Afternoon session of the continued evidence of former SDS undercover officer HN118 'Simon Wellings' (cover names 'Groundhog Day' then 'Ringwraith'), deployed into Globalise Resistance and the anti-capitalist movement c.2001-2007. Counsel examines the 2007 'SDS value for money' note that Wellings signed off - a last-gasp effort by DCI HN72 to save the squad - and the errors and exaggerations in his reporting on the Ariel Sharon dummy-suicide-vest 'plot', including a passage comparing it to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. The session also covers his drinking and welfare, an Operation Herne interview, his intrusive and sometimes cruel personal reporting on activist Guy Taylor and others, his August 2004 compromise and the confrontation described in DCI Mike Dell's file notes, and broad concessions that the deployment would fail today's proportionality and necessity tests.
00:01:59 Mhm.
00:07:44 Mhm.
00:11:34 Mhm.
00:13:29 Mhm.
00:15:24 Mhm.
00:21:09 Mhm.
00:23:04 Mhm.
00:24:59 Mhm.
00:26:54 Mhm.
00:28:49 Mhm.
00:30:44 Mhm.
00:32:39 Mhm.
00:34:34 Mhm.
00:36:29 Mhm.
00:38:24 Mhm.
00:38:27 Good afternoon everybody. The remainder of this afternoon's proceedings are going to be broadcast in the usual way after a 10-minute delay. Those with mobile devices may use them to report what they hear in the hearing
00:38:39 to report what they hear 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. Ramble. 118, before lunch I was asking you a
00:38:50 118, before lunch I was asking you a number of questions principally about your reporting in July 2003. And I'd like to move forward in time to 2007. And in doing so, I wonder if we could please bring up on the screen 118's
00:39:03 please bring up on the screen 118's witness statement. At page 30, please.
00:39:19 So, on page 30 in paragraph 86, you refer here to "While I did create the document
00:39:31 "While I did create the document referred to here as SDS value for money and present elsewhere in my witness pack." And then we've got EMPS number 0527121.
00:39:41 0527121. And then you talk about not drafting another document. But I want to ask you questions about the SDS value for money document. But is that right that you created it? I I created part of it. Yes.
00:39:53 created it? I I created part of it. Yes. Right right I mean we're we're right towards the end now, aren't we? 2007. Well,
00:39:59 Well, let's go straight to that document. You can explain what parts you created and what parts you didn't create. It is 0527121.
00:40:07 0527121. So, it's your tab B136, which is in volume 4.
00:40:17 If you could turn to the second page, please.
00:40:24 So, we can see here
00:40:27 here in exhibit label, but you can see where it was recovered from from the exhibit label from the SDS cabinets, okay? So, if we turn over the page, please. And there's no need to zoom in at this
00:40:39 And there's no need to zoom in at this stage. So, we have SDS note September 2007 examples of the squad providing value for money and we can see there's a page number in the middle at the bottom.
00:40:50 page number in the middle at the bottom. Can we just turn over the page, please?
00:40:54 And we can see it continues on the same font. And if we could turn over the page, please. And then we can see page three. Now, at the bottom, can you
00:41:05 page three. Now, at the bottom, can you see that some of it has been redacted, but can you see UCO RW? By this stage, your code name was Ringwraith. That's you signing off, yes? Yes. Could you Could we just go through
00:41:17 Yes. Could you Could we just go through this again in slower time? And can you because you said before I brought it up on screen that some of this document you didn't draft. And so, I would like you to point out which parts you drafted and which parts
00:41:29 which parts you drafted and which parts you didn't. So, I wonder if you can start going through this by going back to page one, please.
00:41:36 Sorry, the Yes, my fault, page three. So, on that page, could you help us with what you drafted and what you didn't draft of that? Yeah. Absolutely. There There were several versions of this
00:41:48 There were several versions of this swirling about in the office while when I after I'd originally put it in. And for context, I always um
00:41:57 um I always thought it was a horrible way to try and review or assess the squad's effectiveness and I pushed back very hard about doing it at all.
00:42:08 hard about doing it at all. Um and I think that's slightly born out by the
00:42:12 by the fault lines or whatever at the top where I say as such it ignores various additional benefits and you know, I thought it was wrong to be looking at the benefit or the utility of the SDS in
00:42:23 the benefit or the utility of the SDS in the context of value for money. Um initially I refused to do this and I was pushed to do it by the new um
00:42:33 um DCI
00:42:34 DCI who I whose whose name is not in the binder at all or the superintendent which is slightly strange. But if if it helps
00:42:44 helps it was uh
00:42:47 it was uh HN72.
00:42:52 So, HN72 asked you to produce this document. He told me to produce it at the end, yes. What reason did he give you?
00:43:00 you? He
00:43:02 He um by this stage it was obvious that the SDS was going to be wound up. Um
00:43:08 Um I suppose
00:43:09 I suppose in my mind HN72 felt very strongly that it shouldn't be. Um and
00:43:19 Um and in
00:43:20 in you know
00:43:20 you know with the other new DCI who may then have been a superintendent um and his name definitely doesn't appear on this, but he was in charge of us at the right at the end.
00:43:31 us at the right at the end. I've I've checked on both the first name and the last name and just by the cipher and he's not on here unless I'm going completely mad. Um but in any case, he asked me to do this.
00:43:42 in any case, he asked me to do this. When I originally submitted it, it was tabulated. It was a table rather than being portrait, it was landscape and it was a table with some of this text in there.
00:43:53 there. Um
00:43:54 Um and some of this has come back out of that document. I
00:44:00 I Interestingly, this was wasn't four things, it was about eight or nine things
00:44:06 things originally when I handed it in to the office, Um and most of those at the top were literally what it says, value for money or a cost saving cost analysis benefit, because I'd
00:44:18 cost analysis benefit, because I'd picked out four or five occasions where we had been able to say, "Yes,
00:44:24 "Yes, someone in public order branch has noticed there's going to be a demonstration outside the Romanian Embassy on Saturday, and they've called for a big mobilization and people to come out." But, from experience and from
00:44:38 come out." But, from experience and from speaking to other people, on the team, we knew that the idea of canceling
00:44:45 canceling six carrier loads full of uniform police to be on duty 12 hours a day for Saturday and Sunday, being paid, you know, double time or whatever, was just a nonsense. Um, and
00:44:57 whatever, was just a nonsense. Um, and we said, "Look, there'll be five or six people at that, and two of those will be paper sellers. You know, it it won't be a big thing." So, at
00:45:04 So, at that was the thing that I first did when I put this together, and it was in a table form. But, this this clearly is part of that same text, which has come out of some of those
00:45:15 which has come out of some of those bits, but there's there's definitely someone has worked at it to add additional detail, if that makes sense. Now, I want to go back, because don't say any names, but you said in
00:45:27 don't say any names, but you said in addition to HN 72, there was another DCI who asked you to this. Could you write down the name of that DCI on a piece of paper, please? Yes, of course.
00:45:49 Thank you.
00:45:55 Yes.
00:46:07 Now, what did you understand was the purpose of this document? In other words, you're asked to Now, put this document together. You've
00:46:18 put this document together. You've explained uh it started off as a table, it's whittled down. Mhm. But, what was the purpose? What was Where was it going to go? It It In my mind, it was part of a last-gasp effort. Largely the
00:46:31 effort. Largely the um
00:46:31 um largely it seemed to me to be um the engine behind it was HM72 in an effort to say to the new management
00:46:42 to the new management um that had come in that that actually the SDS should be retained and kept ongoing. For context, the year before, as I'm sure the inquiry is aware, um SO13, the anti-terrorist branch, and
00:46:53 um SO13, the anti-terrorist branch, and SO12, special branch, had been amalgamated into a new unified command, SO15, um counterterrorism command. I suspect that when they came in, they didn't even know that
00:47:05 they came in, they didn't even know that the SDS existed. It was never on the wiring diagram and all that. And the name that I put on the piece of paper for you was certainly in charge of us towards the
00:47:17 certainly in charge of us towards the very end.
00:47:19 very end. Um and um he had a rather fractious conscious I'm going on, forgive me. Effort to to to have that thing. And it was only at the very last
00:47:30 thing. And it was only at the very last minute when he pressed a bundle, you know, three or four pieces of paper, one of which was a version of this into my hand, that I realized he wasn't going into the meeting, and he was just sending me in
00:47:42 meeting, and he was just sending me in on my own. Can you help us with How many How many versions of this document were there? I Well, I I'd seen a tabled version. I mean, this isn't an intelligence note if
00:47:53 mean, this isn't an intelligence note if that makes sense. You know, it is literally what it says on the tin, but I certainly saw three or four um during those last weeks and months.
00:48:06 weeks and months. You have used phrases such as gilding the lily, someone worked at it. Over and above information that you yourself supplied, or who else
00:48:19 yourself supplied, or who else worked on it? Worked on it, or who else gilded the lily in the drafting process? I I don't know. Who who were the candidates for doing so?
00:48:28 so? I not sure I can answer that. I I I don't know. HN 72?
00:48:33 HN 72? HN 72 asked well, directed me to do it, and he certainly um The DCI whose name you wrote down?
00:48:43 I doubt if it was the DCI whose name I wrote down. He He was the resi- He was the one
00:48:49 the one um you know, pressing we're not pressing, you know, he he you you would He had sort of been sent in to manage the closure of of SDS.
00:49:01 the closure of of SDS. So, no, I wouldn't have thought so because the changes that had been made were
00:49:07 were kind of increasing the utility of what had been written.
00:49:12 So, in relation to the examples in this document, that they all come from your deployment. I think so. Can I see the next one? Yes, so so we just go through the headings and we'll go through it.
00:49:23 headings and we'll go through it. is fine. Ariel Sharon, state visit of the President of the United States in 2003, George Bush. And if you turn over the page,
00:49:37 Yeah. Uh G8 summit. Mhm. And if we go to the
00:49:49 subsequent G8. Yes. Could I just have an opportunity to read that last paragraph, please? Take as much time as you need. Thank you.
00:50:11 Yeah, thank you. Yes.
00:50:14 Yes. So, would you agree that all of these examples are from your deployment? Yes, they are. The last paragraph in particular had a completely different
00:50:26 particular had a completely different last half the last time I saw this. But, yes.
00:50:30 yes. And you accept that the only undercover officer referred to here is UCO RWU at the end of the document. Yes. And perhaps an obvious point, anyone
00:50:42 And perhaps an obvious point, anyone looking at this document could be forgiven for assuming that this was your work because it's Yes, signed off by you. 100% correct. Uh if we go back to the previous page,
00:50:55 Uh if we go back to the previous page, so the internal page one or page
00:50:59 three, and I'm going to ask if we can just um expand that page, the first page or page three next to the MPS number, please. Thank you.
00:51:09 you. I'd like to go through this. It will read the top. So, SDS note, September 2007, examples of the squad providing value for money. As requested, this short note seeks to
00:51:20 As requested, this short note seeks to provide some examples of SDS intelligence providing cost benefit to the service. As such, it ignores the obvious additional benefits of being in receipt of the intelligence, such as the ability to head off public order
00:51:31 ability to head off public order situations, the saving of embarrassment to UK PLC, and in some cases lives potentially being saved. Just while we have that there, what's the reference to embarrassment to UK PLC? So, So, terms
00:51:45 embarrassment to UK PLC? So, So, terms of the justification for saving money, why did you refer to saving embarrassment of to UK PLC? What did you mean by phrasing it in that way,
00:51:57 did you mean by phrasing it in that way, please?
00:51:57 please? I suppose I meant that, you know, the the reputational damage perhaps to the UK if we weren't able to deliver a safe and secure G8 summit.
00:52:08 Uh if we can um just go back to the document without expanding. In fact, I'm going to ask if you can just be left on the screen as is. So, Ariel Sharon in July 2003, the
00:52:19 is. So, Ariel Sharon in July 2003, the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited London. Uh your your words and accurate? Yes. At the time, MT, a young Arab man with
00:52:31 At the time, MT, a young Arab man with extreme left-wing political views, was a prominent member of the anti-capitalist group Globalise Resistance. I've already asked you about the description of Arab man. You've explained how if a mistake
00:52:43 man. You've explained how if a mistake is made that that is repeated. But, would you accept that that is from your intelligence that Yes. No nobody else has contributed to that.
00:52:51 that. No, I don't think so. His activism centered around the plight of the Palestinian Palestinian people. And again, that's something we've seen on your earlier reports. That's from you, yes?
00:53:00 yes? Yes. All right. SDS reporting revealed that he planned to protest Sharon's visit by dressing as a martyr bomber and confronting Sharon and his protection team as they left his
00:53:11 and his protection team as they left his hotel. Again, your your words, your input. Yeah. All right.
00:53:16 right. MT constructed a highly realistic dummy bomb vest comprising red-colored vertical tubes affixed to a green canvas vest. I'm just pausing there.
00:53:27 vest. I'm just pausing there. That information from you? Not the canvas. And I don't think I would have written comprising red-colored vertical tubes, but
00:53:37 but I think that's been been changed. Was this on a a word processor, word word word document? Yeah, it would have just I'd have just given it to them on a
00:53:48 just I'd have just given it to them on a USB stick. So, it would be a word doc, so you know, word document file saved to So, just in terms of empty constructed a highly realistic dummy bomb vest.
00:54:01 highly realistic dummy bomb vest. Are you happy with it that is from you? Yes. Comprising, you say that's not really
00:54:06 really sure I put would put highly realistic. Red-colored vertical tubes. Are you saying that that is or is not? I don't believe those are my words, no.
00:54:19 I mean, they were they were tubes. That's what he had told me, but I don't I don't think I put would have put vertical like that. Can Can you help us with who may have inserted this into a
00:54:31 with who may have inserted this into a a document such as this that was as you would describe intended last gasp efforts to save the SDP? Yes, but what Could you help us with who the
00:54:42 Could you help us with who the candidates for inserting words such as red-colored vertical tubes? I can't, no. I don't know. Affixed to a green canvas vest.
00:54:53 green canvas vest. With electrical cabling. Now, you've referred earlier before lunch to references to the brightly colored cabling. That's not something from you. No.
00:55:03 No. Do you know who did provide information about cabling? No, I don't. We see for the first time mentioned here of a pull lanyard. Yes.
00:55:14 mentioned here of a pull lanyard. Yes. Is Is that something that you typed into this document or somebody else typed? It's something that somebody else typed. And you don't you have no idea who? No, none whatsoever.
00:55:26 none whatsoever. His plan was to wear this under a long raincoat, leap over the crowd control barriers, and run towards Sharon whipping open his coat to reveal the prop.
00:55:35 prop. If possible, he hoped to physically embrace Shirong to provide the best possible image for the media who were following visit closely. Now, this is similar to the the reporting that we I asked you about before lunch. MT had
00:55:47 asked you about before lunch. MT had been encouraged by the successful incursion into Prince William's 25th birthday party at Windsor Castle by the comedian Aaron Barschak. And again, reflective of your earlier reporting that I asked you before lunch. Then
00:55:58 that I asked you before lunch. Then this, SDS provided detailed and highly accurate intelligence on this uh endeavor. Is Is that your wording?
00:56:09 Is Is that your wording? Yep, that could be. Eventually, the SDS officer, presumably you,
00:56:15 you, was able to persuade the de facto leader of the group to confront MT about the action.
00:56:22 action. Is that your wording? No.
00:56:26 Is because it's it's different from the account in the other reports because this says
00:56:34 this says that an SDS officer was persuaded Well, the de facto leader of the group is Guy Taylor, isn't it? So, this says that you persuaded Guy uh Taylor to confront
00:56:46 you persuaded Guy uh Taylor to confront MT. No. I mean, I couldn't have persuaded Guy Taylor to do anything. Um that's not what happened. But
00:56:56 I Did you write that? Did you type it? No.
00:56:59 No. Do you know who might have typed it? I don't know. Now,
00:57:04 Now, at the time September 2007, you were the field study, weren't you? I was. You'd been in the SDS for years since 2001. Yes.
00:57:15 since 2001. Yes. Uh you uh knew your fellow UCOs and your managers as well as anyone. Yes.
00:57:26 What Why can you not think of anyone who might have typed that?
00:57:34 I I don't know who who would have changed it. I've got no
00:57:40 no idea who did it. I Who did apart you provided this on what a USB stick to 70 HN72, did you? Yes.
00:57:53 As far as you even this
00:57:56 even this even I thought that he this version here not quite looking like this cuz it was again in a table if that makes sense. It it sort of tabulated into
00:58:07 it sort of tabulated into date columns and things, but this was this version here apart from paragraph four at the end is
00:58:16 is um
00:58:17 um the one that I was asked to take into the meeting with the officer whose name I wrote on the piece of paper for you. Where he drove me to Stockwell, dropped me off, pointed me in the direction of a building, and it was
00:58:28 the direction of a building, and it was only then that I realized he wasn't coming in with me. And I sort of turned to him and sort of thought I'd been listening to him, but I thought this is this is your meeting. You know, why aren't you getting out of the car? And
00:58:39 aren't you getting out of the car? And When you went in, did you have a document similar to this or this this version? I Yeah, I did. He He had a pre- He had three or four different bits of paper about other things. Cuz I wasn't I wasn't the only person asked to provide
00:58:52 wasn't the only person asked to provide examples of value for money. That had come that had also gone out to senior UCOs um in a different area of business who are
00:59:03 in a different area of business who are still deployed within SDS. What discussion did you have with this DCI that you wrote name down on a piece of paper?
00:59:11 of paper? You were
00:59:12 You were shoved in there by HN72, you go in, you've got this document. What What did you actually talk to him about? A- about this the off- Yes. Yes. First of all, I didn't use this because I could see there was a significant that you know,
00:59:24 there was a significant that you know, there's some additional detail which has crept in here to sort of add detail and also it was fundamentally wrong about the bit that isn't there
00:59:35 wrong about the bit that isn't there about something that happened in connection with the German GA and I remember folding it in half and just popping it in my notebook thinking I'm not even going to use that. But the to answer your question, I'm sorry. The To
00:59:47 answer your question, I'm sorry. The To answer your question, when I got into the room when I found the room and had the meeting with him, sat down,
00:59:54 sat down, it was almost like to me, well, state your case. And
01:00:00 And it felt like the relationship between H 172 and this other officer had perhaps broken down to such a degree that they almost couldn't be in the same room if
01:00:12 almost couldn't be in the same room if that makes sense and it was his understanding that I had gone there to sort of
01:00:19 sort of to make the last ditch effort. I guess in my capacity as field daddy to try and persuade him not to pull the trigger on closing SDS. Did in your discussion, did the Ariel Sharon
01:00:31 Sharon plot arise in your submissions to him? In very general terms, yeah. Could you could you help us with what you said to
01:00:42 could you help us with what you said to that DCI about just in relation to what touched on the Ariel Sharon suicide vest issue? Well, I just included it in, you know, and also I by this stage I'm
01:00:55 you know, and also I by this stage I'm going to answer your question. By this stage I was begging to leave. I you know, I it was me it had been apparent for months and months and months and months that SDS was about to close. It had been
01:01:08 that SDS was about to close. It had been a sort of death by a thousand cuts. I wanted to set, you know, be sent home and never return and so I my heart wasn't really in making the argument if that makes sense that the SDS should
01:01:20 that makes sense that the SDS should continue.
01:01:21 continue. But I said, "Look, when it became apparent that he It's almost as he thought I'd called the meeting." I spoke to to him and said, "Look, I didn't realize HN72 just dropped me off.
01:01:32 didn't realize HN72 just dropped me off. He's out, you know, in the car." And there was a bit of a look. And I said, "I'm I just And he said, well, we're here to discuss how we actually can show that the unit is paying for itself, if
01:01:44 that the unit is paying for itself, if that makes sense." And I first I discussed first of all the negative reporting, if that makes sense. You know, where we'd But, again, it seems stri- strange way of looking at the unit.
01:01:55 of looking at the unit. Specifically, so you've You've given an overview of that discussion, but just the bits about the suicide vest. What did you orally say to HN72? So,
01:02:07 did you orally say to HN72? So, Yeah, what He says, "Give us Give us your pitch." And you talked about a number of issues, but what did you tell him about this incident that we can see at the top? I I told him about it in very general terms,
01:02:18 told him about it in very general terms, about what had happened, how our reporting had, you know, probably saved, you know, someone being shot and killed in tragic circumstances. And then, purely in a cost-benefit view, said,
01:02:29 purely in a cost-benefit view, said, "Look, you know, there would have had to have been huge public inquiry and investigation, and it would have saved that money." But, I would have definitely caveated that with And that would have been tragic loss of life and
01:02:40 would have been tragic loss of life and and all the rest. Did you point out the errors in the document? No, I didn't, because I didn't use the document. I was literally speaking off the top of my head. Can we just finish with that paragraph that we're looking
01:02:51 with that paragraph that we're looking at a few minutes ago? So, I Just to back up slightly, I'd read "The officer was then one of two people picked by that individual in talking MT out of carrying out his plan the next morning." You said
01:03:03 his plan the next morning." You said that's incorrect, and then says, "This was successfully achieved." I want to ask you about the last sentence in this paragraph. The dummy vest was retrieved by the
01:03:15 The dummy vest was retrieved by the officer
01:03:17 officer and destroyed. Now, that didn't happen. So, I
01:03:24 Again, can you think of anyone given your your position, given how long you've been in the SDS for? Can you think of anyone
01:03:35 Can you think of anyone uh who
01:03:37 uh who could have typed that if not you? I I can't think of anyone who would have There were there were there weren't that many people left with an axe to grind
01:03:49 many people left with an axe to grind who wanted the SDS to continue. Most virtually everybody in the field that I can quite actually will be aware. I'm sure a lot of people had already left. You
01:04:00 lot of people had already left. You know, that whole tranche of senior people
01:04:03 people um above me who all had sort of a year or 18 months had all gone, which is why I suddenly accelerated from being a sort of mid-band right up into rather invidious position of being the field
01:04:14 invidious position of being the field diary.
01:04:15 diary. Um
01:04:16 Um there were lots of really junior guys behind and some of them hadn't even been
01:04:24 been deployed yet. Um
01:04:27 Um but I can't and so they were keen for the unit to continue because they'd had the
01:04:32 the begun through the selection process. Uh they'd worked out their legends. They were ready to go and then suddenly realized that not was all about to be snatched away from them. But, I
01:04:43 snatched away from them. But, I I can barely speaking frankly, I can barely remember their names. Um
01:04:48 Um and
01:04:50 and I can't imagine any of them would have been
01:04:53 been bold enough to have changed this document.
01:04:59 Cost benefit it is of course highly likely that if MT had carried out his plan, he would have been shot and killed by a protection officer. Is that part of it from you?
01:05:11 it from you? Yes.
01:05:12 Yes. Whilst the resulting publicity would have surely been tempered by the fact that MT was wearing the prop, the fact would have remained that police would have shot an unarmed man in highly
01:05:23 have shot an unarmed man in highly public circumstances. Again, is that your text? Yeah, I think so. SDS action prevented this and all the costs associated with an inquiry and the need
01:05:36 associated with an inquiry and the need to tie up senior service management in defending the organization against the inevitable negative publicity. The potential scope of this is perhaps best illustrated by the events surrounding
01:05:48 illustrated by the events surrounding the tragic death of Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell station. Did you write that last paragraph? Yes, I think I did.
01:06:01 If someone were to say that leaving aside the identity of the individual, leaving aside um who it was
01:06:12 individual, leaving aside um who it was that comparing what essentially was
01:06:17 was a discussion in a pub uh with prevent saving somebody's life uh and comparing it with the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes that there uh it it
01:06:31 Charles de Menezes that there uh it it it is no real comparison between the two events.
01:06:36 events. No, I I suppose not, but the you know, both would have resulted in somebody being or had resulted in one case and the other one would have resulted in someone being shot by a protection officer presumably.
01:06:50 Is Is there This is the end of the section on Ariel Sharon. Is there anything else in this document that is inaccurate? Because
01:07:02 document that is inaccurate? Because we've gone through the Ariel Sharon section and part of it you have uh agreed yes that that came from you. Other parts no not only is it incorrect
01:07:14 Other parts no not only is it incorrect didn't come from me. Are there parts of this other the rest of the documents that are inaccurate or not from you? I may I read it? Yes.
01:07:25 or not from you? I may I read it? Yes. Yeah.
01:07:36 Well, I've read the last paragraph on page 1, thank you. And content with the accuracy of that and that you are the source of it. Yes. Could we please turn to the next page?
01:08:20 I think that the the sentence where where it says intelligence provided by SDS reveals that elements within the Stop the War Coalition allied with other anti-capitalists were methodically working towards ensuring that a
01:08:32 working towards ensuring that a full-scale riot took place has been changed.
01:08:35 changed. I certainly warned about the potential for disorder. Um but I don't recognize that wording. So I
01:08:44 So I I'm sorry. So that how sure are you that it wasn't you uh typing that? How I'm
01:08:54 I'm I'm 90% sure.
01:08:59 So that you would accept this is an exaggeration. Yes, reference.
01:09:16 There was certainly um I certainly put in reporting about a plan to try and interrupt the president's motorcade um
01:09:26 um to the ambassador's residence. I don't think I put a planning to rush the president's limousine with paint-filled balloons and eggs. Sorry, let's just get Which part
01:09:37 eggs. Sorry, let's just get Which part so you're on internal pagination page two under which heading? Uh we're still on state visit of the president of the United States. And which paragraph from the top of that page?
01:09:47 page? Second para from So reporting from the same SDS officer revealed a detailed plan by activists to block the road in the midst of the presidential motorcade as it made its way from Buckingham Palace to the ambassador's residence. That's fine. Activists then planned to
01:10:00 That's fine. Activists then planned to rush the president's limousine pelting it with paint-filled balloons and eggs. Yeah, I don't think I wrote that. Right, no I didn't write that. So that's inaccurate. Yes.
01:10:11 Yes. We were going to try and do a sit-down protest and take the road, but but not that.
01:10:15 that. I don't think.
01:10:22 Organizers were being aided in their planning by leaks from a sympathetic journalist who was part of the official press pack. Yeah. Correct? Correct.
01:10:56 Are you waiting for me? Sorry. Yes, if they So,
01:10:59 they So, what I want to explore is that you have in the Ariel Sharon section you referred to a number of sentences that are not from you and that are wrong. And I just want to ask if there's anything
01:11:11 I just want to ask if there's anything else in this document that is also incorrect given the nature of that document. Forgive me. Thank you.
01:11:29 I don't think I wrote the SDS officer concerned was able to effectively disrupt the plan because the plan wasn't disrupted and I I had no agency to disrupt the plan.
01:11:40 I had no agency to disrupt the plan. Um
01:11:42 Um Now, I'm going to ask I just want to
01:11:47 ask you about one other document before returning to this. I wonder if we could just close this down and pull up MPS 002 8972.
01:11:56 8972. So, this is your tab C253. I just want to ask you about So, this is a report dated the 1st of September 2003.
01:12:07 2003. It globalized resistance DSCI protest Groundhog
01:12:11 Groundhog Day and it's the last
01:12:15 two paragraphs I want to ask you about. So, GRs
01:12:22 So, GRs So, globalized resistance likely response to this will be to send the more direct action minded activists out on raiding parties up and down the DLR in an attempt to catch arriving delegates on trains. Several globalized
01:12:35 delegates on trains. Several globalized activists including Noel Douglas and Privacy have been hoarding spray paint and if the opportunity presents itself they will attack arriving delegates with paint,
01:12:46 attack arriving delegates with paint, blood-filled balloons, and eggs and the like. If there is a a turnout and any weakness can be found in the building's defenses, it cannot be ruled out that GR activists will attempt
01:12:57 ruled out that GR activists will attempt to gain entry to the center, but this is their least favored option.
01:13:06 Is that Would you accept inaccurate the reference to Noel Douglas hoarding spray paint? If if I was writing the sentence again today, I wouldn't use the word
01:13:17 again today, I wouldn't use the word hoarding, but having spray paint. I
01:13:21 I would definitely agree.
01:13:24 And if the opportunity presents itself, they will attack arriving delegates with paint, blood-filled balloons, and eggs and the like. Yes.
01:13:35 Noel Douglas, when he gave evidence, um
01:13:38 um denied
01:13:39 denied that, but
01:13:41 that, but your evidence is that this is accurate in this report of yours. Yes.
01:13:46 Yes. Okay.
01:13:48 Okay. I wonder if we can take that down and just return to the document that we were looking at, please.
01:14:11 And so, if we just go back to that second paragraph on page four,
01:14:18 so this is also This is a This is also refers to paint-filled balloons and eggs. Appears to be a different incident. Do Do you Are you able to explain
01:14:30 able to explain the coincidence of references to uh
01:14:34 uh paint and eggs? This example, you say being inaccurate, and the previous one that we've just looked at being being accurate. No, I'm not.
01:14:52 Who else at that time would have had access to your reporting that also might have been responsible for drafting this document?
01:15:01 document? Well, pretty much anybody who was in the office.
01:15:14 I wonder if you could please just move to the UK Well, you can see UK G8 summit in
01:15:20 in Gleneagles. And it's just if there's anything in there that is inaccurate, I wonder if you could just indicate what paragraph and what sentence, please. Oh.
01:15:58 No, I'm happy with all of that. Happy with all of that and then just concluding with the last um
01:16:04 um page of that, please. Just move to the next page, thank you.
01:16:23 Yep, happy with that, too. So, would you agree that in terms of the mistakes,
01:16:28 mistakes, almost all of the mistakes or errors in this document are in the Ariel Sharon section? Yes.
01:16:46 The reference to the suicide vest idea, that was something that arose in a pub, is that right?
01:16:58 in a pub, is that right? Yes.
01:17:00 Yes. When you were in there, to how much had you been drinking during during that given that it's a a meeting in a public house.
01:17:14 I I I I My memory is that we hadn't been in there that long. I would have couple of pints, two or three pints at the most.
01:17:25 In terms of your consumption of alcohol as
01:17:29 as you were deployed, could you give us an idea of of how much in general terms that you were drinking? Um
01:17:38 Um I think it probably ebb and flow a little bit depending on how much is going on, but I'm not a big drinker. Um notoriously poor at holding my beer, so I would and I wouldn't ever
01:17:52 so I would and I wouldn't ever you know, in in only the rarest circumstances would I drink more than say four or five pints because I wanted to keep complete control of my faculties and my sort of what you know, as much mental awareness
01:18:04 what you know, as much mental awareness and sharpness as I had, I wouldn't want to have misspoke because I'd consumed too much alcohol that would be mad or crazy.
01:18:11 crazy. Could Could you help us with about how much you would consume over a month, like an average month or if it changed significantly? It It It definitely changed. I I think there were
01:18:22 definitely changed. I I think there were times when I was probably drinking a bit more
01:18:25 more towards the end because speaking frankly, I was probably self-medicating a bit. Uh but
01:18:33 Uh but um
01:18:34 um in a month, I don't know. You said a month, yes? In a month, yes, over a period of a month. Two weeks, I don't know.
01:18:43 I wouldn't have thought more than 50, 60 pints at the absolute most.
01:18:50 J- just to give you an opportunity to comment on a document that we have. It's MPS0721966. I wonder if you can put that up on the screen, please. So, it's your tab B149.
01:19:06 So, it's in volume five.
01:19:11 Could we please turn to page eight of this Well, sorry. Let If we just go to the the top of the document, and so this appears to be We can see it's heavily redacted, but it
01:19:23 We can see it's heavily redacted, but it appears to be Operation Herne notes of an interview with you in September 2013. That's what we understand it to be.
01:19:34 That's what we understand it to be. And so, you can see it begins pre-pre MPS experience initial experience pre-special branch. You can see what's what's set out there. I wonder if we
01:19:46 what's set out there. I wonder if we could just turn to page eight in this, cuz I just want your comment in relation to the accuracy of what's recorded here.
01:19:54 So, it's under the heading criminality. So, he was told that behavior and role was acceptable, but you were not to get involved in fighting, petrol bombs, shoplifting, etc. Uh you wouldn't drink
01:20:05 shoplifting, etc. Uh you wouldn't drink drive, and it was socially unacceptable in the left wing. Uh he did not take any drugs or smoke, but he did drink. Uh he believes that his intake levels of alcohol would have been in excess of maybe 100 pints a
01:20:17 been in excess of maybe 100 pints a month, not including other alcoholic drinks. Do you do you accept that that was
01:20:26 was what you communicated to the person that was interviewing you from Operation Herne in 2013 in terms of I I don't know. And I I have a very clear memory of being interviewed by the Op Heron team and the detective who
01:20:39 Op Heron team and the detective who interviewed me, she made notes in freehand on sheets of A4 paper. So, those were original notes that someone
01:20:49 someone clearly has then typed this up from her original handwritten notes. And reading this, I don't think it would have been the same officer. Um
01:21:01 So, to be clear, your evidence is that you Firstly, that's not what you said. Yeah. Yeah, and secondly I can't if I drunk 100 pints a month, I'd be dead. Well, it
01:21:13 100 pints a month, I'd be dead. Well, it says 100 pints a month not including other alcoholic drinks. Yeah, I know. No. Just what Just to use an example Just from this page. Yes. Okay, we're not going to go through every page of this document. Just in terms of testing the
01:21:25 document. Just in terms of testing the accuracy of this. Yeah. So, you can see at the top, weekly intel meetings. Minutes were taken at the meetings and all cover officers took notes. I- I- Is that accurate? Mhm. Uh they were generally chaired by the
01:21:37 Uh they were generally chaired by the DCI. The meetings enabled you to be actively managed and to update everyone. You could keep track of what everyone was doing, formulate any plans and move the direction of the infiltration um
01:21:48 the direction of the infiltration um of necessary. But in in terms of what is set out there, is that a fair description of the weekly intelligence meetings? It is, yeah. All right. Uh tradecraft, it was in existence for a
01:21:59 Uh tradecraft, it was in existence for a long time. He was told, referring to you, he was told to read it. He did not find it useful at all. Fair? Yeah, if that if that's a reference to the tradecraft manual, yes, absolutely. Uh deployments, he asked to see the authorization for his deployment and he
01:22:11 authorization for his deployment and he was shown it. There was no handover. He is not aware of any sensitive deployments and he did not have any himself.
01:22:17 himself. I'm not quite clear what sensitive deployment means, but yes, broadly. Um Jumping
01:22:25 Jumping to the welfare paragraph, uh welfare, there wasn't any. Yeah. Uh Again, the way in which it's set out there with an exclamation mark, does that reflect your view
01:22:36 view level of frustration? Well, there was the suggestion that it's probably the I think it's reflecting the the officer who interviewed me's opinion.
01:22:46 opinion. Was it your opinion? Um I wouldn't say there wasn't any but there wasn't very much. And it depends if it's my welfare, my family's welfare.
01:23:07 In relation to the next sentence, he did not receive any offers of attending occupational health whilst in the field or on his departure from the SDS. Correct?
01:23:16 Correct? Yes, and I I think occupational health has a very specific meaning in this sentence as in official MPS occupational health
01:23:23 health rather than broader NHS if that makes sense. Uh they did see a psychiatrist but nothing of any significance was ever discussed between them. Is that fair? Oh, we saw a psychiatrist but I wouldn't say nothing of any significance. I think
01:23:35 say nothing of any significance. I think most of the things we discussed were of significance. I'm not quite sure what that sentence means.
01:23:40 means. All right. When he left the unit, he was very depressed because of how it all ended. Is that fair assessment of what you told Operation Home um in 2013?
01:23:51 you told Operation Home um in 2013? I'd be
01:23:52 I'd be Again, it it seems to be their subjective opinion of how I was. You know, when he left the unit, he was very depressed. Um I was I I suspect I was depressed. I don't think I'd have said very depressed
01:24:04 don't think I'd have said very depressed and it wasn't because of how it all ended.
01:24:06 ended. Um On speaking about his time on the SDS, he did become very tearful when recounting how his wearers became good friends to him and the relationships and bond that he forged with them.
01:24:20 bond that he forged with them. Is that an accurate description of you in the interview that as you were speaking about your time in the SDS you became tearful recounting how your quote unquote wearers became good friends to
01:24:32 unquote wearers became good friends to you and the relationships and bonds that you forged with them. Is that Is that a fair description of what happened in that interview? Some of them absolutely. I think I I think I spoke
01:24:44 I think I I think I spoke I spoke quite openly. Bearing in mind it was Operation Herne so it's you know primary function was to look for disciplinary offenses really or and potential criminal offenses but I did I
01:24:58 potential criminal offenses but I did I can I can remember absolutely becoming tearful. Um and some of it was because I felt like I genuinely had some friends out there who'd been on the periphery of
01:25:09 out there who'd been on the periphery of my target group. Most and in the target group at all but it that's a rather simplistic interpretation about why I was upset. It was more
01:25:21 I was upset. It was more I think I touched on this a little bit earlier was that it um
01:25:28 You know it's it's commun- doing this work I my feeling at this time and I'm sure it was reflected in my words to to her was that this work is you know it was cumulative.
01:25:41 was cumulative. It was corrosive both to ourselves and to the people you're dealing with every every day. You are lying to people every day. If you do that not for they
01:25:54 every day. If you do that not for they send you out to do this not for days or weeks
01:25:57 weeks but for for months and years. In my view my view is that it has corrosive effect
01:26:08 my view is that it has corrosive effect on you and probably the others around you and
01:26:12 you and every month that you continue to do it when you feel like you've reached your limit,
01:26:19 limit, it chips off a piece of your soul. And you never get that back. And I did
01:26:26 And I did I would have got upset. I apologize for being upset now. And I'd like to repeat the fact that any temporary
01:26:34 temporary um
01:26:35 um discomfort I feel is as of nothing to the damage that has been done to others. It's been looked at in the context this is quite I know that, but yeah, it comes at a cost doing this. And
01:26:50 that's all I meant. And I'm sure that that was reflected in when I spoke to the very nice detective who interviewed me.
01:27:03 So, we usually have a break mid-afternoon. I don't know whether now No, I
01:27:06 No, I please don't don't stop on my behalf. I'm good. I'm so sorry. I apologize. No, no. Please don't worry. Um we do have a break it
01:27:16 break it about this time anyway. And um I don't like um witnesses becoming upset.
01:27:23 upset. Uh and we'll make the best of uh both worlds by having the break now. Sir,
01:27:29 Sir, 10 minutes long enough? 10 minutes. Goodbye.
01:30:09 Mhm.
01:33:59 Mhm.
01:37:49 Mhm.
01:39:44 Mhm.
01:41:39 Mhm.
01:43:34 Okay. very sorry I've left my notebook behind. I have to go and get it.
01:44:33 With apologies. Yeah.
01:44:37 Yeah. Ready to continue? Yes, thank you, sir. 118, when I was asking you before about the value for money document, you're very careful. I asked you if you could write down the name of the DCI that HN
01:44:50 write down the name of the DCI that HN 72
01:44:52 72 sent you to speak to to discuss that issue.
01:44:55 issue. And you wrote it down on the piece of paper, but in fact, it it is not a closed DCI. It's DCI HN 314, Julian McKinney. So, I'm just stating that for the
01:45:06 the record. And does that um that's who you're referring to? Absolutely. My list jumps from HN 311 to HN 315. There is no 314 on here.
01:45:17 HN 315. There is no 314 on here. Thank you. I'd like to move to Guy Taylor's uh reports. I reports that you provided that refer to Guy Taylor. Now, you
01:45:30 that refer to Guy Taylor. Now, you repeatedly describe him as the de facto leader of
01:45:36 leader of And is this an example of a form of words that when you adopted in your reports, it is not that you copy pasted, but it's repeated into the rest of the reports that you provide. Yes, probably.
01:45:49 reports that you provide. Yes, probably. And in relation to him, I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to what
01:45:56 what Guy Taylor has set out in his oral evidence, but also in writing. I wonder if we can put up on screen, please, Guy Taylor's witness statement. So, this is UCPI 37738.
01:46:07 UCPI 37738. I wonder if we can turn to page 36 of his statement. It's paragraph 42. It's paragraph 41 and 42.
01:46:18 In paragraph 42, sorry, it's my fault jumping around. Paragraph 42 on page 36.
01:46:29 He sets out at the end, the last sentence, he says, "Suffice to say, I found the reporting on myself and GR, Globalized Resistance, in the disclosed
01:46:41 Globalized Resistance, in the disclosed documents to be quite a twisted account of the reality I experienced." Okay? So, this is what he's set out. Give you an opportunity to respond to that.
01:46:53 respond to that. In relation to the the reporting, are you are you surprised at this reaction, or could you please comment on that, please? Um no, I'm not necessarily surprised. I mean, I did my best
01:47:05 surprised. I mean, I did my best to report on what I saw and heard and experienced around myself. Um I'm I'm not surprised by it. I'm sure
01:47:16 I'm I'm not surprised by it. I'm sure I'm sure Guy Taylor feels very betrayed and
01:47:19 and angry. I would, too. Um
01:47:23 Um In terms of your you touched on this a little earlier about forming friendships. Was Guy Taylor one of those activists that whilst you were
01:47:34 of those activists that whilst you were undercover you formed one of the closest friendships with. Is that is that fair description? Um
01:47:44 Yeah it probably probably is. I I think that for both of us there was I I think that um
01:47:54 I wouldn't say probably one of the closest if that makes sense. I think that um
01:47:59 that um I think that I think that deep down I wasn't sort of bloke that Guy Taylor would have or Wellings wasn't the sort of bloke
01:48:10 or Wellings wasn't the sort of bloke that Guy Taylor particularly warmed to or wanted to be around. I think he felt I was probably quite dull, boring, and a little bit um
01:48:20 um you know not sort of of the internet intellectual rigor that you know that they that perhaps he would have enjoyed conversing with. I think he felt I was probably a you know a useful helper. What Mr. Taylor has
01:48:33 a useful helper. What Mr. Taylor has done, I wonder if we can go back to page sorry page 13 in the statement. It's paragraph 41.
01:48:45 Now on page 13 at paragraph 41 he has set out what he describes as a table showing a catalog of errors,
01:48:57 table showing a catalog of errors, falsehoods, and exaggerations within your reporting, okay? Now I'm not going to go take you through every single row of this
01:49:06 of this schedule, but I want to ask you about some of what he set out. And we can see perhaps if we look at page 14. Now what the way in which he set this out, is he's given the reference
01:49:18 this out, is he's given the reference number for the document. He set out what he considers to be the lie, the misrepresentation or the error, and under reality he's he's provided his account. And I just want to explore with
01:49:30 account. And I just want to explore with you some of these. We needn't go to the actual intelligence report for all of them, but if you feel that that would assist, we can do so. Some of the things referred to are less significant than
01:49:41 referred to are less significant than others, but just for example, if you look at the first row, uh Globalized Resistance was reportedly £10,000 overdrawn. So, that appears in your intelligence report, and Mr. Taylor
01:49:53 your intelligence report, and Mr. Taylor points out um that the
01:49:57 the uh account that they had or didn't allow for an overdraft. So, he he says, for example, in this example, you're reporting um GR has a £10,000 is £10,000 overdrawn, and Mr. Taylor's saying,
01:50:08 overdrawn, and Mr. Taylor's saying, "Well, the account didn't even have an overdraft." Is it possible that um this this could have been an error on your part? It's possible. I I suspect I heard that from someone who was
01:50:20 heard that from someone who was sufficiently centrally involved for me to take it seriously. Um My certainly my early memories of when went through a number of treasurers, I think, but um
01:50:34 number of treasurers, I think, but um the the woman who was looking after it when I was first on the scene, I'm sure I heard her many times tell her what dire financial straits we were in. And they'll you know, there was often a
01:50:45 they'll you know, there was often a membership drive to try and recover the the balance so we could get back into credit. So, I also think that there was money's owed um out to
01:50:56 um out to various people, printers, etc. Yeah.
01:51:01 Yeah. If someone were to say, "Well, there's a there's a danger of picking up what people say, uh reporting, essentially hearsay, and putting it in an intelligence report, because if if you
01:51:13 intelligence report, because if if you report globalize resistance just using this as an example, globalize resistance was reportedly 10,000 pounds overdrawn. Put that in an intelligence report. But if it is something that someone
01:51:24 But if it is something that someone mentioned that you picked up in the discussions say at the pub that after a meeting,
01:51:31 meeting, the
01:51:32 the that that's not reflected in in your in your reporting in the sense that you would report it as a as a fact but in fact it's something that someone said in a in a conversation and that person might not
01:51:44 conversation and that person might not even know about it. Do you accept that
01:51:49 that at least this criticism could be made of your reporting that it did not always indicate where you obtained the information from. For example, you you overheard a conversation. Is that is that a fair a criticism?
01:52:03 Yes, probably. Um I I would I would just caveat that with the fact that, you know, I was a source of information about globalize. I wasn't the source. You know, C-Squad had a number of
01:52:15 You know, C-Squad had a number of avenues of getting in you know, all sorts of different things of the mosaic which bring built up the intelligence picture and if I put that in and five or six other sources were saying actually their finances are hale and
01:52:26 actually their finances are hale and hearty, then I suppose it would be balanced out. But yes, I accept that. Now, as I said, I'm not going to go through each of these but if we can just go let's say to page 60 in Mr. Taylor's statement.
01:52:37 So, can you see where it's it's right at the top of page 16? So, it Guy Taylor still maintains a small office at the SWP center at Epsom Street E3. Uh
01:52:50 center at Epsom Street E3. Uh Mr. Taylor's response to that was that's not true. I had no office in the building.
01:52:54 building. So, again again, is that is that uh
01:52:58 uh a mistake that could have crept into your reporting? It It
01:53:02 It It It's possible. I I remember this very well indeed. There was a It was a weekend I think and it was the first time I'd ever been inside you know, SWP HQ. Um and I think that I had given
01:53:15 HQ. Um and I think that I had given uh Mr. Taylor a lift in my car um at very short notice, and we were picking up
01:53:21 up a number of boxes of printed material. I think leaflets and perhaps some of the resist news sheets. And he wanted to get them from A to B. And he he took me in there and
01:53:31 there and actually sort of said, "Actually, it's a bit of a privilege, you know, you're in the heart of the heart of the sort of beast here, if you know what I mean. Not everybody gets to come into this building." I distinctly remember we went
01:53:42 building." I distinctly remember we went up to a small office
01:53:46 office on a Well, I'd say an office, almost like a storage cupboard, but had some some sort of work surfaces on the side, for which he had a key. It was locked, and he opened it, and he
01:53:58 It was locked, and he opened it, and he made a deal of sort of saying, you know, "This is the off You know, this is the office you mustn't tell anybody about." As if it was his GR working office while they were at the
01:54:09 GR working office while they were at the center. I think it would be fair to say there were other There were clearly stuff from it would look like other individuals, perhaps, you know, I'd be the first to concede perhaps a number of people had
01:54:20 concede perhaps a number of people had the use of it. All right. But it was it was still signifi- You know, it was clearly significant. And it just spoke to the underlying
01:54:29 you know, tension and uh
01:54:31 uh desire to know, you know, is Global Resistance purely a construct of the SWP at a senior level. All right. Well, if it Let's move forward to page 19. Again, I don't want
01:54:43 forward to page 19. Again, I don't want to don't have the time to go through this row by row, but if we go to page 19, just to tease out some of the examples here. So, it's
01:54:52 it's you can see in the far left-hand column, it's the one numbered 167. So, this is taken from one of your reports. In recent days, Chris Nineham has asked Guy Taylor to buy large-scale maps of Central London to include the areas
01:55:04 Central London to include the areas around Buckingham Palace, the US Ambassador's residence, and Horse Guards so they can be used in both the planning process and to brief key street activists who will be engaged in leading
01:55:15 activists who will be engaged in leading the action on the streets during the demonstrations. So,
01:55:20 So, Mr. Taylor said, "Well, in your report, you say that Chris Knight Ninham asked him to buy large scale maps." He's his response to that, "Well, you didn't ask me to buy any maps." So, again,
01:55:31 me to buy any maps." So, again, perhaps not the most significant No. events, but the tenor of what Mr. Taylor appears to be saying here in the statement is that there are, his words, "catalog of
01:55:43 there are, his words, "catalog of errors." So, he's he's referring to what is
01:55:46 is And again, this is yet another mistake. But, would you accept that that um he is justified in uh referring to
01:55:57 uh referring to these as as a catalog of errors? I I don't think I would accept that. No. I mean, I don't I hand on heart, I don't remember this now. I I've got no memory of it. Um but
01:56:09 I I've got no memory of it. Um but you know, I would not have put it in if I hadn't heard it. Um
01:56:15 Just keeping on that page, but if we can just go down to if we sort of zoom out and go to right at the bottom of the page. So, you can see where it says 168, Bob Crow and Guy Taylor discuss the
01:56:26 Bob Crow and Guy Taylor discuss the visit of President Bush uh mistake 7s. He didn't discuss it with uh Bob Crow. Um
01:56:36 Um Again, sometime ago, but No. No. No. No. it is it possible that um
01:56:40 um a mistake has been made here?
01:56:44 It's It's possible. Forgive my ignorance. Is Bob Crow the RMT leader?
01:56:55 I'm pretty sure I have a a memory of a discussion taking place in fact that I was present at in an office somewhere. I actually was that about Bush?
01:57:09 If we go to So some some memory of Yes
01:57:13 Yes of Mr. Crowe. Yeah, I
01:57:20 If we go if we zoom out again, please I wonder if we could go over the page to page 20.
01:57:34 And on page 20 it's the one numbered 177 so the second row referring to privacy and privacy occupying LSE pre Bush's visit till
01:57:47 occupying LSE pre Bush's visit till Wednesday evening climate March or swarming round West End causing criminal damage to US targets. Now it might assist you have Do you remember that document the cipher
01:57:59 Do you remember that document the cipher document that has MT's name on the first page?
01:58:03 page? Yes.
01:58:04 Yes. So it's not paginated I'm afraid but if you turn to page three of that you can see one two three four rows down
01:58:14 rows down you can see the in red don't say them out loud but you can see in red that these are the names under the privacy boxes.
01:58:21 boxes. But
01:58:23 But Mr. Taylor's response to that was not the ideas of global ice resistance. We never did such things especially in such a random way where actions could easily be misinterpreted. So essentially he's saying well here's a report
01:58:35 saying well here's a report that
01:58:36 that you have produced and perhaps if we were were to look at the report itself in this instance it might assist. If we go to to
01:58:43 to to MPS 0029811 so it's your C281 in volume six.
01:58:57 And we can see in paragraph one. So, this this is the actual report itself. So, it's not Uh but you can see how Mr. Taylor set it out in his statement. So,
01:59:08 So, GT, so Guy Taylor from GR, Global Resistance, has received the itinerary relating to George Bush's visit. There will be an occupation of the LSE this morning at 11:00 a.m. It's being run by Privacy and Privacy from SWP. Their
01:59:21 Privacy and Privacy from SWP. Their intention is to occupy the building until Wednesday afternoon or early evening when they will leave to join the Burning Planet demonstration. If they fail to join this demo, they will go on a swarm around the West End and Soho
01:59:33 a swarm around the West End and Soho with the intention of causing criminal damage to American targets. Uh the specifics of this are source sensitive. However, the information can be used for this uh strategic deployment.
01:59:45 this uh strategic deployment. Now, in relation to uh that, um Mr. Taylor's comments were that that this uh this swarming around the West End causing criminal damage, that this
01:59:56 End causing criminal damage, that this is not uh related to Global Resistance. That's possible. Yeah. Thank you. I want to move to a different aspect of
02:00:08 I want to move to a different aspect of reporting um relating to Guy Taylor. And the first of that is in relation to a particular campaign. It's the No to ID Cards
02:00:19 campaign. It's the No to ID Cards campaign. Of course, in the press recently again, but I want to turn up, please, MPS 003 6404. So, this is at tab C322
02:00:30 C322 in volume seven. It's a report dated the 2nd of September 2004. It's on the first page. It's the top report.
02:00:41 first page. It's the top report. Just while we have this document here, is this an example of what we're were to earlier and you're were to is raw reporting. So, this is before it gets to the processed Yes. We'll put that in when we're looking at it later. Yes,
02:00:52 when we're looking at it later. Yes, sure.
02:00:53 sure. And so, you can see here you have set out Guy Taylor. Uh he has been keeping a close eye on the fledgling No to ID campaign.
02:01:05 the fledgling No to ID campaign. An effort to mobilize against the government's intent to bring in a national ID card and database. Taylor, whilst obviously politically opposed to such a scheme, does not feel particularly strongly about this single
02:01:16 particularly strongly about this single issue matter, but rather his involvement is because he believes that the campaign may take off in a big way. In a true party fashion, he cannot bear the idea of not being in a position of influence
02:01:27 of not being in a position of influence if it does. To that end, Taylor has been attending the campaign's early organizing meetings and has now been co-opted onto the organizing committee as the local group coordinator. This posting reality is about telling
02:01:39 posting reality is about telling activists how to organize and build locally, sometimes something that Taylor certainly knows about. Drawing on his many years as an organizer of the SWP, Taylor plans to keep an eye on the campaign. So, if it does take off and
02:01:52 campaign. So, if it does take off and hit the media, he'll be able to claim that Global Resistance has been involved from the start. Okay. What would your response be to someone who
02:02:03 to someone who said, "You are an undercover officer focused on public order. Why are you reporting on a fledgling campaign against ID cards?" And if the
02:02:16 campaign against ID cards?" And if the point was made to you, "This is not justified." What would your response be to that, please? I I suppose my response firstly would be that, you know, we didn't have much of a filter.
02:02:28 know, we didn't have much of a filter. It would be of interest to the desk if if
02:02:31 if if Guy was applying himself to this rather than other work. Um
02:02:38 Um and they they basically wanted to know everything that he was involved with on an organizing front. And if they thought that it
02:02:45 that it was something that he could have sort of gained some some level, maybe not a very big level, but a high level influence over a campaign, you know, that would perhaps would allow him to sort of
02:02:57 him to sort of you know, draw more people in to to his orbit then they would want to know. You say there's no filter, were you not concerned that
02:03:09 were you not concerned that you were putting into undercover police officer intelligence reports private information about people that had
02:03:19 had no possible bearing on public disorder. Were were you not concerned about not applying a filter? I think back then probably not as much
02:03:30 I think back then probably not as much as perhaps I should have been. It It's not all about the disorder though, is it? It's you know, there is you know, there are other categories that would in you know, would would be
02:03:41 that would in you know, would would be considered in your deployment as a chief, certainly after Ripper. You know, there would be there's you know, I don't want to get to try and stretch the boundaries of reasonableness, but you'd be looking at, you know, national security, economic
02:03:53 you know, national security, economic well-being, those types of things featured in your mind as well. National security, subversion, violence. Yeah. Those sorts of things. I wonder if we can turn up, please, MPS Trevlo 9323.
02:04:07 we can turn up, please, MPS Trevlo 9323. So, your tab C131. It's a report report of yours dated the 2nd of June, 2002. It's in volume five.
02:04:17 Now, we can see almost straight away from the title, Globalise Resistance, Guy Taylor's Living Arrangements. Clearly nothing to do with national security
02:04:29 security or or or violence, is it? No, it's And so, we can see here the detail, Guy Taylor
02:04:36 Taylor lives in Blackheath. He occupies the basement rooms of a house that belongs to the parents of his best friend. He apparently has a large double bedroom, access to a basement kitchen and shower room. He pays £250 a month in rent to
02:04:50 room. He pays £250 a month in rent to the couple that own and also live in the house.
02:04:53 house. This arrangement came about after privacy, surname unknown's wedding, where Taylor, privacy, Taylor had apparently recently split up with his previous long-time girlfriend privacy.
02:05:04 previous long-time girlfriend privacy. When privacy's mother heard that Taylor was sleeping on a succession of friends' floors, she immediately offered him a place at their house. Taylor took them up on the offer and lived there rent-free for the first 6 months. He is
02:05:15 rent-free for the first 6 months. He is clearly fond of the couple who give him free reign within the property and refer to themselves as a couple of old hippies, much to Taylor's amusement. Is the danger of what you have just
02:05:27 Is the danger of what you have just described with having no filter that reports like this are are are produced looking back on it? Yeah, yeah. Yes, it is. I mean, clearly the only
02:05:38 Yes, it is. I mean, clearly the only clearly the only useful, you know, that could have been distilled down to one line, couldn't it really? You know, if if the desk would want to know where Guy Taylor was living,
02:05:48 living, uh but over and above that, I I absolutely concede it and I regret putting that in. I wonder if we can just move to another report of yours, MPS 0721324.
02:06:02 This is search your tab 203, which is in volume six. It's a report of yours, 118, stated the 23rd of February, 2003.
02:06:13 2003. I'm going to ask you about the first two reports there, so again on Guy Taylor. Um he will be spending this coming coming weekend, uh 22nd and 23rd of February '03, in the West Country at his friend Hector's
02:06:25 West Country at his friend Hector's stately home, believed to be named Taplow Park or similar. Sorry, can't remember the name. I've put stuff in on Hector before, including the correct name of the house. Hector is somewhat eccentric figure who inherited the
02:06:36 eccentric figure who inherited the family seat and subsequently became politically radicalized in the run-up to the Genoa protest. His manor house is now effectively a commune housing a number of activists and new age types.
02:06:47 number of activists and new age types. Taylor spends occasional weekends there to unwind, usually switching off his mobile phone and refusing to check his email accounts for the duration of his day. This weekend, Taylor will be taking his new girlfriend to privacy with him.
02:06:58 his new girlfriend to privacy with him. He will be traveling by National Express coach from London Victoria to Barnstaple on Friday afternoon and will be returning on Monday. He booked the coach tickets via National Express website on the afternoon of the 20th February from
02:07:10 the afternoon of the 20th February from the GR office computer. And again, would you accept that in relation to the detail contained there, if it was suggested to you, well, there's no policing purpose of this report, how
02:07:21 policing purpose of this report, how would you respond to that, please? I I broadly I broadly No, I partially agree. I mean, clearly, the fact that you know, he's got
02:07:32 you know, he's got um
02:07:33 um a relationship with with Hector Christie at that location might be of interest further down the track if Mr. Christie was an activist Sorry, um an activist himself.
02:07:43 himself. Um you know, it states where he's going to be. He's not going to be working on anti-cap stuff that weekend. Um the fact that he turns his communications off during those weekends
02:07:54 communications off during those weekends could be potentially useful to know. But I was clearly working in the office alongside
02:08:00 alongside guy that day and had recorded that and Yeah, I I broadly agree with you. Um
02:08:08 Um On this this topic, can we just refer to one more report, please? It's MPS0035842.
02:08:15 It's at tab C319. It's in volume seven.
02:08:23 Could we please turn to page four of MPS0035842?
02:08:31 It's the last report on this page. I wonder if we could just Thank you. Maximize that.
02:08:42 Uh this Taylor has been involved with an American girlfriend Privacy for about 15 months now. Privacy does not hold extremist political views in stark contrast to almost every other one of Taylor's friends and confidants. Just pausing
02:08:55 friends and confidants. Just pausing uh there. Again, is there any policing purpose in reporting about Guy Taylor's girlfriend, particularly when as you've set out here, she doesn't
02:09:07 when as you've set out here, she doesn't hold any extremist political views? No, there's not. Uh she is political, but her beliefs mostly closely match those on the very fluffiest edge of the global justice
02:09:18 fluffiest edge of the global justice movement. In short, she is a reformist rather than a revolutionary. Additionally, Privacy is somewhat high-maintenance, which has led to the almost unbelievable situation of Taylor being late for demos or actions because
02:09:30 being late for demos or actions because she will not leave home before applying her makeup and fixing her hair. It
02:09:38 It If someone were to say to you that that description i- is inappropriate to be included in an intelligence report, that it is sexist
02:09:50 intelligence report, that it is sexist and unnecessary. Looking back now, would you accept that? I I would absolutely. I The only thing I would say in i- in my very, very minor defense is that was almost a quote from somebody
02:10:02 that was almost a quote from somebody who is
02:10:03 who is also
02:10:05 also um in GR when he was late for something. But yes, I I I agree. It's It's not appropriate. I regret putting that in. Uh I want to ask you about We can take
02:10:17 Uh I want to ask you about We can take that document down. Thank you. Your position that you described in Globalise Resistance, you were on the steering committee.
02:10:29 steering committee. And you describe yourself as becoming the global Globalise Resistance webmaster. Yes.
02:10:38 Yes. I I only use webmaster because that is rather clunky term but you know but the there was literally a webmaster at resist.org.uk email address. So, people tended to
02:10:49 tended to tended to refer to the person who was looking after the um website as the webmaster. In relation to the website, would you accept that Globalise Resistance
02:11:02 accept that Globalise Resistance uh puts
02:11:04 uh puts information on their website about what their plans were? They're going to hold a protest. It's something that they put on the website in fact to try and attract people along with the protest.
02:11:15 people along with the protest. Absolutely, 100%. And and is it also correct that Globalise Resistance had a newsletter called Resist? Yes. Did they also have email groups? Yes.
02:11:30 If someone were to say that it was unnecessary for you into to infiltrate Globalise Resistance for the reason that they were open about what they planned,
02:11:43 they were open about what they planned, what would your response be to that? I I I would agree that they were open, absolutely, but I would also agree that if there
02:11:53 if there was a real desire to drill down and work out exactly what their intentions and capabilities were, that you would have to have someone on the
02:12:04 you would have to have someone on the inside. I always I thought I thought about this quite a lot and
02:12:10 lot and you know, I think Globalise in some ways unwittingly brought attention upon themselves because they were so good at being visible. There was a huge amount of heat and interest about under the anti-capitalist
02:12:23 interest about under the anti-capitalist movement, you know, after Seattle, Prague, Gothenburg, and all the rest of it, you know, after Genoa, uh
02:12:31 Genoa, uh and all that stuff. And because of that, I think someone at a very high level cast their eyes about um and thought, "Well, what's the visible What's the visible manifestation of
02:12:43 What's the visible manifestation of anti-capitalism at the moment in London in the UK?" And it was globalized. You could see them everywhere. Whenever they went on a march, there was a sea of orange flags which they used, huge
02:12:54 orange flags which they used, huge banners. Uh when I say banners, you know,
02:12:57 know, almost the size of this room some of them that they would make. You know, that
02:13:01 that stunts, visibility, branding, if you like. They were very very visible. And then
02:13:08 then allied with that was the fact that the understanding underneath that actually was that Globalize Resistance were a construct of the SWP. The SWP every week published a newspaper
02:13:20 The SWP every week published a newspaper called Socialist Worker and in their sidebar,
02:13:24 sidebar, you know, um sort of on the editorial page, if you look at any copy of Socialist Worker from those dates, there's a little sidebar, clenched fist, and I'm doing this from memory, so
02:13:35 and I'm doing this from memory, so forgive me. It's something like, "Who we are, where we where we stand." Um and it basically said, you know, "We're for revolution, not reform." Um
02:13:48 the the uh basically all of the wealth in society is generated um by the workers, exploited by the capitalist class.
02:13:56 class. Uh the courts, military, um
02:14:02 um courts, military, and police only serve to protect the capitalist class. You know, where basically underneath that, it would be at the end, you know, "The workers must unite." or something like that. And then it then it said um
02:14:16 Yeah. It was something along the lines of to destroy capitalism, you must smash the state.
02:14:23 state. And that's a pretty strong and effective mission statement, really. That's what we're about. Can't be reformed through Parliament. Voting is not the answer.
02:14:34 Parliament. Voting is not the answer. Revolution, not reform. Capitalism is essentially evil. And we're going to do that by building a revolutionary movement to smash the state. If you're doing that, someone
02:14:45 state. If you're doing that, someone very high up is going to notice and then say, "Do you know what? I think we better keep an eye on this lot." And perhaps some dull old policeman in the SDS are the ideal
02:14:56 SDS are the ideal you know, mechanism for getting that done. The the sort of people that you reported on, Guy Taylor, uh also Noel Dudley. Given all the years
02:15:07 also Noel Dudley. Given all the years that you reported on on them, would you accept now that there was no real necessity, no real justification for the SDS to put a an undercover police
02:15:19 SDS to put a an undercover police officer in to watch what they got up to for all those years, knowing everything that you do now about I I don't your time. I would certainly concede that they would they
02:15:31 certainly concede that they would they should not be anywhere near the top of the list.
02:15:34 the list. For for as organizations to be deployed into. I mean, this would you know, this type of this type of deployment would never meet
02:15:45 this type of deployment would never meet the sort of proportionality necessity test now. You know, there must be other ways, less intrusive ways to get most of the information, as you've alluded to yourself. For it being open source, so
02:15:58 I'd like to ask you just about a few further reports before um addressing the topic of the how you came to
02:16:08 to end your deployment into globalized resistance and moving on from from there.
02:16:12 there. It is
02:16:14 It is I wonder if we can refer to
02:16:17 to a
02:16:19 a MPS 1207998, which is in tab C67 in volume four.
02:16:31 So, I just want to ask you about a number of reports and just to clarify
02:16:37 your reasons for reporting on these topics, please. So, if we look at that, if we can go over the page, please.
02:16:54 Now, we can see here there's a a reference to individual whose name's covered by a privacy box. But, a detailed description's given, male, white, 5 ft 10 tall, skinny, puny build,
02:17:06 white, 5 ft 10 tall, skinny, puny build, narrow face with square white metal-rimmed spectacles. Has a very light and wispy beard. Only needs to shave once a week or so and acne. Poor personal hygiene. Has an
02:17:17 acne. Poor personal hygiene. Has an unfortunate speech pattern and accent where he ends every sentence or remark with a high-pitched whine. By his own admission, he has never had a
02:17:28 By his own admission, he has never had a girlfriend. And and goes on. That tone of reporting. When you read back reports such as this, what is your
02:17:39 back reports such as this, what is your reaction to reading personal information about someone to the extent of them referring to never having a a girlfriend. No, I I I understand. No, I
02:17:51 No, I I I understand. No, I I regret it a lot. And I think it was This must have been quite early. So, obviously, now I know who this is. And
02:17:58 And I think I
02:18:00 I think I I often I have no defense. It's inappropriate and I wish I hadn't done it. It's you know, it's nasty and it's unkind.
02:18:06 unkind. Um and I think if you ask me why I did it, I think it was just part of sort of hardening my heart if that makes sense. Sort of trying to remember who I was and
02:18:19 trying to remember who I was and you know, why I was there. But it's I apologize for writing that. Looking back on this this type of reporting, what could
02:18:28 could your managers have have done that they didn't do to to to
02:18:35 to prevent you spending your time writing reports such as this? What what should they have done in your in your view? I suppose they should have said you know, you should have given given me some feedback and said, you know,
02:18:48 some feedback and said, you know, "Don't need to know this. It's inappropriate and it's nasty, you know." Um
02:18:56 Now, if we could turn please in your statement to page if we can have pages 40 4 up first and then going into page 45. This is paragraph 120 to 122.
02:19:10 45. This is paragraph 120 to 122. 118, this is where you deal with the compromise that you mentioned right at the beginning of your your evidence. I'm just going to ask you some questions about this Yeah, of course. before we conclude this afternoon.
02:21:54 Mhm.
02:27:39 Mhm.
02:29:34 Mhm.
02:31:29 Mhm.
02:33:24 Mhm.
02:35:19 Mhm.
02:39:05 I'm going to ask if we could please put up on screen MPS 0031811
02:39:12 which is at tab B57 which is in volume two. As you can see 118, this is a file note dated 4th of
02:39:24 118, this is a file note dated 4th of February
02:39:25 February 2004
02:39:28 2004 and reports on a meeting on the 3rd of February
02:39:33 February at um
02:39:34 at um the Royal Festival Hall and on this occasion, this is where Guy Taylor um three other individuals and a Swedish woman was
02:39:46 individuals and a Swedish woman was covered by S 4 surveillance before during and after the particular meeting. And looking at that um document there, is it is that how in the bullet points
02:39:57 bullet points Guy Taylor introduced the topic, "Look, I've got to tell you this. It's really funny." Yes. This is you you passing on the words that he used. I Yeah, I haven't written this obviously
02:40:10 I Yeah, I haven't written this obviously um
02:40:11 um but
02:40:12 but this is clearly a deep based on a deep brief of me presumably verbally. Um May I just read the bullet points? Please.
02:40:47 Right. A- A- Are you can Is that accurate? Not not in terms of suggesting that you yourself typed this document but your
02:40:57 your intelligence or your information going into those those bullet points. it? Is that a fair description of It's a fair description of the sort of state of play. I
02:41:08 state of play. I I don't recognize some of that at all, but yes.
02:41:11 but yes. In in relation to the third bullet points, because this is under well, you know, there's basis for optimism, optimism that you wouldn't be compromised. It says doubts about the
02:41:22 compromised. It says doubts about the provenance of the original recording were couched in terms of long-term concerns for the mental stability of an and this is in quotations, "orange-haired crackhead woman who claims to have a boyfriend in MI6."
02:41:35 claims to have a boyfriend in MI6." Now,
02:41:36 Now, when Mr. Taylor was giving evidence and he referred to
02:41:43 to that
02:41:44 that description and he stated that words to the effect she did not have orange hair then and that's Guy Taylor's first knowledge of
02:41:55 that's Guy Taylor's first knowledge of anything to do with a boyfriend in MI6 came from the documents that the like this that the inquiry disclosed. Is that you
02:42:06 you said that you weren't content with all of this. Is this one of the pieces of information that's incorrect, the reference to well, there's a cause for optimism because there are doubts about the provenance of
02:42:17 there are doubts about the provenance of it coming from someone who has a crack cocaine addiction and makes claims about boyfriends in MI6. Is that something that is inaccurate? I
02:42:29 that something that is inaccurate? I I've got no no recollection of that at all.
02:42:32 all. Um and I would expect to have because boyfriend in MI6 would be a big It
02:42:38 It it's striking. Yeah. And Are you able to assist looking at this document? Yes. How that sort of information um
02:42:51 information um might have found its way into this file note?
02:42:55 note? I I I don't. I can only assume it's come from other information, but that was held or collected about this situation. I don't recognize that bit at all.
02:43:07 bit at all. But
02:43:10 Could we please take this document down? I want to go to a file notes produced by DCI Mike Dell. It's MPS 0036265,
02:43:21 DCI Mike Dell. It's MPS 0036265, please. So, this is at your tab B68, which can be found in volume two.
02:43:32 So, we're moving now 118s to the confrontation. So, i- if we remind ourselves in relation to this, this is
02:43:44 to this, this is the voicemail message was left in mid-January 2004, and it's in on the 20th of August 2004 when when you're confronted with it.
02:43:55 when when you're confronted with it. Yes. All right. I wonder if we could just turn to the last page of this document just to show you the provenance of it. Um so, you can see Michael Dell signing this off there at the end of this
02:44:07 this off there at the end of this document.
02:44:08 document. So, if we go back to the first page, so we can see file note 24th of August Ringwraith. Now, just pausing there, we've seen all of your reports up to
02:44:19 we've seen all of your reports up to this point, Groundhog Day. It was because of this compromise that one of the steps taken was to change your code name from Groundhog Day to Ringwraith. Is that right? Correct.
02:44:29 Correct. All right. So, we see here Ringwraith confrontation 20th August 1994. I want to ask you about what's set out here. It says the background is described in Operation
02:44:41 background is described in Operation Dalliance. On the 20th of August in a public area of the Royal Festival Hall, regularly used by activists for meetings, RW was confronted with a poor copy of the recorded conversation by
02:44:52 copy of the recorded conversation by four leading globalized resistance activists, Guy Taylor, privacy privacy privacy and privacy. RW is several pages into the production of a detailed
02:45:03 into the production of a detailed account, the oral oral version of which has been given to DS Beales and to me in lengthy debriefs. Other intelligence allowed RW to prepare himself for the
02:45:14 allowed RW to prepare himself for the event.
02:45:15 event. And then this, but it is plain that his own fortitude, sharpness, professionalism and experience allowed him to turn in a bravura performance
02:45:27 him to turn in a bravura performance challenging every premise of his inquisitors plainly dominating them psychologically and exploiting their eternal uncertainties over who is and who isn't
02:45:39 uncertainties over who is and who isn't an informant. In relation to that description is that
02:45:45 is that from
02:45:46 from DCI Dell or did you have any input in relation to the way in which that's described? Because it it is it is very positive about how you dealt with the
02:45:57 positive about how you dealt with the confrontation. And I just wonder if you can assist us with where that description came from. I It's come from Mike Dell. I think he
02:46:08 It's come from Mike Dell. I think he must have been very pleased. Without it, none of that language comes from me and isn't really I
02:46:15 I But that was It mentions here that I'm several pages deep. Do you have that report that I wrote? Cuz I wrote probably a four or five page
02:46:27 four or five page um debrief of what happened which is
02:46:32 which is laid it all out really and it doesn't The language in my report is not reflected in that if that makes sense. Well well let us Yes. Well let let's just stick with this report and then we'll move to the other
02:46:43 report and then we'll move to the other document that you you've referenced.
02:46:46 The third bullet point under the heading facts says the risk to him is negligible. His four inquisitors individually and then collectively were in tears.
02:46:59 then collectively were in tears. Is that
02:47:01 Is that information that you provided to DCI Dell? No, I think he got the wrong end of the stick somewhere in that I was in tears and I think at times two of the
02:47:12 tears and I think at times two of the other people might have been in tears briefly. Certainly the other two didn't weren't in tears at any point.
02:47:21 In terms of these are not violent people, again, is that something that you communicated to DCI Dell? I I don't think so, but uh I wouldn't take any exception to that
02:47:32 I wouldn't take any exception to that statement. You would agree You would agree that's um
02:47:38 um the uh they were not violent, so you would agree with the accuracy of that. Yes.
02:47:41 Yes. All right. I'd like to turn please to page three in this document.
02:47:50 So, again, this is Appreciate this is not your document, but I want to ask you about what is set out here because you can see the second bullet point says, "Consider
02:48:01 bullet point says, "Consider with C Squad whether we should leave GR globalize resistance intact or through RWU mount a destructive operation."
02:48:15 mount a destructive operation." What is this a reference to? I I've no idea.
02:48:19 idea. Um
02:48:21 Um we would have we would have had no Well, my opinion would be that we would have no agency about leaving GR intact or otherwise. Clearly, I was completely and utterly blown.
02:48:32 utterly blown. I wouldn't have any influence. I don't really
02:48:36 really I don't With every respect to My Dell, I don't really understand what mount a destructive operation means. Oh, I we would have the agency to do it even if it was remotely appropriate or
02:48:48 even if it was remotely appropriate or lawful. I mean, I I don't know really what that means. If we look at the next bullet point, acknowledge that SDS activity is not event-based, that it was formed because
02:49:01 event-based, that it was formed because an inept MPS in 1968 could not explain what was happening given its failure to understand the political world outside general orders.
02:49:12 political world outside general orders. Acknowledge that political intelligence is not simply a function of knowledge of organizations. Now, again, we and we can see the name at the bottom in this
02:49:23 see the name at the bottom in this screenshot here. It says DCI Michael Dell's document. But in terms of what is set out
02:49:29 set out there, it refers to political intelligence. Mhm. Now, can can you please um comment on your reaction to to reading that in this
02:49:40 your reaction to to reading that in this uh document, which is, after all, a file note in relation to the confrontation of you on the 20th of August 2004? I I I don't really know what that means.
02:49:52 I I I don't really know what that means. Um
02:49:53 Um I don't know what general orders are. Um acknowledge the
02:49:59 I I'm I'm I'm not sure, to be honest. One of the points that has been made is that in terms of the reporting
02:50:08 reporting and the the spying by the SDS on groups such as Globalise Resistance, um that it is political reporting rather
02:50:19 that it is political reporting rather than reporting on Mhm. uh disorder or violence.
02:50:25 violence. And if it was suggested, well, for example, here's a senior officer, DCI Michael Dell, referring to political intelligence. Looking back, is there any justification
02:50:36 Looking back, is there any justification for those who say, well, what in fact was happening? This is more uh political spying rather than spying for the purposes of avoiding public disorder. Would there be any
02:50:47 public disorder. Would there be any justification in that?
02:50:50 Um I I don't think that actually accurately reflects what we were doing if that makes sense. I'm I I don't really recognize what
02:51:00 what trying to get hold of information about political intelligence means. Um
02:51:05 Um Yeah, that wasn't part of what we did. So
02:51:10 All right, I'm going to ask if that document could please be taken down. The date of that document that we're looking at was that's 24th of August 2004.
02:51:20 2004. I want to ask you about the document a bit later in the year. It's 9th of November 2004. It's MPS 0039616. So it's your tab B73 which is in volume
02:51:33 So it's your tab B73 which is in volume three.
02:51:40 Now a few minutes ago you were alluding to another document. Is Is this the document? I wonder if we can show just broad terms the the further pages of it
02:51:51 broad terms the the further pages of it and then we will zoom in in in due course.
02:51:57 So at the end submitted RW. We just need into pages one and two. Thank you. Was this document you were referring to a few minutes ago? It wasn't. All right.
02:52:10 a few minutes ago? It wasn't. All right. I'm going to ask you some questions about this um document that we have here. Yeah. here. Yeah.
02:52:21 So we can see 10th of November 2004 and it's at the end submitted by you. So this this is an SDS note that that you supplied. Is that right? Yes, I did. yeah. All right.
02:52:33 Yes, I did. yeah. All right. And you set out the purpose of it at the beginning. This report seeks to set out the details of the meeting between myself and Privacy on the evening of Tuesday the 9th of November 2004.
02:52:59 All right. Now, in in relation to this meeting that's being described, is that something you remember? Yes, now all right. I Not well, but yes, I I I remember it happening. Okay.
02:53:10 happening. Okay. So,
02:53:12 So, uh Privacy, a semi-professional activist with a long history of involvement in the areas of animal rights, uh much of it in her native country and anti-capitalism, currently sits on the steering committee of Globalize
02:53:25 steering committee of Globalize Resistance. If you just drop down a few paragraphs just below just above where the bullet points begin. Mhm. You say, "Last night, uh we met for dinner at a vegan restaurant in Soho." Now, just pausing there,
02:53:37 Now, just pausing there, for context, so the confrontation takes place on the 20th of August 2004. Yes. That is the end of your involvement in Globalize Resistance. Yes.
02:53:49 Globalize Resistance. Yes. But, in November, you
02:53:52 you meet in a restaurant in Soho with someone who was in Globalize Resistance. Yes. So, this is So, in terms of
02:54:07 Yes. So, this is So, in terms of this is only a few months after you were confronted. So, that's the context. Now, here, you say, "Last night, we met for dinner at a vegan restaurant in Soho. Privacy was relaxed, friendly, and off guard throughout the evening. We were
02:54:19 guard throughout the evening. We were together from about 8:30 p.m. to midnight. As might be expected from a meeting of this length, the conversation was wide-ranging, but perhaps naturally enough the conversation often turned to the events of late summer and what has
02:54:31 the events of late summer and what has happened since. Now, could you explain how this came about? How were you why were you meeting with a a This is a female activist? Yes. In a
02:54:44 This is a female activist? Yes. In a restaurant in Soho. How did that come about? It
02:54:48 about? It came about because we had kept sporadically in touch in touch since since the confrontation. My memory is that she
02:54:59 that she sent me a message a text message the next day which was broadly supportive. And then we had a very occasional contact from there. Obviously it was it was useful for
02:55:10 was useful for for us to
02:55:13 for us to just to try and understand the level of compromise around Wellings really and whether Wellings was going to be useful going forwards or not. Um
02:55:23 Um and
02:55:25 and I think she emailed me and suggested we meet up and then it came out of there. I might have emailed her. No, I think she emailed me but in any case we we arranged to meet for you know
02:55:38 case we we arranged to meet for you know to to have dinner. Now we can see what's you set out that the content of the the conversation. I'm not going to go through absolutely every line of this document but let's look at
02:55:49 line of this document but let's look at second bullet point. Privacy reported the situation was still only known to relatively small group of individuals. Taylor has made it clear that the matter is dealt with and over and should not be
02:56:00 is dealt with and over and should not be openly discussed. There are understandable reasons for this. If it were true it would be deeply embarrassing for Taylor if the matter became common knowledge. He vouched for my trustworthiness on many occasions to
02:56:11 my trustworthiness on many occasions to activists senior to himself let alone me and in many individuals eyes I would have been considered his protege and right hand man. yeah, think that's
02:56:23 right hand man. yeah, think that's somewhat clumsy language on my part. I don't think I was his protege. Um
02:56:28 Um but in any stretch of the imagination, but
02:56:31 but you know, he's a right-hand bagman, possibly. Um yeah, I think I let that my own sort of enthusiasm get the better of me in that sentence. But, I for the for the rest of it, you know, it
02:56:44 for the for the rest of it, you know, it it would appear, probably for quite understandable reasons, that um Mr. Taylor was keeping it relatively tight. You don't want to I can understand exactly why you would do that in an organization like that.
02:56:55 organization like that. Um not good for paranoia, justifiably. Justifiable paranoia, so it sort of had that spread, so.
02:57:02 so. And he's drawn a line under it. And just looking at just for accuracy, if we look at the if we zoom back out again, please. If we just now moving to the second page, can you see the first
02:57:13 second page, can you see the first bullet point where it says Noel Douglas has apparently told Yes.
02:57:17 Yes. Noel Douglas has apparently told a number of core activists that he had recently spoken with me, and then these words, "on a number of occasions." Mhm.
02:57:25 Mhm. "He initially phoned me during the ESF when he confused my number with that of another activist, and that I sounded relaxed and cheerful, and as if I was getting on with my life." Mhm.
02:57:38 getting on with my life." Mhm. Is the purpose of this to show that, well, since your confrontation, in fact, here is someone significance in globalize resistance,
02:57:50 significance in globalize resistance, and he's telling um activists that, well, he's recently spoken to you on a number of occasions. Mhm.
02:57:59 Mhm. Now, when Noel Douglas gave evidence last week, he referred to an occasion where there was a a that you had called him
02:58:10 that you had called him it was somebody else. I remember that somebody else also called Simon. And so that that conversation ended very quickly. right? I don't think it did. Actually,
02:58:21 Actually, it
02:58:21 it What happened was he he phoned I Well, my understanding is he phoned me. He probably went to his address book and looked for this the Simon he wished to
02:58:32 looked for this the Simon he wished to call, but he inadvertently called me, Simon Wellings. And he I picked up. I think I picked up pretty much without looking. I don't have caller ID then. I don't know. But
02:58:43 don't know. But started talking. He was talking away at me thinking I was the other Simon. And I had couple of goes of sort No, don't know who it was and said, you know, saying no, no, it's it's Simon as in
02:58:55 saying no, no, it's it's Simon as in the other Simon. And he kept going. And then I sort of interrupted him again. And then he realized he'd called me. And we ended up not a long chat by any stretch of the imagination, 30 seconds or something
02:59:07 imagination, 30 seconds or something like that. But I'm sure we spoke a couple of times after that. Um and
02:59:11 Um and cuz I think he he said, "Oh, it's you." And
02:59:15 And And I think that that speaks to why I was kind of reporting on that because one of the things that I had in my mind after this horrible compromise was if we had just pulled Simon parachuted
02:59:27 if we had just pulled Simon parachuted Simon Wellings out of his life completely, you're then declaring that he's an undercover cop. You know, he's suddenly he doesn't exist as a human being anymore. Whereas if I'm
02:59:40 as a human being anymore. Whereas if I'm still around, people are seeing me, I'm at things, I'm answering the phone, we're having a brief chat, then at perhaps at worst I'm an informant, you know, who's been coerced or paid by the police provide
02:59:52 coerced or paid by the police provide information. It You're describing the the tactic used there. But going back to the evidence from Noel Douglas is that there weren't um a number of occasions
03:00:05 there weren't um a number of occasions when you spoke when you spoke. And when in the call you've described when the penny dropped that the call was concluded very quickly. That That's with every respect,
03:00:16 quickly. That That's with every respect, that's not my memory of it. I wonder if we can just zoom back out again. I want to ask you about the next bullet point. There's a number of privacy redactions here. But again, I want to ask you about the
03:00:28 But again, I want to ask you about the accuracy of it. Towards the end of the evening, so this is still with the dinner in Soho, the vegan restaurant. Towards the end of the evening and after much red wine and some tequila,
03:00:40 much red wine and some tequila, Privacy confided the most significant information to me. She told me how she and Taylor had staffed a globalized stall at the recent Respect conference.
03:00:51 Respect conference. Some privacy redactions and then this. This was followed by the pair going to the pub and drinking red wine. The conversation turned to me and very shortly afterwards, Taylor broke down
03:01:03 shortly afterwards, Taylor broke down and started crying. He confided to Privacy that he'd been having nightmares where he was being judged by some supreme power for having condemned me and that he knew that these
03:01:15 condemned me and that he knew that these dreams were a punishment for treating me so badly. He went on to say that, quote, in his heart of hearts, he knew that I was innocent but that he had been forced
03:01:26 was innocent but that he had been forced to oust me after a direct order from the SWP Central Committee. He also said that at the time, his stock with his masters had been at an all-time low and that
03:01:38 had been at an all-time low and that this had prevented him fighting my corner any more than he had. He continued that this was now eating him up with guilt. After this confession, he swore Privacy
03:01:49 After this confession, he swore Privacy to secrecy and explained that the matter must be allowed to rest for the good of the organization. When Guy Taylor gave evidence, he denied the accuracy of that.
03:02:01 the accuracy of that. Now,
03:02:02 Now, is it
03:02:04 is it uh
03:02:04 uh all true and accurate a record of your conversation with privacy at the restaurant in the Soho or is there exaggeration?
03:02:15 there exaggeration? Uh no, that that's how I remember it. It It sounds fantastical, doesn't it? But no, that's that's what she said. I'm going to to
03:02:26 to give you an opportunity to respond to what Guy Taylor has um set out in his statement on on this topic in relation to the individual that you had dinner with. Mhm.
03:02:37 with. Mhm. I wonder if we can just turn up by Taylor's witness statement at paragraph 51 on page 38, please.
03:02:52 Right.
03:02:56 Now, at paragraph 51, he says, "Privacy did not believe that Wellings was an informant. I tried to persuade her that he should not be trusted, but she met with Wellings after we expelled him from
03:03:08 with Wellings after we expelled him from GR." So, a reference to this dinner. Uh in Wellings's statement about that meeting, he invented some nonsense story of me agreeing with their take on the situation. I absolutely refute this
03:03:20 situation. I absolutely refute this story. On the 27th of January 2016, in response to an appeal for more info, photos, and memories of Wellings that I had sent her, Privacy sent me an email with her own vastly different account of
03:03:32 with her own vastly different account of the meeting she had with Wellings in the vegan restaurant. With mo- no prompting, she voluntarily gave the account. The full email is attached as an exhibit
03:03:43 full email is attached as an exhibit GT3. The relevant paragraph reads." Now, we have an extract here, but I'm going to um ask if we can and I It's I don't believe this document is in your bundle,
03:03:54 believe this document is in your bundle, but it it's the it's the email that's quoted by Guy Taylor in the statement. It may be better um just to refer to the document itself. It's a UCPI document 38610, please.
03:04:17 Okay.
03:04:20 So, this is what Guy Taylor was referring to in his paragraph
03:04:25 paragraph there. And so, you can see um that it was sent to him on the 27th of January 20 16.
03:04:38 And I'm going to take you, in fact, down to right at the bottom of the first page. If you go five lines up from the bottom, Mhm. So, she
03:04:47 So, she um she states privacy states, "So, at some point later, uh I emailed uh him. Um I may have been responding to an email from him, but I don't think so. I appreciate Guy that
03:04:59 don't think so. I appreciate Guy that you're thinking what a idiot about me at this moment. It was an email account that closed down, so I don't have it anymore. I asked if he was okay and hoped he was all right. He asked to meet up, so I met him at the Beetroot
03:05:11 meet up, so I met him at the Beetroot Cafe. Is that the Is that the cafe? Yes, I think it is, yeah. Welling said he'd been at the ESF, European Social Forum, in Crystal Palace and and had seen I would just go to the
03:05:23 seen I would just go to the next page. He had seen me on the GR stall, but hadn't liked to come up. That sounds correct. Yeah, that that's right. me what was going on in GR, and I realized that even if I wasn't sure he
03:05:36 realized that even if I wasn't sure he was a spy, I suddenly didn't feel comfortable telling him anything about GR. So, I said it was fine and something vague about the tank. Uh he then asked how privacy was, so I said something else noncommittal. It was quite awkward
03:05:48 else noncommittal. It was quite awkward and sort of petered out quite quickly. That was the only time I met him outside the GR uh scenario. I said does not go into the detail that you referred to
03:06:00 into the detail that you referred to about
03:06:01 about No, it's quite different. Guy Taylor breaking breaking breaking down. Uh But again, just to be clear, your evidence is that is what Privacity did say to you.
03:06:14 that is what Privacity did say to you. Yes. Right.
03:06:31 That document can be taken down, please.
03:06:35 Despite meeting with that particular activist, and as DCI Dell had observed, your time
03:06:43 your time at Globalize Resistance had come to an end. Absolutely. Yeah, completed. To what extent did you discuss with your managers ending your deployment completely at that point?
03:06:54 that point? Um
03:06:55 Um I I
03:06:56 I I did a quite a lot There were quite a lot of discussions about that at that time.
03:07:03 And you know, about the way forward, whether there was going to be any utility to to keeping Wellingtons going. I was quite I was I was quite keen to do that. I'd been out what, 3 years or thereabouts at that point. I thought I
03:07:15 thereabouts at that point. I thought I had another, you know, year, 18 months in me.
03:07:18 in me. The G8 was on the, you know, was coming up. And you know, the Venn diagram between what I had been doing and, you know, the the requirement for the G8 was pretty overlapping. Um so I was
03:07:29 Um so I was by that stage, having had a, you know, 10 days off to sort of reflect, I was I was uh very keen to keep going. When we were looking at the value for money document, December 2007, and you
03:07:40 money document, December 2007, and you indicated you were very much ready to end your time with the SDS, but at this particular juncture, you had got past the
03:07:49 the compromise. How how keen were you to continue in this particular role? Yeah, I was keen. Why were you so keen to continue? What what was it about being an SDS
03:08:01 what was it about being an SDS undercover officer that you made you want to continue? It it it was really that you know, I we were about to have a UK GA.
03:08:09 UK GA. You know, and I knew from uh speaking to colleagues and just having worked in that environment that the you know, the appetite and the the perceived requirement for intelligence
03:08:21 perceived requirement for intelligence around that would be enormous and I thought I could help. And I wanted to be part of that. Uh and where did you go after Globalise Resistance? I
03:08:32 I I went Well, you don't really go into dissent as a as a group, quite frankly. I I
03:08:37 I I went into a situation where I was able to provide uh monitoring of a huge swathe of sort of autonomist activists
03:08:48 swathe of sort of autonomist activists um who were organizing under the banner of dissent, sort of exclamation mark, uh against the GA.
03:08:56 GA. But you they're not a they're they're sort of chalk and cheese, if that makes sense. Whereas, you could argue that Globalise is part of quite a vertical hierarchical structure. Um you know, autonomist
03:09:09 Um you know, autonomist activism doesn't work that way. You're not a member of dissent. You don't have a membership card. You don't pay any dues. People just come together from a wide range of uh activity and organizing to you know,
03:09:23 uh activity and organizing to you know, fight for the cause that they're involved in. So, I see the time. I wonder if that's a convenient moment before moving into the dissent network. Certainly. Um we're going to have a fairly full day tomorrow, but that should conclude um
03:09:36 tomorrow, but that should conclude um this witness's evidence for today. Yes, sir. Yes, right. You've had a long day today. I'm afraid you're going to have another long one tomorrow, but that should then be an end of it. Thank you.
03:09:47 Thank you. Until 10:00 tomorrow. Good night.
03:11:58 Hey.