22:52 when in
03:22:54 in 2006, you told DCI Flood about your relationship? I think, sir, it would have been towards the end uh of that time, cuz as I say, 2006 for
03:23:08 uh of that time, cuz as I say, 2006 for me had been about running what they used to term it, running down the operation. Um so, it would have been, I think, the latter half, um summertime onwards.
03:23:21 half, um summertime onwards. I'm I can't I can't be more specific, sir. I'm sorry.
03:23:29 Thank you. We will resume at 2:00. Thank you, sir.