The witness, HN118, provides evidence regarding his deployment to the Camp for Climate Action in 2007 and his reporting on political figures. He discusses the pressure from senior management to attend events despite being in a withdrawal phase and admits that some of his intelligence gathering on politicians may have been inappropriate 'in the cold light of day'.
00:14:20 Good afternoon everybody. Today's this afternoon's proceedings are going to be transmitted live after a 10-minute period has elapsed. Those with mobile devices may use them to report what they
00:14:33 devices may use them 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 photography or recording.
00:14:44 HN118, I'd like to ask you about your reporting on Camp for Climate Action. It may assist if we put up on screen, please HN18's witness statement. Um,
00:14:57 please HN18's witness statement. Um, page 56, please.
00:15:07 So at the bottom of the page we can see you refer to camp for climate action and state that as far as I can recall my involvement in the camp for climate
00:15:18 involvement in the camp for climate action was limited to attending the camp just outside Heathrow airport in 2007. Just to be clear, is that correct that that was the some of your reporting on
00:15:31 that was the some of your reporting on camp for climate action, the Heathro? I I think so. I I mean there may have been some reporting in advance of it, but but yes, largely. The original intention was that I
00:15:42 The original intention was that I wouldn't wouldn't go at all as I was, you know, I should have been in my withdrawal phase, if that makes sense. C can you help us with that in terms of the timing o of this because I think you alluded to it yesterday some reluctance
00:15:54 alluded to it yesterday some reluctance on your part if we why were you uh required to attend this uh camp um at this time when as you
00:16:05 uh camp um at this time when as you indicated this was towards the end of your deployment you're you're running your deployment down um I I was uh told that there there was a you know an enormous amount of uh sort
00:16:18 a you know an enormous amount of uh sort of pressure coming down from on high um and that there was a requirement to provide coverage on it and that I would be required to go. Wonder if we could look at paragraph 152. So it's just over page we have it
00:16:31 152. So it's just over page we have it on screen.
00:16:35 So here you say I was not disappointed to leave the event. However, I was really only there because of a direct tasking through the SDS to attend. Uh my intention after the G8 conference in
00:16:47 intention after the G8 conference in Hiligan Dam was to withdraw gradually and attend as few events as possible but counter to almost all my previous experience in the SDS DCI flood
00:16:58 experience in the SDS DCI flood expressly directed me to attend the camp for climate action. So that's as you recall it. Yes. Yes. I presume that this was because the MPS was the lead police force for the
00:17:09 MPS was the lead police force for the event, but it was an uncomfortable position to be in towards the end of my deployment, particularly given the lack of future for the SDS. So at this stage,
00:17:20 of future for the SDS. So at this stage, was it clear to you that the SDS was about to come to an end? Oh yes, absolutely. And before that,
00:17:32 did you provide any feedback to DCI Flood when he expressly directed you to attend? I it had been a a conversation before
00:17:43 I it had been a a conversation before then. I'd sort of argued the case. You know, I was literally right at the end and it was an unusual thing to to do and so I'd had a couple of goes of pleading my case that I I didn't want to attend.
00:17:55 my case that I I didn't want to attend. it would seem counter to the sort of um withdrawal strategy such as it was and um you know we'd reached the end of that conversation and at the end of the day you know he was my boss and he directed
00:18:07 you know he was my boss and he directed me to go and I went there was there was an awful lot of as I understand it an awful lot of pressure coming in from various ministers and and the like because of
00:18:19 ministers and and the like because of the perceived risk to Heathrow shutting down because of people getting onto the airfield, you know, onto the runways and onto the aprons around Heathrow.
00:18:30 onto the aprons around Heathrow. Perhaps if we just go to page, sorry, paragraph 155. So it is just if we go over the page, please.
00:18:40 So here you refer to one of your reports and we'll come to the report. You say, "My raw reports the decisions taken at a pre-amp for climate action coordination
00:18:52 pre-amp for climate action coordination meeting. does not directly refer to the planning of criminal activity, but in several places it refers to spiky or potentially violent direct action. It
00:19:03 potentially violent direct action. It also records that the consensus was against tren trespass onto the aircraft operating areas of Heathro, which will have helped the initial planning for the policing. Ultimately, the key figures in the descent network were aware that they
00:19:16 the descent network were aware that they could not prevent individuals or small groups from trespassing onto the runways and taxiways, and they were sufficiently alert to the possibility that they wanted to develop media lines to take in the event that this uh did happen. Now,
00:19:30 the event that this uh did happen. Now, you described before lunch when I was asking you about direct action and uh leaving aside what we discussed yesterday about the suicide vest. um
00:19:41 yesterday about the suicide vest. um plot that as far as direct action is concerned in this country that the high point for you was engaged in sitdown protests in roads.
00:19:52 protests in roads. Yes.
00:19:53 Yes. And and this um right at the end of your deployment refers to spiky potentially violent direct action people on the taxi ways on on runways. So was
00:20:07 on the taxi ways on on runways. So was this in your mind potentially uh much more serious than the uh areas that you were deployed into in the years leading up to this point
00:20:19 in the years leading up to this point describing we we looked at various uh involvement in looking at email groups um checking websites matters of that nature but right at your
00:20:30 matters of that nature but right at your end of your deployments just as you're coming out of the SDS you're suddenly asked to deploy deploy into this particular operation. Was it as set out
00:20:41 particular operation. Was it as set out here potentially violent direct action people going onto a runway? Was that real concern about? I wouldn't say it was violent. The we we kept hearing we kept hearing from
00:20:52 kept hearing we kept hearing from various people who were uh reportedly analyzing the risk around it of the of the danger to you know to people if they if they had gone through the fence and tried to get inside Heathrow. I mean, we
00:21:05 tried to get inside Heathrow. I mean, we I remember on more than one occasion saying I thought that was incredibly unlikely. Uh but there was just so much concern, I think, at some senior level that it was a possibility that they
00:21:16 that it was a possibility that they wanted some measure of coverage from within the camp so that it could be reported back if a particular group had, you know, decided to try and go through the fence. Would you have put expressed it in those ways to your managers? Incredibly
00:21:28 ways to your managers? Incredibly unlikely using Yeah, absolutely. 100%. And they would have expressed it too. back up back up the well I'm highly confident that they would have expressed that view too too but I think they were getting pulled
00:21:39 but I think they were getting pulled into meetings at very high levels where other people had a very different opinion.
00:21:42 opinion. May I just go to that raw report that you quote in this paragraph. So it is 0074614
00:21:50 0074614 at tab470
00:21:52 at tab470 which is in volume nine please.
00:22:01 So there's quite a lengthy set of your raw reports here, but we can see that the first uh page refers to climate camp. Activists plan to hold a climbing
00:22:13 camp. Activists plan to hold a climbing camp in the vicinity of London Heathrow Airport between the 14th and 21st of August. The camp will be along very much the same sort of lines as the one that occurred close to Drax Power Station
00:22:25 occurred close to Drax Power Station last year. Now pausing there um we needn't turn it up but is it right that you reported on that to the extent that it was happening but you didn't attend
00:22:37 it was happening but you didn't attend that particular climate camp is is that right this was the first climate camp that you actually physically attended the one at Heathrow in 2007. Yes specifically a climate camp I think.
00:22:50 Yes specifically a climate camp I think. Yes.
00:22:50 Yes. Yes. Thank you. uh the initial meetup point for arriving activists not involved. The first occupation of the site uh will be Stain's Railway Station. And as you go through this, you're providing um details about it. Could we
00:23:02 providing um details about it. Could we forward to page 11, please?
00:23:14 Now this is is this a a copy paste from the part of the material that is produced and disseminated um by those uh
00:23:25 produced and disseminated um by those uh that are are in the climate cap action is is that would you agree with that? So we can see at the bottom police liaison strategy discussion. So this is if you
00:23:38 strategy discussion. So this is if you like an internal climate camp document that's circulated and if we look at this here a police leaison strategy discussion feedback on what council liaison has done so far aims to keep the
00:23:51 liaison has done so far aims to keep the camp safe peaceful and effective uh to use our role as a networking opportunity to spread information about uh climate uh camp. The document goes on, but
00:24:05 uh camp. The document goes on, but does that
00:24:07 does that tie in with what you were describing before that it was um very unlikely that there would be problems with this event. The very fact that there was a police
00:24:18 The very fact that there was a police liaison strategy that was being discussed in this controlled manner. Does that
00:24:23 Does that Yeah,
00:24:24 Yeah, entirely.
00:24:26 entirely. And so
00:24:28 And so the question that I've asked you a number of times in terms of well was it justified to have a an undercover police officer in this group particularly when they are circulating typed police
00:24:40 they are circulating typed police liaison strategies? Um would you agree or disagree that it was it was unnecessary? I I suppose it would always be desirable from a belt and braces
00:24:52 be desirable from a belt and braces perspective to have someone or some means of actually ensuring that that is actually what was going to go ahead. But yes, in the main I think there have been other ways to do it
00:25:10 in terms of the police liaison. Would you have had any input into the nature of those in climate camp to their
00:25:22 of those in climate camp to their liaison with the police? So for example, would you
00:25:25 would you have uh advised or given suggestions in some way or or were you so much on the periphery that that wasn't realistic? No, I I had no input into that at all.
00:25:44 I wonder if we could please move to tab uh sorry MPS75737 at tab B131 please
00:25:56 at tab B131 please which is in volume 3.
00:26:03 So we saw an an example on one of these before. So is this the um events log that this is a document that you produced yourself? Is that right?
00:26:15 produced yourself? Is that right? Yes.
00:26:19 So if we look at page three please
00:26:37 and so we can see page three it refers to the 12th of August this is 2007 worked day rostered Rest day worked voluntarily
00:26:49 voluntarily online. Check various websites, e-lists associated with autonomous left, answer emails, extract intelligence for inclusion in intel reports, open events log for week, securely archive and
00:27:01 log for week, securely archive and backup data, write up reports, and then this out to Heathrow airport area. Reclimate camp engage locally remade your public order event.
00:27:12 your public order event. And is this the recording in shorthand of your uh participation in in climate camp on that day? Yes, it looks that way.
00:27:23 And it says night spent at same location re above. Is this um pointing to a time when you physically camped at the uh
00:27:34 when you physically camped at the uh Heathrow airport? Is were you spending time in tents there? Yes. Yeah. I think I just had a tarp in fact at Heathrow, but it's I would I slept
00:27:45 Heathrow, but it's I would I slept overnight there. Absolutely.
00:27:52 Could we take that down and refer to NPS75611
00:28:00 which is at tab C473.
00:28:04 So this is reporting that's dated the 6th of August 2007. So it's in volume nine. And in relation to
00:28:15 it's in volume nine. And in relation to this, I'd like to we can see again repeated
00:28:19 repeated intelligence information about climate camp. Can you see the second report? as activists associated with the camp for climate action are attempting to recruit activists to act as legal observers
00:28:32 activists to act as legal observers throughout the period that the camp will be established. They are particularly keen to put teams out during the times that initial occupation of the camp is taking place and during the direct
00:28:43 taking place and during the direct action phase over the 24 hours uh from Sunday lunchtime in relation to legal observers. Was your
00:28:55 in relation to legal observers. Was your understanding that legal observers were individuals who were there to perhaps record what happened, what police officers did? Could you just help us with what your understanding of the
00:29:07 with what your understanding of the legal observers was, please? Yeah, that that's pretty much exactly it. I think they were there to to record any interaction between activists, protesters, and and police officers and
00:29:18 protesters, and and police officers and to sort of make a record of exactly what was happening, sometimes using video of photographs, making notes. You you've already indicated that you indicated at
00:29:29 already indicated that you indicated at the time that you were reluctant to participate in this. Would you agree that there was no need to uh provide reporting on uh climate uh camp legal
00:29:41 reporting on uh climate uh camp legal observers because those individuals are not individuals that are going to cause any public order difficulties? I I suppose I would, but I I would just say that this was exactly the type of
00:29:54 say that this was exactly the type of activity or detail that, you know, the desk were asking for in order to sort of enrich their understanding of what was actually going on on the on on the ground. You know, it's exactly the sort
00:30:05 ground. You know, it's exactly the sort of thing that they wanted us to try and find out and give them detail about. So, having been tasked to go, I suppose I felt it necessary to to do that. We could turn to take that down, please.
00:30:18 We could turn to take that down, please. Move to MPS75740. So it's in the next tab. It's C474 and could we please have a look? This is reporting from you 9th of August 07. So
00:30:31 reporting from you 9th of August 07. So it's the same period. Have a look at that document there. So RW your um initials for your code name climate camp reports uh and then it says held by C
00:30:44 reports uh and then it says held by C squad. So could you just assist us with this? Is this is this your reporting? Because it's got RW climate camp report and then it says held by sea squad. Could you just help us with the wording
00:30:55 Could you just help us with the wording of this?
00:30:58 of this? Are you are you familiar with the layout of this?
00:31:00 of this? No, not at all. Um I I would imagine RW is at the top obviously is my my code name and this looks like some form of note from from S
00:31:11 looks like some form of note from from S squad themselves I would think. Not sure.
00:31:20 in relation to the uh middle of the page the reference to bindman's solicitors does
00:31:28 does climate camp legal support and then there's telephone number for bindman solicitors is is that anything to do with with you see um producing that information or or is this is this c squad
00:31:40 is this is this c squad not at all no not familiar with it at all
00:31:43 all and again in terms of your initials at the top. Um, they are the initials for Ring Wraith, but you're not able to assist why they appear on this document. No, I would imagine I would imagine it's someone in C squad writing up some notes
00:31:55 someone in C squad writing up some notes about something and they just know I'm there perhaps perhaps they you know that the desk the desk would have if you were deployed out to a particular place at the end of the day the you know the the
00:32:07 the end of the day the you know the the aim is to provide information you know that informs the desk to to perform their function there. So, it might well be that they've just put my initials there because they know I'm actually, forgive me, I'm not I didn't make a note
00:32:19 forgive me, I'm not I didn't make a note of the date, whether I'm actually at that camp there or I'm in a position to provide coverage of it later. Well, I wonder if you could just move forward in time a month. If we can take that down, please, and move to MPS7614,
00:32:31 that down, please, and move to MPS7614, which is at your tab C510, which is in volume 9. I wonder if we can bring that up on screen. So this is more familiar uh set out of
00:32:43 So this is more familiar uh set out of your process reports. Yes. Yes. Yeah. And this one says climate camp legal action. The legal support team that ran throughout the Heathrow climate camp are
00:32:54 throughout the Heathrow climate camp are pulling together a large amount of information with a view to taking legal action against the Metropolitan Police. They believe that many activists were unlawfully detained either by way of
00:33:06 unlawfully detained either by way of arrest or in so-called kettles or containments on the street. The team are being assisted by sympathetic solisters at both bindmans and hickman and rose, both firms from London and by
00:33:19 both firms from London and by individuals at Irwin Mitchell in Manchester. Advice has been disseminated about obtaining legal aid and initial free interviews with solicitors. So in fact we have reference to bindmans in in
00:33:34 fact we have reference to bindmans in in one of your reports and again just thinking about that c can you recall right at the end of your deployment including information such as this about
00:33:45 including information such as this about bindmans and other other firms. Is that something you recall? No, not at all. It's just definitely one of mine. It doesn't look familiar at all.
00:33:53 all. Well, let's let's um let's ex um go go back out of it, please.
00:34:06 So in terms of this information at climate camp um this is not a uh report that has your code name on but the inquiry's
00:34:18 code name on but the inquiry's understanding is that that is uh one of your um uh reports and that you provided the intelligence in relation to that. Are you are you saying that you don't recall providing this?
00:34:29 recall providing this? No, not at all.
00:34:37 Uh unlike other undercover officers that the inquiry has heard evidence from, you were never arrested during your
00:34:48 were never arrested during your deployment. Is is that right? I was never formally arrested. No.
00:34:53 When you say you were never formally arrested, what do you mean by that? Well, I I was detained. Are we talking about specifically England and Wales? In England and Wales?
00:35:04 In England and Wales? Yes. Um, no, I was never arrested. I was stopped and searched and uh lots of times, but I was I was never arrested.
00:35:13 arrested. Okay.
00:35:15 Okay. And in terms of witnessing others being arrested, how many of those that you spied upon did you witness their arrests?
00:35:35 So not yourself. No, no, I understand. Not many. Once or twice, I think. Did you
00:35:46 ever witness um events that were relevant to their arrest. So for example, we have seen examples of individuals being
00:35:57 seen examples of individuals being arrested and an undercover officer being present um either arrested themselves or or witnessing what happened before the arrest. Were you ever in that position,
00:36:09 arrest. Were you ever in that position, i.e. potentially being a relevant witness? I know you yourself said you weren't arrested, but were you ever in a position where you'd seen something that someone had been arrested for that you could have
00:36:21 been arrested for that you could have provided potentially evidence about? I don't think so. No.
00:36:29 Throughout
00:36:33 your deployment, were you ever uh involved in any discussions about others criminal proceedings? So in other words, privy to uh legally, professionally
00:36:46 privy to uh legally, professionally privileged information at any point. Other other UCOs, no other activists, other activists? Um no, I don't think so.
00:37:00 I wonder if we can please turn up MPS 0704569
00:37:05 0704569 please which is at tab B87 in volume 3.
00:37:16 Now in relation to this it refers to a desk meeting report 17th of November 2005.
00:37:25 2005. Uh we can see the duration uh 11 to 2:30 field officers present and you are one of those and if we can turn over the page please to to
00:37:39 page please to to now we can see topics discussed now in relation to this does this is have you seen this document recently at all?
00:37:48 all? No. No I haven't. Have you do you remember seeing this at at the time that it was produced? No.
00:37:55 No. because it refers to activist postG views, 2012 Olympics, climate change issues, DSI, refers to a number of individuals including Helen Steel
00:38:07 individuals including Helen Steel and then can you see a F it refers to EDO implications of legal action in connection with Lawson Cutendon in
00:38:18 connection with Lawson Cutendon in connection with injunctions. So there seems to be a record of a desk meeting that you were in attendance and one of the items
00:38:29 one of the items was implications of a legal action in connection with uh a firm of solicitors involved in injunctions. Does that does that ring any bells?
00:38:40 Does that does that ring any bells? No, it doesn't, I'm afraid. Not not not at all.
00:38:50 Would you agree that it would have been inappropriate for you as an undercover officer uh to uh report
00:39:02 as an undercover officer uh to uh report on uh legal actions against the uh police or actions relating uh to civil proceedings involving the Metropolitan Police?
00:39:13 Metropolitan Police? Yes.
00:39:13 Yes. Were you ever advised by your managers in relation to uh matters of that nature that well look you mustn't report on uh any legal cases
00:39:28 you mustn't report on uh any legal cases you mustn't rec report report on any legal cases involving the Metropolitan Police. Did that ever arise in conversation ever? Please I I don't think so. Not specifically. I remember I remember being reminded that
00:39:41 remember I remember being reminded that we could never mislead a court on on one occasion, but I can't remember in what context that was. But when you were advised that you shouldn't mislead a court from your earlier
00:39:53 mislead a court from your earlier evidence that you never practically had to action that advice, but what was your understanding of not misleading a court? Was it to give your false name?
00:40:04 Was it to give your false name? Yes.
00:40:05 Yes. Nevertheless, yes. when in the context of there was there was a I became aware or we became aware it may even have been something that was discussed at a Thursday meeting that in
00:40:17 discussed at a Thursday meeting that in the past I think somebody had uh been asked to give a witness statement regarding I think it was a hunt sab
00:40:28 hunt sab job a field where someone had been drawn into a situation where either they had been arrested or had been asked to provide a witness statement on behalf of the person who was arrested. And
00:40:40 the person who was arrested. And was this Jim Boiling HN4? Yeah, it might it might have been. What do you recall of that, please, from your perspective? Um, I I can just recall
00:40:54 I I can just recall it being a subject. It wasn't sort of one of the big topics in a meeting. I I can't remember how it came up, but I think it may not even have been a whole meeting group. It
00:41:05 have been a whole meeting group. It might have just been a sort of sub field where we would sit and chat briefly amongst what was going on after the main meeting and it came up somehow. Was Jim Boing there during that meeting? No, no, he would been long gone. But it
00:41:17 No, no, he would been long gone. But it was it was sort of remembering back to something that he had been involved in. And I think one of the one of the um uh covers was in the room at the time and he was just literally sort of put his
00:41:29 he was just literally sort of put his finger in the air and just sort of said something along the lines of look if this ever happens. You know, you cannot mislead a court. You can't, you know, get involved in that.
00:41:40 that. And the example given was Jim Boyd and what happened to him. That's correct. Did anyone ask any follow-up questions in relation to that? I don't think so. No. Um,
00:41:51 I don't think so. No. Um, were you ever given any particular direction about reporting on politicians, members of parliament at all?
00:42:00 all? No, I don't believe so. What was your approach to your reporting that uh mentioned politicians? Did did you have any
00:42:12 politicians? Did did you have any particular uh concerns over mentioning uh politicians in your reporting or was that something that did not um ever
00:42:23 that something that did not um ever cross your mind at all? No, I don't think it figured in my thinking. Um quite frankly, I if if I'd been at a meeting or an event and a politician had spoken, I'm sure I would
00:42:34 politician had spoken, I'm sure I would have recorded the fact that they were there and had given a speech or whatever. I wouldn't have felt it necessary to exclude that. Do you ever recall at any time your man
00:42:46 Do you ever recall at any time your man managers mentioning reporting that mentioned politicians at all?
00:42:52 all? No.
00:42:55 Were you ever concerned in your reporting that you referred from time to time to elected politicians? Is that something that you were concerned about at all?
00:43:06 were concerned about at all? No, it wasn't. I just want to give a few examples. I wonder if we could just turn up MPS29410
00:43:12 please.
00:43:17 So this is a tab C268 in volume six. It's one of your reports dated the 20th of October 2003. I wonder
00:43:28 dated the 20th of October 2003. I wonder if we could please turn to page six
00:43:33 and it's the second report here.
00:43:40 a stop the war coalition protests surrounding the forthcoming visit of US President George Bush. Andrew Bergen from the steering committee of the stop the war co coalition is apparently in
00:43:52 the war co coalition is apparently in touch with the mayor of London's office about the forthcoming visit of US President George Bush. Mayor Livingston is reportedly sympathetic to those planning to protest the visit and has
00:44:03 planning to protest the visit and has offered to host an alternate peace conference during the time that Bush will be in the UK. Several other activist groups, including Justice, Not Vengeance, and Voices in the Wilderness,
00:44:14 Vengeance, and Voices in the Wilderness, plan to approach the mayor to ask for more practical assistance, such as accommodation space for any activists that may arrive in London after the European Social Forum.
00:44:26 European Social Forum. Did you consider it um or if someone were to observe that it's inappropriate uh to report um about a contact uh with
00:44:38 uh to report um about a contact uh with the uh mayor of London's office about a a peace conference? What's your uh response to that? That this is not
00:44:49 uh response to that? That this is not something that is appropriate for an undercover SDS officer to report on. I suppose I would say that again it's just information that's coming in and might
00:45:00 information that's coming in and might enrich or deepen the understanding of what was going to go on at that that time and it was just you know very much that was a type of information that seemingly was was required and and I
00:45:12 seemingly was was required and and I never had any push back if that makes sense. No one ever said hey we don't need to know that. If they had, I'd have said fine, absolutely not a problem. You know,
00:45:21 know, if we could turn take that down and move to MPS3
00:45:25 to MPS3 1 1971, please. This is at tab C289
00:45:34 in volume six.
00:45:39 And so we have here the last report on that first page. The last paragraph refers to Ken Livingston, London mayor, uh also gave a
00:45:51 Livingston, London mayor, uh also gave a passionate speech where he called upon activists to oppose the BNP by any means possible and pledged that he would do all he could to ensure that activists were not prevented uh from demonstrating
00:46:04 were not prevented uh from demonstrating on London streets. Would
00:46:12 you give the same answer that this was the type of information that was your word required? Yes.
00:46:20 Yes. Required by who? Whom? Who who um considered that information helpful? For example, here about Ken Livingston. I I think it is just part of you know
00:46:32 I I think it is just part of you know that that in packet of information if you like that was going up. It was the sort of thing that I know I'm sounding like a broken record but it's it's you know it was the type of thing that the S squad seemed to want. Um and that was
00:46:45 squad seemed to want. Um and that was you know it that was reflected in the sort of feedback we received such as it was and
00:46:51 was and it you know it informed that was literally part of the sort of information that they seemed to want to receive.
00:46:59 receive. Can we take that down please and move to MPS29410?
00:47:04 This is at tab C268 in volume six. What if we can go please to page three of 29410
00:47:22 if we can go to page three of that.
00:47:27 Thank you. So if we look at the last two reports there. So, stop the war protests surrounding the forthcoming visit of US President Bush. Uh, the Stop the War
00:47:38 President Bush. Uh, the Stop the War Coalition are organizing a raft of protests and actions in response to the planned visit of US President George Bush. The coalition is planning a big public rally for the evening of Tuesday the 18th of November at the Friends
00:47:50 the 18th of November at the Friends Meeting House on the Houston Road. Uh speakers confirmed thus include Ron Kovich, Tony Ben and almost inevitably George Galloway and again the same
00:48:03 George Galloway and again the same answer previously that references Tony Ben, George Galloway, your understanding was this the sort of information that uh
00:48:14 was this the sort of information that uh the people that read your reports were interested in? Yes. And if we can just zoom out of that and just look at the report that follows please.
00:48:24 Similar report and it says they are hoping to hold a mock trial of George Bush. Uh Bob Andrews MP is reportedly willing to take part and several other
00:48:35 willing to take part and several other high-profile lawyers have been invited to uh take um to participate. So again, in relation to that, looking back now, if someone were to make the
00:48:47 back now, if someone were to make the point that uh it was unusual or inappropriate for undercover police officers to report on MPs being willing
00:48:58 officers to report on MPs being willing to take part in speeches, events, what would your response be to that looking back on it now? Yeah, I suppose in the cold light of day, it Yeah, I wouldn't disagree
00:49:09 day, it Yeah, I wouldn't disagree necessarily. If we can take that down please. Could we turn up MPS treble 8909 at tab C117
00:49:25 which is in volume five.
00:49:31 Globalized resistance has become aware of the fact that John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, is due to host a party at the Royal Lancaster Hall on Wednesday the 29th of May to celebrate
00:49:42 Wednesday the 29th of May to celebrate the success of various PFIs. Uh this news has not been wellreceived, especially in the light of the recent Potters Bar rail disaster and is now likely that GR will organize a protest
00:49:54 likely that GR will organize a protest at the event. Details of the event will now feature in the weekly Globalized email message and depending on how much support Taylor gives it. The event has the potential to attract a number of
00:50:05 the potential to attract a number of protesters. This point in time, Taylor is of the opinion that this is exactly the sort of event that GR should cover. Now, would you accept that this is of course mentioning a politician John Prescott, the deputy the then deputy
00:50:17 Prescott, the deputy the then deputy prime minister? It's a it's a different context because this is in relation to a potential
00:50:24 potential demonstration or or action that might um affect John Prescott as a as opposed to for example John Prescott um supporting
00:50:35 for example John Prescott um supporting something or giving a speech. So in relation to this sort of uh intelligence were you aware of where that intelligence was disseminated to?
00:50:48 that intelligence was disseminated to? In other words, were you aware that when you reporting about a potential action involving John Prescott that he or or the support team around him
00:50:59 he or or the support team around him would would be alerted as a result of your intelligence? Yes, I think so. And would you accept that there's a distinction between referring to a politician in this context compared to
00:51:10 politician in this context compared to some of the examples that we were looking at earlier? Yes, I would. I wonder if we can take that down, please. Please could we turn up MPS treble 8247? This is in tab C73.
00:51:22 This is in tab C73. It's in volume 4. It's one of your reports of the 26th of February 2002.
00:51:34 Now in relation to this uh document, I wonder if we can look to the right of the we can see your reporting ground in your groundhog day days. right at the bottom. Privacy is also being muted as a
00:51:46 bottom. Privacy is also being muted as a possibility for being the socialist alliance candidate in the upcoming May bi-elections for the Peekom Ward uh that contains the Peekom Rye estate. And if
00:51:57 contains the Peekom Rye estate. And if we can just go into the next page, please
00:52:02 uh and then privacy uh owns a mobile number uh privacy. So in terms of the end of this report again with the looking back on your reporting,
00:52:16 looking back on your reporting, would you agree if someone suggested that uh reporting about someone being considered as a uh candidate?
01:12:28 118. You were just talking about your commendation and I I wonder if we can turn to HM118's statement, please. Uh, page 90.
01:12:54 senior management and oversight bodies. And you state and set out here that while I'm while I am told that AXO visited the SDS in 2001, I do not recall
01:13:05 visited the SDS in 2001, I do not recall any senior managers visiting the SDS during my time as at UCO. Now in relation to your deployment from July 2001 to December 2007, so from that
01:13:18 2001 to December 2007, so from that period you don't recall any senior managers visiting the SDS? No, not at all. I I I think I might have missed one because I was away, but
01:13:33 is that something that looking back you're surprised on or or not because it's a secret unit? What what's your what are your thoughts in relation? No, I'm not particularly surprised. Um, I understand it happened a bit more
01:13:44 I understand it happened a bit more often in the past, but the next paragraph, please, where you state, I received an assistant commissioner's commendation for my role
01:13:57 commissioner's commendation for my role in Operation Caprice. This was the intelligence operation around the visit of President George W. Bush in November 2003. uh despite my output thereafter, it was
01:14:10 uh despite my output thereafter, it was not in the interest of those who wanted to shut the SDS down for any of us to be seen to have done a good job. So I was not recommended for any further commendations notwithstanding the
01:14:23 commendations notwithstanding the extended periods away from my family covering events and the contributions that I made. Now if we could just the first part your commenation that you
01:14:34 first part your commenation that you were provided in relation to your role in operation Capri. What was it about what you did as an undercover officer that warranted
01:14:45 an undercover officer that warranted accommodation in uh 2003? I I I I'm not sure how to answer that really. I I think that it was just you
01:14:56 really. I I think that it was just you know obviously you don't put in for accommodation yourself. It's not something you sort of prop your head up above the parapet and say, "Hey, I think I'm due this or or whatever." But it was you'd have to ask the people who, you
01:15:09 you'd have to ask the people who, you know, put me up for it. I've not, you know, it was probably just about the the quantity and the way that we were able to understand the likely nature of the protests and the amount of people. I
01:15:21 protests and the amount of people. I think perhaps I don't know the the the visit the the main protest as I recall for the visit of Bush was midweek and they were originally putting a very low
01:15:32 they were originally putting a very low figure on the number of protesters that were uh expected to turn up and I can recall being in a in a meeting with a couple of cover officers and them uh
01:15:46 couple of cover officers and them uh quoting some figures that had come through and you know it was our opinion you need to revise it by a factor of 10 really and perhaps that I don't know in terms of the the reference to
01:15:58 in terms of the the reference to assistant commissioners commendation c could you just give us an idea of how significant uh how valued uh such accommodation was amongst
01:16:10 accommodation was amongst the group of undercover officers that were your colleagues was this seen as something very valuable uh something that was deserved something to aim for or or how was it treated such
01:16:23 or or how was it treated such commendations? Um I I suppose they were welcome. I mean they they don't you know in my mind it's not particularly significant at all. I couldn't tell you where my accommodation is now. I've got no clue. Uh but I I
01:16:36 is now. I've got no clue. Uh but I I think some people considered them more valuable than others. I'm not trying to be meymouthed about it. I don't think they were particularly significant. They wouldn't affect your career going forwards if that made sense. you know, you wouldn't it wouldn't put you in a
01:16:47 you wouldn't it wouldn't put you in a stronger position to apply for other postings or positions. Reading that second part of that paragraph that we've just looked at, despite my output thereafter, it was not
01:16:59 despite my output thereafter, it was not in the interests of those who wanted to shut the SDS down for any of us to be seen to have done a good job. And so the suggestion there is this right that you felt that you deserved another
01:17:11 felt that you deserved another commendation but for political reasons within the SDS.
01:17:16 SDS. Yeah. No, I I I definitely didn't think I deserved a I think this slightly odd sentence is in in in my statement is in uh is in direct response to a question
01:17:28 uh is in direct response to a question being posed by the inquiry. is one of those because it used to be the case that it was almost a uh a standard thing that you would get accommodation at the end of your SDS deployment. So I suspect that's why it has been mentioned in that
01:17:40 that's why it has been mentioned in that way. Um
01:17:46 do do you consider that the second part of your deployment warranted accommodation looking back on it? No.
01:17:54 I'm going to ask if we can take that down please. I want to ask you about some just individual specific topics and the first of those is in relation to Fairford coaches in March 2003.
01:18:10 Now, did do you recall this ever coming up as as a topic in the SDS offices, the stopping of the Fairford uh coaches? Did that ever
01:18:22 that ever arise at all? This is where the coaches were turned around and this is where the coaches were stopped illegally turned turned back to London. Um do you recall at the time any any discussion or talk about this either
01:18:34 discussion or talk about this either other UCOs or managers? Only really peripherally. Um I it's certainly a you know it's certainly a situation that I heard mentioned but I
01:18:47 situation that I heard mentioned but I wasn't ever part of any com. It didn't affect me if that makes sense. So it wasn't something that I believe I had any impact in. So it was um I I remember it being raised in I think in direct
01:19:00 it being raised in I think in direct connection with a UCO who was out at the time and I think him getting pulled into a couple of little mini meetings when we had our regular Thursday meeting but they would disappear into a was that HN3
01:19:13 was that HN3 take your time have a look at the list that
01:19:15 that yes yes it was right so what do you recall about anything to do with Fairfield coaches and HN3 you mentioned and brought out. He was pulled into a few meetings. But
01:19:26 He was pulled into a few meetings. But could you please provide us with as much detail context that you can recall about this please? Literally only that it was clearly a thing. There was a situation uh ongoing and that it involved HN3.
01:19:41 uh ongoing and that it involved HN3. To what degree I couldn't tell you, but that it was for a while something that was being discussed where we used to meet. There were other room little rooms and some you know he clearly getting
01:19:52 and some you know he clearly getting pulled into a 10 15 minute discussion which apparently was about that. How do you know? You say apparently it was about that but how number of years ago but how do you know
01:20:03 number of years ago but how do you know he it was about Fairford coaches? I I I think I probably asked him you know if if you you know if you were in that environment and one of you got a bit of a tug and you know we need to disappear in a little room for 10 or 15
01:20:15 disappear in a little room for 10 or 15 minutes and discuss something like that. That would be quite natural if you were still hanging around over a cup of tea just to say, "Oh, what was that about?" You know, not much more than that really.
01:20:25 really. Was that quite a normal thing to do to ask your colleagues about details about their deployment? Was it was it a something that was often discussed what's happening with your deployment or
01:20:37 what's happening with your deployment or the opposite? It was a no-go zone. Never ask your colleagues about what they're doing.
01:20:41 doing. No, it definitely wasn't a nogo zone. uh but you were already trying to hold a lot of information in your head and sometimes you sometimes it was quite it could be hazardous to know things you
01:20:52 could be hazardous to know things you couldn't have known if if that makes sense. So you you'd guard against that. But
01:20:56 But so am I overstating what you're describing? So you're at the uh SDS meeting you're aware that HN3 gets pulled into another room for about 15
01:21:08 pulled into another room for about 15 minutes
01:21:09 minutes afterwards. You then say words to the event. Well, what was that all about? And then he said something to you that related to Fairford coaches. Yeah, I think I think probably saying,
01:21:20 Yeah, I think I think probably saying, "Oh, it's a thing about the coaches or whatever and you know, you don't want to know about it." At which point I would have the sense to say, "Okay, have a cup of tea."
01:21:31 of tea." Did Did he say you don't want to know about it or or just pause and just think in terms of what HN3 said? So he comes out of the the room
01:21:44 said? So he comes out of the the room and sometime later you then ask him what that's all about. Just take us back to what he said to you that you can recall. I I I I I can't recall he said very much
01:21:55 I I I I I can't recall he said very much about it at all. And I'm not I'm not trying to be meymouth about it. It's um I I think it was a topic that was clearly sort of not one for conversation and that that wasn't that uncommon you
01:22:06 and that that wasn't that uncommon you know to sort of say you know you don't you know need to know is a thing and you don't need to know so understood but but he and you remember after all this time that although he didn't provide detail it was in relation
01:22:18 provide detail it was in relation something to do with Fairford coaches. Yes.
01:22:20 Yes. All right. It's a particular report. At the end of Guy Taylor's uh evidence last week, um he questioned one of your reports and
01:22:31 he questioned one of your reports and flagged out one of your reports. And I just want to ask you about it, please. It is MPS29367,
01:22:39 which is at tab C267 in volume six.
01:22:51 I wonder if we can go to page two.
01:23:07 Now the top report there. So this is again back in the globalized resistance reporting era. So Privacy is
01:23:20 resistance reporting era. So Privacy is an activist with Globalized Resistance, the Londonbased anti- capitalist group. Uh she has recently returned to London and is believed to be living at and the address is redacted, a residential
01:23:31 address is redacted, a residential street just to the southeast of the Tibet Corner roundabout on the A3. Uh while she recently also gave her address as address two, it is believed that that
01:23:43 as address two, it is believed that that was a last second effort to disguise her true address. It is known that she routinely travels home from central London via a mainline train to Putney
01:23:56 London via a mainline train to Putney and then a single onward journey by bus. This would seem to suggest that address one is the likely true address. Now in
01:24:09 one is the likely true address. Now in terms of that information um what would you say to the observation uh that uh this is a uh description of
01:24:21 uh that uh this is a uh description of uh a woman uh traveling uh home to her home address and the only way of reporting that is if you followed her home. What would you say to that suggestion?
01:24:32 suggestion? No. Well, I certainly didn't um follow her home. I mean, you'll be aware just from those locations that this was very close to where my last cover accommodation address was. I know who
01:24:44 accommodation address was. I know who this is about. And we um you know, we lived quite close to each other and I can only imagine it came up in conversation about commuting back from from from town. I absolutely did not
01:24:58 from from town. I absolutely did not follow
01:25:00 follow you know anybody at any time home to a home address.
01:25:06 May I move to um another topic and this is in relation to references in some of the reporting to children. May I ask please that MPS052693
01:25:21 please is put on screen. It is at tab B89
01:25:27 B89 which is in volume three.
01:25:33 Now if we turn to the next page we can see this we've looked at this before. This is the authorization docket. So it contains very many pages of your various authorizations. I'm going to in fact ask if we can go all the way please to page
01:25:45 if we can go all the way please to page 66.
01:25:50 Now if we can see a number of bullet points or if we can just expand those please and I want to count down one to to the yes thank you.
01:26:04 Now five bullet points up from the bottom o of that um image that we can see there and this is under the heading really some of RW's more significant reporting
01:26:16 some of RW's more significant reporting was as follows and here it says the use of children and the elderly to lead walkouts in the hope that this would make the police hesitant and could have
01:26:28 make the police hesitant and could have potentially led to severe uh embarrassment. And so if it was um said that the
01:26:39 And so if it was um said that the suggestion uh that uh children or indeed the elderly were being used by groups that you were spying upon um was uh was
01:26:52 that you were spying upon um was uh was was not was not the case and that those groups um would not use children in this way. What what would your response be to to that? because here is set out some of
01:27:04 to that? because here is set out some of your more significant reporting refers to the use of children to lead walkouts. Uh the response um that and that was not the case that children were not used in
01:27:16 the case that children were not used in such a cynical way and that is a misrepresentation of um the care and the welfare that was delivered to children by the activists
01:27:27 delivered to children by the activists you spied on. What was your reaction to that please? Yeah, I've got no recollection of ever reporting on that. And you know, obviously these aren't my words. This is someone's summary of my
01:27:38 words. This is someone's summary of my my reporting, but if I had if I had um and I I don't I can't recall a single incident where I had ever seen that
01:27:49 incident where I had ever seen that happen, but if it had, I would absolutely would have reported it because, you know, public order policing would need to know that there were children and the elderly around. But I I don't recall it at all.
01:28:02 and you know it's a it would be a cynical tactic and I've never heard of it.
01:28:05 it. If we look a couple of bullet points down uh the marking out of the proposed third runway uh which was again to be led by the 100 children on camp
01:28:19 does that ring any bells in terms of information that you provided? That does actually ring a bell. Um I I think that was one of the possibly one
01:28:30 think that was one of the possibly one of the uh proposed and and anybody can propose anything at any time. Um but it I think there was a you know there was talk of that being an action which could
01:28:41 talk of that being an action which could happen. Um, you know, if there had been a if there had been some form of uh action proposed where you were going to have 100 children,
01:28:52 have 100 children, you know, marking out the third runway, then it would be useful for policing to know that, you know, in the context of the fact that that would be policed very differently than, you know, 100 adults.
01:29:03 differently than, you know, 100 adults. I wonder if we could um call up um MPS 075
01:29:11 075 721.
01:29:13 721. So 0075721.
01:29:23 So just take a uh time to glance at that. So is is that your reporting? Activists consider that the likelihood
01:29:34 Activists consider that the likelihood of successful mass walkout on Sunday to be slim. It is likely that a smaller walk out comprising children and elderly will be all. There are about a hundred
01:29:45 will be all. There are about a hundred children under seven years at the camp. It appears to cover similar topics to the document that we were were looking
01:29:57 the document that we were were looking at. Yeah.
01:29:58 at. Yeah. Is this
01:29:59 Is this I've got a vague memory that I and I I'm being as honest Oh, not as honest. I'm being as um comprehensive as I can
01:30:10 I'm being as um comprehensive as I can be um and trying to remember exactly. I've got a now I've seen this. I've got a half memory that actually I received whilst I was there. Someone said, "Could you give us a rough estimate of the
01:30:21 you give us a rough estimate of the number of children in the camp?" So perhaps that's come from me when I was there.
01:30:27 there. And so is that the case that a number of the points that you make in reporting for example such as this direct response to specific questions that you were put were put to you for
01:30:38 that you were put were put to you for example such as numbers. Yes.
01:30:45 Whilst we have this climate camp report up, can may I just briefly return to that topic because we were talking earlier about uh legal observers in
01:30:56 earlier about uh legal observers in relation to climate camp and I just want to go back to that uh subject when I was describing legal observers and I was asking you the people there just to uh record what happened. But I
01:31:10 just to uh record what happened. But I if it was said that well legal observers are there specifically in relation to being witnesses for potential civil proceedings against police,
01:31:22 police, possibility of false arrests and and witnessing those proceedings. Again, would you agree that that is that is what they were doing? Yeah, absolutely.
01:31:34 Yeah, absolutely. And so if it was said that it was inappropriate of for an undercover police officer to report about uh legal observers who were there to record
01:31:47 observers who were there to record details about matters, civil matters involving the police. I I think I would I you know I would only report on that if I again if I thought that it was going to answer a
01:31:59 thought that it was going to answer a specific question or just uh inform the understanding of what was happening out on the ground at that time. Would you agree that the last people to cause any public order issues would have
01:32:10 cause any public order issues would have been the the the legal observers? 100%.
01:32:13 100%. And so what was the request then for reporting on that? Because we're talking about you know specific questions. You said well I would have been been asked about that. Could you provide us a bit more detail about that that would what
01:32:25 more detail about that that would what sort of questions were you asked about legal observers that you can recall? I don't recall ever being asked a a specific question about a legal observer
01:32:42 in relation to climate camp. Before we move away from this report and this subject,
01:32:48 subject, was there any uh
01:32:52 uh political
01:32:54 political uh input that you recall when you were undercover at um the climate camp event in 2007 regarding Heathrow? So I think
01:33:05 in 2007 regarding Heathrow? So I think that in terms of any perceived risk from for example government ministers was it ever said to you well because you described earlier well you're very reluctant coming to the end of your deployment is really not something that you wanted to get involved in you were
01:33:17 you wanted to get involved in you were specifically asked by Frankie flood no you go go there you must um do that was it ever said to you that there was ministerial interest in in in
01:33:31 ministerial interest in in in that particular event the risks to He airport. Did that ever feature? I don't recall any. No. Right.
01:33:45 Specific um topic of subversion. Now you refer to this at page 733 of your statement. I wonder if we can take this document down
01:33:57 in relation to your deployment um as as a whole. Would you agree that
01:34:08 you agree that in terms of your main concern was relating to public order? Yes. A
01:34:16 Yes. A and was not uh focused on for example violence.
01:34:21 violence. Not particularly. No. A and in in terms of subversion because here you um paragraph 195 you say as my prest
01:34:33 paragraph 195 you say as my prest career uh was in you refer to the squads I lacked anything but a broad understanding of the branch's role in countering subversive activity. Uh I
01:34:44 countering subversive activity. Uh I knew that the SWP maintained its traditional revolutionary aims and as a spin-off from that GR could be said to be subversive. Uh the activity was focused on public order however rather
01:34:57 focused on public order however rather than directly towards subversion. And so in terms of the justification, what you are bearing in mind when you're conducting your undercover work, would
01:35:08 conducting your undercover work, would it be correct to say that subversion uh did didn't feature in in your thought process?
01:35:15 process? Yes, it would. And in terms of the uh groups that you reported on um would they in your opinion have um met
01:35:28 would they in your opinion have um met the the definition of subversion? If we use, for example, as referred to quite often, the Harris definition, activities threatening the safety or well-being of the state and intended to undermine or
01:35:41 the state and intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary do democracy by political, industrial or violent means. The groups that you infiltrated, would you accept, were not subversive? No, not in the main. I mean, it's, you
01:35:52 No, not in the main. I mean, it's, you know, it's literally in the SWP's mission statement, isn't it? But I no it wasn't something that featured in my thinking or or or day-to-day activity at all.
01:36:06 Now I want to ask about the deployment of some of your contemporaries. Now,
01:36:13 Now, were you
01:36:15 were you particularly close to HN 104, Carlo Saraki?
01:36:25 Um, yes, I knew I knew I knew Carlo very well. We had worked together for a number of years before he went off to SDS.
01:36:37 when he was deployed into the SDS. Um, how close were you then? Um,
01:36:46 Um, we we were still close in so much as we both worked on the same unit and we would see each other twice a week. So, his deployment 2000 to 2006, you are
01:36:58 So, his deployment 2000 to 2006, you are one year uh further on than that 2001 to 2007. So, significant overlap with your deployments. Would you regarded him as as a friend?
01:37:09 Would you regarded him as as a friend? Yes.
01:37:10 Yes. Did you socialize with him during the period of your deployment when you over overlapped for that five years or so? Would you would you socialize with him? In the re in the real world.
01:37:21 In the re in the real world. In the real world. Yes. No.
01:37:25 You asked in the real world and and your answer is no. All right. As as an undercover officer, did you socialize with them? Well, no. No. No. Not not no not uh when I was out doing my undercover role. I
01:37:38 I was out doing my undercover role. I suppose the the distinction is I can recall a handful of times in fact probably not even a handful three or two or three three or four times you were able to go for a point um after a
01:37:50 able to go for a point um after a meeting. So you were actually you know meeting at one of the locations where we had our regular meetings and it was possible to to you know slink off and get a a beer together. But that was
01:38:01 get a a beer together. But that was pretty rare quite frankly. And you know you could only do that because we were deployed in broadly similar fields. So suddenly someone had come in from your
01:38:13 suddenly someone had come in from your organization it wouldn't look out of character. I wouldn't be drinking from with somebody that I would normally expected to share a beer with. Ju just to be clear you at the time I if during your deployment if if someone had asked
01:38:25 your deployment if if someone had asked you about Carlos Saraki and someone asked is he a friend is he a friend of yours you would have said yes yeah absolutely and so a good friend yes
01:38:35 yes so could you help us with the sense to which he was a good friend because what you've you've described so far is maybe once or very rarely meeting with him. So
01:38:46 once or very rarely meeting with him. So why would he be your very good friend if you're if you're not meeting up with him?
01:38:50 him? Well, because because because during this period spare time was you know was rare and if you had the opportunity to have an a whole evening at home or you know a day doing
01:39:02 at home or you know a day doing something else you you'd be I would want to get home and spend time with my my wife and children. So was the friendship more in terms of your interaction when you attended say for the the meetings
01:39:14 you attended say for the the meetings the the regular meetings and your interaction with him then? Yes.
01:39:25 You are aware now that um when he was deployed that he engaged in uh sexual relationships. Yes.
01:39:36 relationships. Yes. Yes.
01:39:37 Yes. Now,
01:39:39 Now, given your description uh of him as a friend of yours, um were you aware uh
01:39:50 friend of yours, um were you aware uh that he was doing this at the time? No.
01:40:00 Do you ever recall him talking about relationships with activists? No. And I wouldn't expect him to, you
01:40:11 No. And I wouldn't expect him to, you know, it wasn't the sort of thing that you were advertised. I would I would think, you know, if you if you if you were doing that, I don't think you'd be, you know, broadcasting it to to all and
01:40:22 you know, broadcasting it to to all and Sunundry
01:40:24 Sunundry when you were at meetings. It's just not I just don't see why he would do that or anybody else for that matter. When did you first find out that he had engaged in sexual
01:40:35 that he had engaged in sexual relationships? When all this started to come out in the media um when the revelations I I first learned about it when I read it on online, you know, as part of general
01:40:46 online, you know, as part of general mainstream media reporting. Could you help us with the SDS social events? How often would there be a social event in the SDS, please?
01:40:59 social event in the SDS, please? An organized social event? Uh both both types. Yeah. Um very rarely, actually. Um I I can recall um you know, there wasn't a
01:41:10 can recall um you know, there wasn't a Christmas party or anything like that. There was never once a social event where partners were invited during my time.
01:41:18 time. Pausing there. So your evidence is that from when you joined in uh 2001 to the end of the SDS that you weren't aware of
01:41:30 end of the SDS that you weren't aware of any social events where partners were invited?
01:41:34 invited? No.
01:41:40 Do you remember any social events, any team building events that could come under that category? Yeah, I can remember. I think it was fairly early on in in my deployment.
01:41:53 fairly early on in in my deployment. There was a leaving leaving do or trip for somebody. I can't remember who it was. It might even have been someone who was formally on the uh on the unit, but I remember we
01:42:05 on the uh on the unit, but I remember we had a sort of outwardbound almost thing. It was a canoeing trip on a river. I don't even know, South Wales down in the southwest somewhere like that where we drove down, spent a long day paddling up
01:42:18 drove down, spent a long day paddling up a river and then there was a barbecue and some beers um and overnight in a bunk house. Um
01:42:31 were you um the drink the leaving drinks that you're referring to was that the leaving drinks for Ron Gilbertson? It might have been. Yes.
01:42:50 What do you recall of that occasion? What I' what I've told you really. Um I you know I can remember driving down meeting up with others from the unit. Uh
01:43:03 meeting up with others from the unit. Uh it was you know as I said it was paddling up a river or downstream on a river in in canoes and that sort of thing. Quite a long trip and then being picked up at the other end I think and
01:43:14 picked up at the other end I think and then returned to like a little mini outwardbound center if that makes sense with wood cabins and I think that we were you know we're all in bunk beds and I think split between between two huts
01:43:28 I think split between between two huts or whatever. There was a barbecue uh and you know some beers and it was an opportunity to let off steam. Yeah, a little bit. Absolutely. You've already alluded to yesterday the
01:43:41 You've already alluded to yesterday the the strains that you were under as an undercover officer. Presumably other UCOs were also um under some strain as well. Would you agree with that?
01:43:52 agree with that? Yes. Yeah. And in events such as the one you're describing, um particularly um after drinks, did did the conversation um not
01:44:03 drinks, did did the conversation um not turn to particular issues that UCOs were experiencing or particularly interesting parts of their deployment? Not that I recall, not very often. It
01:44:15 Not that I recall, not very often. It was almost, you know, it was, you know, someone would say not work, not work. you know, it was an opportunity to sort of live in the real world and actually not talk about that type of stuff. I think people enjoyed that freedom. It
01:44:26 think people enjoyed that freedom. It was a rare opportunity not to be thinking about those sorts of things. Do do you
01:44:34 Do do you not recall at once the subject of relationships arising at all during not just this particular um away day but just at any other time with the
01:44:46 just at any other time with the undercover officers who were your colleagues? Did did it never arise at once during all those years of your deployment as a topic o over and above what we talked about
01:44:57 o over and above what we talked about yesterday with regard to James? Um I I don't I don't Oh, and with um the Australia New Zealand situation we spoke about.
01:45:08 spoke about. So aside from you described yesterday James Thompson passport and the suggestion was a relationship was involved and you mentioned yesterday in terms of John Dyn and Helen Steel. Apart
01:45:19 terms of John Dyn and Helen Steel. Apart from those two examples over the years of your deployment, was there no mention of it a topic in passing or raised as a
01:45:30 of it a topic in passing or raised as a joke or raised as a particular concern? Not not at all. Not really. I mean o over and above there was some discussion about it after the Mike Dell's meeting that we spoke
01:45:42 the Mike Dell's meeting that we spoke about yesterday where he you know where he gave very clear direction about it. I think there was, you know, some natural conversation about it afterwards, but no, it wasn't something that came up because going back to that, the way in
01:45:55 because going back to that, the way in which you described it was very out of character for Mike Dell to stand up in a meeting and to lay down the law in that way. Did that not come up again in later conversations, maybe drinks with
01:46:06 conversations, maybe drinks with colleagues or even with Mike Dell himself? Going back to to that as a topic for discussions, remember that time you mentioned that? What was that all about? and and asking for more details. Did that not arise?
01:46:17 details. Did that not arise? It would seem natural enough, wouldn't it? Um, no, I don't think it did. I don't think it did. I think people were quite people were carrying quite a lot of information and I'm living this life and that life and it just wasn't
01:46:29 and that life and it just wasn't something that was discussed. I think people were quite compartmentalized about what they were doing and it it just didn't come up. So, I don't know whether that is a convenient moment for our mid-after
01:46:40 convenient moment for our mid-after afternoon. Of course. Um 10 minutes long enough. 10 minutes.
02:01:13 Mr. Ramble, HN118, you you were explaining apart from those two exceptions that at the time that you were deployed as an undercover officer in the SDS, you were
02:01:24 undercover officer in the SDS, you were not aware contemporaneously of UCOs having inappropriate relationships. Yes, that's right. And even though you were a friend of Carlos Saraki, um,
02:01:38 were a friend of Carlos Saraki, um, nevertheless, uh, you didn't have any inkling of that. No, none whatsoever. In relation to Mr. Saraki, did you notice any
02:01:50 notice any decline or any change in his his mental state at all? because you've described yesterday how it had an effect on you, but did you observe that specifically in
02:02:02 but did you observe that specifically in Carlos Saraki in any way? Um,
02:02:08 Um, I mean it would eb and flow. I think he at times he seemed he seemed quite tight, quite um quite anxious is the wrong word. He seemed quite um
02:02:20 wrong word. He seemed quite um occasionally preoccupied, not as sort of um
02:02:25 um expressive and sociable, not social, but you know, just relaxed as as as he normally would, but that wasn't uncommon if if that makes sense between as as a friend in those
02:02:36 sense between as as a friend in those circumstances. You you notice he's um under high stress or there's something not right. Would that not have prompted you to take him to one side and say, "Well, are you right? Is there anything up? what's going on in your
02:02:48 anything up? what's going on in your deployment, anything like that. Would you would you have asked those sorts of questions of a friend? I'm sure I did. I certainly asked him, you know, how you doing? You know, what's going on or whatever. And I I can
02:03:01 what's going on or whatever. And I I can I can recall a couple of occasions when he um
02:03:07 he um you know, indicated things weren't going particularly well at home between him and his wife. Yeah. But in general terms that things were a little bit bumpy. Um can you help us in terms of that in
02:03:20 can you help us in terms of that in particular? So again mentioned his deployment overlap significantly with yours 2000 to 2006.
02:03:31 significantly with yours 2000 to 2006. Are you able to help perhaps using as a marker when you began your deployments when he first mentioned problems at home in the way you've just described? Was
02:03:42 in the way you've just described? Was that early on towards the end? Please have a think about No, um
02:03:47 No, um I think a couple of couple of years in for me. So I would have been out for a couple of years or so. I I recall that he went through a bit of a a period I think I and I can't I'm I'm not sure but
02:04:00 think I and I can't I'm I'm not sure but it certainly after a couple of years or so after I had been launched and gone out so it would have been 2003 something like that that he um I think I mentioned it a couple of times. Now when you say
02:04:12 it a couple of times. Now when you say mentioned it, is this a one sentence and then no further conversation or was it a much longer conversation? No, very short conversation really. I mean it was it was a most of the time
02:04:24 mean it was it was a most of the time you were in one room you know with lots of people in there and it would have it was quite difficult to talk you know in private if that makes sense. So it wouldn't have been something that that would been discussed and and he would
02:04:38 would been discussed and and he would you know and he would sort of on occasion just sort of nip off that conversation a bit. It wasn't Did he raise it in one of those meetings where other UCOs were No. No. No. It would it would have been afterwards. It would have been after the
02:04:49 afterwards. It would have been after the meeting had taken place and they would sort of break up. People didn't all go out the door at the same time because that would have looked very strange. So it was it it was we used to sort of leave in drips and drabs and by group if
02:05:00 leave in drips and drabs and by group if that makes sense. Um, and would any of the managers have been aware of that from what you saw of conversations and things that he said? Would the would the managers have been a aware that he had
02:05:13 managers have been a aware that he had um problems at home? I I don't know. I can't say. I I I'm not sure.
02:05:18 sure. So, referred to as the field daddy being um there for a long time. Did you feel any sort of responsibility when you saw a a colleague and someone who hadn't
02:05:30 a a colleague and someone who hadn't been um there as long as you uh to to ask them more about their welfare, about how they are and sort of to take control in relationship? Yeah, absolutely. Of course, by the time
02:05:41 Yeah, absolutely. Of course, by the time I had assumed that role, Carlo would have been would have been um long gone. But I I certainly did and spent a lot of the lot of my time in the last year or so fielding, you know, inquiries from
02:05:53 so fielding, you know, inquiries from the the younger members of the unit that were being brought on board. Especially because in the last 18 months or so it was it was you know the the units,
02:06:04 was it was you know the the units, you know, the you know it was it was kind of accepted that the unit was going to fold and it was uh it was you know it was a constant source of conversation because people
02:06:15 source of conversation because people were still in their pre-eployment phases and were preparing their legends and were about to launch or we were still or the unit tentatively rather half-heartedly was still recruiting. So
02:06:27 half-heartedly was still recruiting. So new people were coming in and then immediately kind of realizing well hold on a minute this whole thing seems to be in jeopardy and is it actually specifically in terms of what you said to other UCOs on the topic of welfare. C
02:06:41 to other UCOs on the topic of welfare. C can you remember any particular instances where you discussed with a a UCO
02:06:48 UCO an issue in relation to their welfare in respect for example let's say they were struggling or clearly upset or unhappy or stressed about something did is that something that you did in that role that
02:06:59 something that you did in that role that you sort of take them to one side ask them if they were all right was was that your role
02:07:04 your role it wasn't my role um you know in any official capacity but yeah absolutely I would you know if someone had was obviously upset or anxious or something, I'd definitely have a cup of tea with them and, you know, try and give them
02:07:16 them and, you know, try and give them the benefit of some advice around it. And was that advice was the stress ever about anything to do with relationships at all?
02:07:27 relationships at all? No, not that I recall. What What sort of thing was it about then?
02:07:31 then? It
02:07:33 It in the main, especially towards the end, it was just the constant uncertainty about the way forward. Um, it was It was the you know there was a huge amount of inconsistency about whether SDS was
02:07:46 inconsistency about whether SDS was going to continue. You know it changed from week to week. One week it would be absolutely we're going forward because this came in the wake of the amalgamation between special branch and the anti-terrorist branch into the unified command. Brand new management
02:07:58 unified command. Brand new management team came in. Um and it you know for I think for most of us who've been there a bit longer it was clear the writing was on the wall almost immediately that the
02:08:10 on the wall almost immediately that the unit was going to fold. It was just a question of when in going back to your contemporaries apart from you've already talked about uh HN14 Jim Boiling the the passport um
02:08:23 uh HN14 Jim Boiling the the passport um issue and and what happened there during your deployment. Can you recall uh any of your colleagues doing anything inappropriate or being uh pulled up for
02:08:37 inappropriate or being uh pulled up for uh any inappropriate conduct in any way? Um
02:08:44 I don't think so. No.
02:08:48 What was the level of in terms of these meetings? Of course, these are these are secret meetings. all of you um meeting up uh weekly and what
02:08:59 of you um meeting up uh weekly and what was the tone of those meetings when you were meeting with your contemporaries and how professional were those with those meetings given essentially they're behind closed doors was it was there was
02:09:10 behind closed doors was it was there was there banter was it very serious how would you describe what happened in those meeting rooms from the perspective of the the tone that people were using um it varied I think some people were
02:09:22 um it varied I think some people were more relaxed than others uh but it was it was a relatively informal atmosphere, but it was, you know, you were there, you know, it was business-like and, you
02:09:33 you know, it was business-like and, you know, you were there to do have the meeting, get your admin sorted, meet with your cover, get back out the door. I wouldn't say there was particularly jovial or
02:09:44 jovial or now not not an SDS weekly meeting, but we were looking at previously, I've put a document up on screen. It was a desk meeting and one of the topics listed was Helen Steel. Now I want to ask about the
02:09:57 Helen Steel. Now I want to ask about the meetings, the weekly meetings with your colleagues. Were individual activists referred to during those meetings? So for example, did would you get the same
02:10:11 for example, did would you get the same names coming up again and again? Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely you would. And so well to use that example, Helen Steel.
02:10:17 Steel. Yes. Well, Helen still in the in in the context of the incident we spoke about yesterday where it would it became apparent that um there was a situation with her looking for a former UCO.
02:10:32 Leaving aside that particular uh context, was there ever discussion about specific activists in a in a derogatory tone? For example,
02:10:46 in a in a derogatory tone? For example, would would would someone refer to a um a particular activist in a derogatory way in in a in a negative
02:10:57 way in in a in a negative a negative way? Not that I can recall. No. I mean, how were how did you and your colleagues
02:11:09 you and your colleagues refer to those that you reporting on in these meetings? Was it quite often by their initials or or some some people were so commonplace that you know you you know people would be able
02:11:21 know you you know people would be able to mention their first name and you know you would know who they were speaking about.
02:11:26 about. Was there a mixture of attitudes by you and your colleagues uh towards those that you spied upon? For example, did did you hold some in high regard, some in low regard? Did you make fun of
02:11:39 some in low regard? Did you make fun of uh of some? Did you praise others? Could you help us with what was discussed between you and your colleagues about individual activists sort of and again under the heading of this the tone in
02:11:50 under the heading of this the tone in which they were referred to please? Yeah, I mean I I you know it was you know people were certainly referred to and you sort of roll your eyes occasionally but um it was most of the
02:12:03 occasionally but um it was most of the time it was you know it was fairly innocuous and it was just you know someone would say something you know you talk start talking about someone being I mean when you talk about banter or
02:12:15 mean when you talk about banter or whatever that sort of thing you know if someone when I was there in the early days you know you if I was there ready to go a notebook out, someone would say, you know, the trots are here, former Vanguard, you know, or something like
02:12:27 Vanguard, you know, or something like that. And it was it was that kind of thing. It was it was, you know, I
02:12:33 I I want to um ask you about something you've set out in your statement, please. I wonder if we can bring that up on screen. Um page if we can begin by looking at page
02:12:44 page if we can begin by looking at page 65, please.
02:12:53 here you say I was aware of Mark Kennedy uh because he was also involved in groups that were part of the descent network and whenever I saw him he always
02:13:05 network and whenever I saw him he always seemed to have the newest and most expensive clothing and specialist equipment including climbing gear. Uh I was aware that he was a police officer and clearly had been deployed as a non
02:13:18 and clearly had been deployed as a non SDSU
02:13:19 SDSU and because of this and his propensity to attract attention, I stayed well away from him. From the earliest occasion, I deliberately made sure that all my
02:13:30 deliberately made sure that all my clothing was well worn, as were the sleeping bags and other equipment that I used when I was at convergence centers around the UK and Europe. In my view, new high-quality equipment like that was
02:13:41 new high-quality equipment like that was a key indicator of a commercial chis or a journalist. It meant that I was often uncomfortable while I was away, but it was preferable to drawing too much attention to myself in the wrong way. If
02:13:54 attention to myself in the wrong way. If we go to the next paragraph, please. As I kept a distance between myself and Mark Kennedy, I only became aware of the allegations against him in respect of
02:14:07 allegations against him in respect of sexual relationships in his undercover identity and his role in relation to a proposed action at the Ratcliffe Onsaw power station when or shortly before
02:14:19 power station when or shortly before these were published. I am not sure that I was aware of any allegation that he provided information to private companies until I read my rule 9 request. Now earlier today when I was
02:14:31 request. Now earlier today when I was asking about your knowledge of any UCOs in the NPOIU um Mark Kennedy was one of those.
02:14:39 those. Yes.
02:14:45 Was the officer with uh co undercover name Marco Jacobs another of those? Yes.
02:14:55 Could we please turn to page 94
02:15:00 94 in your statement please? It's paragraph 256.
02:15:08 While he was not an SDS UCO and again the same topic, I encountered the NPIU UCO Mark Kennedy during my deployment. In addition to what I've said at paragraphs 177 to 178 above, you were
02:15:21 paragraphs 177 to 178 above, you were just looking at, I tried to keep a safe distance from him because I was concerned about his behavior and the amount of new clothing and equipment he always seemed to have. It is no surprise that those he
02:15:32 It is no surprise that those he associated with nicknamed him Flash. I raised concerns about him with my cover officer at the latest after the first
02:15:45 officer at the latest after the first preparatory camp in Germany ahead of the G G8 conference in Hiligadam. These concerns included the possibility that his behavior had crossed the line into
02:15:57 his behavior had crossed the line into organizing and encouraging those he associated with to commit criminal offenses. I do not know what happened following this. As far as I am aware, none of my contemporaries in the SDS
02:16:09 none of my contemporaries in the SDS crossed this line. Is is that your your evidence that as far as your SDS contemporaries concerned, they they didn't cross the line, but you were
02:16:20 didn't cross the line, but you were concerned that Mark Kennedy did? Yes.
02:16:33 in relation to the managers that you had. Um, one of those being HN72.
02:16:44 Could could you help me with how uh close you were to HN72 as a as a manager? Um, yeah, not not particularly close. I
02:16:56 Um, yeah, not not particularly close. I had worked um on a on a team beforehand that he had some involvement with. So I I knew him, you know, as knocking about the the floor at the yard, but I didn't
02:17:07 the the floor at the yard, but I didn't know him well at all. How would you have described him as a manager? What was he like? Um yeah, he was he was um
02:17:19 yeah, he was he was um he was he was relatively laidback, you know, quite competent, always seemed on top of of of the work he had in front of him. He was passionate about the SDS, you know, he when he when he came to us,
02:17:32 you know, he when he when he came to us, um he, you know, he really wanted the unit to keep going. Um
02:17:42 Did you tell him at one of the Monday meetings
02:17:47 meetings uh that you thought that Mark Kennedy and Marco Jacobs were in intimate relationships
02:17:58 relationships with activists? No, I I certainly raised concerns or I can remember um forgive me. I can I can remember HN72 raising the issue of both of those um
02:18:11 raising the issue of both of those um officers but not in the context of sexual relationships. He he we spoke after the the German G8. Well, ju just to be clear, I'm going to ask if this paragraph please can be put up on screen. It's the paragraph 361
02:18:24 up on screen. It's the paragraph 361 from HN72's witness statement. Please.
02:19:07 Could
02:19:23 we please put up um paragraph 361
02:19:36 page
02:20:00 Now, this is a paragraph from HN72's witness statement. I'm just going to read it to you and I'm just going to ask you questions about it. Sexual relations
02:20:11 you questions about it. Sexual relations did come up when HN118 came across NPOIU officers Mark Kennedy and Marco at the G8 in June 2007.
02:20:24 and Marco at the G8 in June 2007. HN118 reported back at one of our Monday meetings that he thought that they were in intimate relationships with women. As a result, DCI Flood was going to review Mark Kennedy and Marco's operations with
02:20:36 Mark Kennedy and Marco's operations with the NPIU. The outcome was that from the summer of 2007, SO15 Commander John McDow would have oversight of all the NPIU uco authorizations.
02:20:48 NPIU uco authorizations. Now, Cel
02:20:51 Now, Cel is what is not accurate in relation to what HN72 has set out in this paragraph, please?
02:21:01 Yeah. Absolutely. He definitely asked me about both Mark Kennedy and Marco um after the G8 um in Germany. In fact, he asked me I he trying to remember the
02:21:12 asked me I he trying to remember the conversation. He I think he asked my opinion on whether they might be whether it was possible either of them were in sexual relationships with women. And I remember
02:21:24 relationships with women. And I remember opining straight away that I thought it was entirely out of character for what I knew of my limited interaction with Marco. I didn't know him particularly well at all. I but nothing in his
02:21:35 well at all. I but nothing in his behavior or what I had seen or witnessed out, you know, when our paths would cross very briefly out on the ground at demos, actions, marches, whatever it
02:21:46 demos, actions, marches, whatever it was. Um, there I thought it was un I remember saying it was incredibly unlikely. I think I posted that in the case of Mark Kennedy that it was much more likely. He asked me if I'd ever
02:21:58 more likely. He asked me if I'd ever seen him in uh company with a with a with a woman. No names, please. No, of course. Um and uh I said that yeah, I had quite frequently. And in
02:22:09 yeah, I had quite frequently. And in fact, it was the the same woman um each time, but I'd never seen them, you know, in in an obviously intimate setting. Their body, you know, their body language, you know, I'd never seen him
02:22:20 language, you know, I'd never seen him holding hands or with his arm around her or anything like that. I had seen them traveling in the same vehicle, I think, a number of times. I think when they arrived for the camp actually for the
02:22:31 arrived for the camp actually for the Campinsky preparatory camp in Germany about a year before the G8 I can recall quite clearly him arriving at the camp. I'd already been there a couple of days I think.
02:22:42 I think. Again not mentioning any names out loud but do you remember the name of the woman that you've just described that you saw Mark Kennedy
02:22:53 described that you saw Mark Kennedy with?
02:22:55 with? Yes, I remember her first name off. Could you please write down on a piece of paper the name?
02:23:05 Sorry, you won't read that.
02:23:11 Thank you. I think that's right. If you could show me a picture, I'll better answer straight away.
02:23:23 Thank you very
02:23:35 set out here then is on your evidence inaccurate. So when it says HN8118 reported back at one of our Monday meetings that he thought that they were in intimate relationships with women
02:23:49 in intimate relationships with women Just to be clear about your evidence as far as Marcos concerned, Marco Jacobs, it your thoughts were the opposite.
02:24:00 it your thoughts were the opposite. That is what you said to HN72.
02:24:04 HN72. Your evidence, just to be clear, is that as far as Marco was concerned, it was incredibly unlikely and out of character. Yes. And I I would you know to to make
02:24:16 Yes. And I I would you know to to make the distinction if you'd asked me about Mark I would have said but I'd be very surprised if you'd asked me about Mark Kennedy I wouldn't have been surprised at all.
02:24:24 at all. The name that you have provided and written down is this a name that you gave to HN72 at this Monday meeting that he's Yes I think it was.
02:24:37 Yes I think it was. Now he states in his statement that as a result DCI flood was going to review those two operations
02:24:49 those two operations with the NPIU.
02:24:53 Is that something that HN72 communicated to you after you gave your opinion about those two officers involvement in relationships? I don't think so. But I I forgive me,
02:25:06 I don't think so. But I I forgive me, I'm not quite sure of the chronology, but I I certainly spoke to Frankie about the fact that he I can remember conversations with Frankie about Mark Kennedy and he was going to bring him in and and sort of have an interview with
02:25:18 and and sort of have an interview with him. I'm not sure if it was here or whether it may have been even earlier. Just Mark Kennedy and to be clear, not Marco Jacobs. Yeah, that's correct.
02:25:38 In terms of discussions with your colleagues, do you remember uh a time uh
02:25:49 colleagues, do you remember uh a time uh when there was uh talk about the uh true lies documentary as a topic of conversation? True spies. Do you
02:26:01 conversation? True spies. Do you remember that? Yes, I do. So broadcast in October, November 2002. Could you just help us with
02:26:12 Could you just help us with the discussion that you and your colleagues had uh when uh that came out, please, and the significance of it? Yes, of course. Um I mean I I think it
02:26:23 Yes, of course. Um I mean I I think it was the first I may be wrong but I I think it was the very first sort of revelations about the the unit that came out from memory. I don't think I think this was a sort of you know the first
02:26:35 this was a sort of you know the first breaking of the seal if that makes sense about the unit existing. Uh but people were you know I my memory of it is that several people had cooperated and with the television program and it appeared
02:26:48 the television program and it appeared as sort of talking heads and and discuss various things about the unit. So it was quite it it was a big deal. It was quite shocking. People felt anxious, upset, you know betrayed in a way that had
02:27:00 you know betrayed in a way that had happened.
02:27:02 happened. Uh what discussion was there in the uh SDS office about uh Peter Francis that you can recall
02:27:13 uh Peter Francis that you can recall during your time? Um I there was there was chatter about him every now and again um in in various
02:27:25 every now and again um in in various contexts about the fact that the you know he's I can't remember at the time when this was coming out um you know he he was you know it was just a sort of
02:27:37 he was you know it was just a sort of big conversation about him tended to concentrate on a a big griefy situation but I didn't have a huge amount of detail about what happened if that makes sense.
02:27:46 sense. litigation against the Metropolitan Police. Was that something that was discussed? I think it was. Yeah, I think there was talk about the fact that he was taking some form of legal action. What was the Was there a feeling of
02:27:58 What was the Was there a feeling of betrayal within the SDS um that that was taking place or or or not? I think less so than the the the TV program, but I was you know, it was I
02:28:09 program, but I was you know, it was I certainly wasn't cited on exactly what was going on and what the nature of that was. So, I think it I think that there was, you know, talk that he'd been struggling with his mental health a bit
02:28:20 struggling with his mental health a bit and that it was some of these um the information that was coming out was a little bit erratic and off the wall.
02:28:32 And in terms of the managers, um, can you remember, um, any discussion with your managers about Peter Francis at all
02:28:45 your managers about Peter Francis at all and their attitude towards him? No, nothing springs to mind.
02:28:54 I'm going to ask if we could please take down this document and go back to your statement, please. So, back to HM118's statement.
02:29:11 Could we turn please to page 78? It's paragraph 216, please.
02:29:24 You say here that I believe that a normal deployment was expected to last three or four years, but I was never aware that there was a maximum. I cannot be sure why my deployment lasted over
02:29:35 be sure why my deployment lasted over six years, although it may have had something to do with the lack of any clear direction for the SDS and the need to maintain reporting for as long as
02:29:46 to maintain reporting for as long as possible without committing any new people or other resources to it. What do you mean when you say that that there was a need to maintain reporting for as
02:29:57 was a need to maintain reporting for as long as possible without committing any new people or other resources to it? Could you just expand on on that please? Yeah, of course. I think I'm just speaking to the fact that it was it was
02:30:09 speaking to the fact that it was it was clear at that stage the writing of the wall had been for a long time that the unit was going to fold. just a question of when. And I think that they probably kept me out a bit longer just to maintain some coverage uh without the
02:30:20 maintain some coverage uh without the sort of uh without the requirement to bring in someone new behind me because it was apparent that they would they would never sort of get to the stage of
02:30:31 would never sort of get to the stage of being launched or productive.
02:30:35 And in from your perspective as an undercover officer, um, first deployed in 2001, but being there until the end, what what was your view
02:30:47 until the end, what what was your view as to why the, uh, SDS was coming to an end from your perspective as an undercover officer? my perspective on why it was coming to an end. Um, it was it was coming to an
02:31:01 an end. Um, it was it was coming to an end because I think that was the you know the plan and the intention the moment that the the you know the two separate commands had been amalgamated into into counterterrorism command.
02:31:12 into into counterterrorism command. So SO12 and SO3. Yes.
02:31:16 Yes. What about the nature of the reporting by the SDS? Did you've described your your reporting from your perspective? Did you feel that
02:31:29 from your perspective? Did you feel that as your deployment um went on that your reporting was of less relevance, of less significance,
02:31:41 relevance, of less significance, that there was less necessity for it. For example, you referred earlier to um a thought that you had at one stage. Well, surely someone else can do this from the perspective of um working at a
02:31:52 from the perspective of um working at a computer, for example. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I I wasn't I I don't want to think I was arguing that it should be maintained and going onwards. I think really it it probably you know, it reached its you know, it
02:32:03 you know, it reached its you know, it reached its natural consequence and you know there were bigger fish to fry quite frankly. You know, resources could have of this depth and cost and all the rest of it would be better deployed on more
02:32:14 of it would be better deployed on more serious threats, especially in the context of of a complete separation, if you like, between the intelligence function and the executive function that was previously demonstrated by special branch and the anti-terrorist branch.
02:32:28 branch and the anti-terrorist branch. In relation to the end of your deployment, you refer to that at paragraph 213. I wonder if we can just go back a little earlier in
02:32:39 can just go back a little earlier in this uh statement. It's page 78.
02:32:46 So you describe my deployment finished before Christmas 2007.
02:32:53 2007. Having considered the cancellation of authority document, it seems that the official end date was the 20th of December 2007. I'd been attempting to withdraw
02:33:04 I'd been attempting to withdraw following the German G8 summit in June, but was kept deployed because of the camp for climate action near Heithro airport that we talked about earlier. In that respect, my withdrawal was planned, but hampered and delayed by unplanned
02:33:16 but hampered and delayed by unplanned additional requirements to continue reporting. I was fortunate to have incorporated the potential for a reconciliation with my former partner into my backstory because this is what I
02:33:28 into my backstory because this is what I fell back on as I withdrew. It is also fortunate that the descent network was a and I wonder if we can just go over the page please
02:33:41 much looser organization because my absence was far less noticeable than it would have been on the GR steering uh committee.
02:33:51 Now can you just describe h what happened in the last days of your deployment? So physically what you did and where you went to next.
02:34:02 and where you went to next. Yeah. As I left SCS. Yeah. I am um it was I as as as bonkers as this will sound I have got no clear recollection of the last day um of it at all. By then
02:34:16 of the last day um of it at all. By then you were sort of just begging for mercy and kind of it was you know it was just very glad that it was over. Finally somebody came in. I couldn't even tell you who it was. Somebody came in and said that's it. we're done. Um, find
02:34:29 said that's it. we're done. Um, find yourself a job, you know, crack on. I can remember I can remember arrangements being made for a van to um arrive at my douff and clearing that out with sort of
02:34:43 douff and clearing that out with sort of 24 hours notice, making a full inventory of of the possessions that I'd accumulated as wellings. Um m somebody arrived I'd never seen before in a van.
02:34:56 arrived I'd never seen before in a van. Photographs were taken of the stuff. It went into the back of the van. I rent to the office and handed in all my electronic all my
02:35:07 electronic all my Now I'm going to just pause you there because you you do address this in your statement. It would help if we just have that up. Could we turn please to page 97 and paragraphs 267 and 268 please? on
02:35:19 and paragraphs 267 and 268 please? on page 97.
02:35:25 So here you say, "After my deployment ended, I had no significant period of leave or time to adjust. I effectively finished my deployment on the Thursday or Friday before Christmas,
02:35:37 or Friday before Christmas, took my piercings out, got a decent haircut, and bought some presents, and then went to work at police premises on the Monday following the New Year
02:35:49 the Monday following the New Year holiday. When my deployment ended, I was not debriefed by anyone. I was seen as tainted by my seven years with Yes. Yes. And then you say, "At least one senior
02:36:01 And then you say, "At least one senior officer told me that I was damaged goods and nobody wanted anything to do with me."
02:36:09 me." Who who who described you as damaged goods?
02:36:22 I do know who it was. I'm I'm reluctant to reluctant to give his name unless it's absolutely essential because I'm not sure what good it would serve. It was somebody who had been involved in the in the the management side of the
02:36:35 the in the the management side of the unit.
02:36:35 unit. Was it someone in the SDS? I think he had overall responsibility for it by then. Yes. So this someone who had overall
02:36:46 So this someone who had overall responsibility of the SDS described you as damaged goods. Yes.
02:36:50 Yes. How when did he describe you as damaged goods?
02:36:54 goods? Um you know very very shortly before the end. We'd had a we'd had a meeting there was there was a constant flow of meetings at the end about what's going to happen you know because the the you
02:37:06 to happen you know because the the you know by this stage the new people who were being bought onto the team um some of whom were busy preparing legends and getting ready to launch you know had become aware that they would probably
02:37:17 become aware that they would probably joined a sinking ship and they you know and they were constantly communicating with me saying look is it worth even putting this time and investment in and all the rest of it because it seems like we're going to fold in, you know,
02:37:28 we're going to fold in, you know, probably, you know, tomorrow, a week, 3 months, nobody knew. Um, and it was after one of those meetings where I had gone in and made representations and just sort of got to the stage where I
02:37:39 just sort of got to the stage where I said, "Look, please just tell us. It's fine." You almost felt like you had to give them permission, you know, and say, "It's fine." You know, we'll be okay. It's just, you know, just pull the
02:37:52 It's just, you know, just pull the trigger, let us know. tell us to, you know, that it's done and then we will do our best to try and, you know, there was no real sort of succession plan. I know I couldn't, we
02:38:03 succession plan. I know I couldn't, we talk about going back into work on a Monday, you know, I I had been able to um find a place to land purely through utilizing some contacts, but I I had no
02:38:14 utilizing some contacts, but I I had no means of police, you know, getting into a police building or premises. I couldn't even get into the building on on that Monday. The
02:38:25 The the person that described you as damaged goods. Was was this said in in a in a jovial way? Was it from what was the context in which it was it was said?
02:38:36 context in which it was it was said? It we we we'd had a meeting. I'd made representations and said, "Look, let's just, you know, let's just let the let's just let the the team know if it's going to be, you know, today, tomorrow,
02:38:47 going to be, you know, today, tomorrow, next week, surely we can say that." And when people, you know, I almost was trying to reassure him that it was okay. I said, "Look, you know, we're although I didn't feel like that inside." He was saying, "Look, you know, we're all
02:38:58 saying, "Look, you know, we're all grown-ups. We've got wide shoulders. Just let us know." And at that point, we can then try and manage this like grownup people. And it' been a bit it had been a bit fractious. Um,
02:39:09 had been a bit fractious. Um, it wasn't heated, but it was quite emotional. And I was saying it at the end, and he clearly wasn't happy with my attitude about that. And at the end he just quite
02:39:22 just quite calmly and said, you know, and said, "Look, this is what's going to happen, you know, and and your damaged goods." Yeah. And not to expect a comfortable landing when I got back.
02:39:34 landing when I got back. Are you able to write down Yes.
02:39:39 Yes. the name
02:39:40 the name without saying that?
02:40:14 At this stage, I'm going to ask you this. What What is the reason um why uh you do not want to say the name?
02:40:26 I'm just it's nothing to do with any suggestion that they might still have some influence over you know me at this point. I just reluctant to name him in a
02:40:37 point. I just reluctant to name him in a public venue for conduct which wasn't great quite frankly. Just I suppose it's I suppose it's an inherent sense of loyalty regardless of personal feelings.
02:40:48 loyalty regardless of personal feelings. Not to throw him under the bus really.
02:40:55 We we may return to to the name in due course. Um sir, I would um ask if I may have um some time at this point, seeing
02:41:07 have um some time at this point, seeing the time um to see whether there are further rule 10 questions that can be um put in the time available and of course
02:41:18 put in the time available and of course to allow time for re-examination and so I would invite you sir to rise at this point in Yes, that that seems prudent. So, anybody who has any questions which they wish to be put to this witness,
02:41:29 they wish to be put to this witness, please uh deal with Mr. Ramble. Now,
03:03:29 Mr. Hgn118,
03:03:33 Hgn118, when I was asking you questions um about Mark Kennedy, uh you wrote down a name on a piece of paper. Yes.
03:03:44 on a piece of paper. Yes. Yes.
03:03:45 Yes. And so there is no um reason not to mention that name. The name that you wrote down was Kate. Where did you hear that name from,
03:03:57 Where did you hear that name from, please? In relation to Kennedy and relationship. Well, you asked me if I knew the name of the person that I had seen him in company with.
03:04:08 company with. Yes.
03:04:08 Yes. Yeah.
03:04:10 Yeah. And did you did you know you knew the name of the person? Yes. A and is that a name that you knew at the time or
03:04:22 a name that you knew at the time or since learned I think the name?
03:04:24 the name? No, I knew it at the time. From from who?
03:04:34 I I I I don't remember. I remember somebody talking about her possib I mean I my unless I've got the
03:04:45 possib I mean I my unless I've got the the wrong face in my mind that um she was somebody who was involved with the descent and I had seen around on the periphery. I honestly can't remember
03:04:56 periphery. I honestly can't remember where I first learned the name but in my mind that name was associated with her. Did you hear that name from Mark Kennedy?
03:05:03 Kennedy? No.
03:05:06 No. The person that you heard the name from, was it someone who was an activist or was it someone in the SDS? Could you help us with that?
03:05:21 I I genuinely can't remember. I'm sorry. Uh, was that Kate Wilson?
03:05:30 I think so. Why do you think so? I think because I've seen that name in reporting subsequently in the media and that's become associated with Kate, if that
03:05:43 become associated with Kate, if that makes sense. And you're you're sure that you'd heard the name Kate at the time? Yes. Did you when you were discussing uh your concerns about Kennedy with
03:05:55 uh your concerns about Kennedy with HN72,
03:05:57 HN72, did you pass on that name or did you mention that name Kate to HN72?
03:06:09 I I don't know. I'm not sure. Uh you said in your uh evidence earlier yesterday that you had spoken to your wife in anticipation of coming here to
03:06:23 wife in anticipation of coming here to give evidence of the inquiry. Have you discussed your evidence, the evidence that you have given with any of your former colleagues? In other words,
03:06:35 your former colleagues? In other words, before giving evidence of the last couple of days in advance, did you speak to any of your former UCO or even manager colleagues? Not about my evidence? No.
03:06:49 Not about my evidence? No. Uh when you say not about your evidence about what just generally the process or what did you discuss? No, I I reached out to somebody I hadn't spoken to for
03:07:01 spoken to for 10 years after he had appeared here. Um, when I knew that he had finished, just to say, you know, mindful you've you've been
03:07:12 you know, mindful you've you've been you've done it. Um, I sent him an email. I had an email address for him and I just sent a very quick, you know, glad it's done for you, you know, well done. Nothing more than that. This this is an under a former
03:07:24 This this is an under a former undercover officer who has already already gave evidence to the inquiry. Yes.
03:07:30 Yes. When when was that? Um, when was the evidence? It was it was recently. It was a couple of I think it was a day after he had appeared here. I can tell you who it was if I
03:07:41 can tell you who it was if I Yes. Be being careful in terms of the HN3.
03:07:44 HN3. HN3
03:07:46 HN3 and this was after his evidence. Anything in particular apart from you as you've indicated well done for completing No, I just I just sent him I I sent him a we we um I sent him a message and said, "Look, well done." You know, I'm
03:07:58 said, "Look, well done." You know, I'm glad it's done for you. Um he sent me a very brief reply back saying um you know yeah it I'm totally frank. He said yeah it's a relief to have got it done you know good luck when you're when you're
03:08:10 know good luck when you're when you're on. It was nothing more than that. We did absolutely didn't discuss what I was going to say in any way shape or form. Earlier in your evidence when I was asking you um a question about your
03:08:24 asking you um a question about your interaction um with others, you explained that your undercover identity was five years younger than your real uh identity
03:08:36 younger than your real uh identity about. Yes. I think um if the suggestion was that this would assist you to associate with younger women during your deployment, what would
03:08:48 women during your deployment, what would your response to that be? Oh, I would say not at all. That's I think it's you know it it wasn't on my agenda to to behave
03:08:59 it it wasn't on my agenda to to behave in that way and it was absolutely not part of it. I was mindful actually that I was just a bit old to perhaps be developing a social conscience and coming into that sort of arena.
03:09:10 coming into that sort of arena. Could we please call up MPS31940?
03:09:41 Now we can see that the third paragraph individuals involved in the network thus far include MT Nick Didden and Nima Bella all recently and very publicly
03:09:54 Bella all recently and very publicly resigned from globalized resistance. These activists have cooperated with a small call of other individuals more usually associated with the autonomous direct action side of the movement. This
03:10:05 direct action side of the movement. This group appears to be coalesing around ATIF childry and privacy both centrally involved in the London International Solidarity Movement ISM. If we go to the next
03:10:16 Movement ISM. If we go to the next paragraph please.
03:10:20 These ISMERS and a small core of recently returned from Gaza independent activists are extremely uh radical in outlook perhaps not surprisingly as many
03:10:32 outlook perhaps not surprisingly as many of them have spent considerable periods of time in the Balata refugee camp in Gaza and other areas of the occupied territories. Just pausing there. The reference to
03:10:44 Just pausing there. The reference to occupied territories is why is that in advertism the way and why do you describe um that
03:10:56 describe um that in that way please where did those words come from is that you is that you reporting the description I I think perhaps in my naivity I'm just trying to describe those areas as you
03:11:07 trying to describe those areas as you know are currently under the control of Israel or or not in in that context and that's the way they're referred to and when it goes on to say direct action
03:11:18 and when it goes on to say direct action is in their blood and if they get organized they could become a potent new force on the London activist scene. If this was said to have been influenced by
03:11:31 this was said to have been influenced by your perception in relation to Palestinians and Muslims, the way in which you refer to in their blood uh a
03:11:42 which you refer to in their blood uh a description given there, what would you say to that accusation that you are referring to Palestinians and Muslims in a derogatory
03:11:53 Palestinians and Muslims in a derogatory way by referring to the fact that direct action is in their blood? What would your response be to that please? No, I
03:12:00 No, I that wasn't my intention and I I hope that's not what I was trying to infer. It was just my view of them at that time in the you know the ISM had a uh a
03:12:11 in the you know the ISM had a uh a reputation for that more direct action focused slightly more radical outlook and I think in conversations with others that's what they had said to me. Could we take that document down and move to MPS28914
03:12:24 move to MPS28914 please?
03:13:02 Now I'm going to if we see the penultimate paragraph, the one with the temporary privacy box all the way across the line. Mhm. So this states that temporary privacy is a leading personality within the radical
03:13:16 a leading personality within the radical Islamic London scene and it goes on and what did you mean by the radical Islamic scene given that
03:13:29 the radical Islamic scene given that none of the organizations then described are radical Muslim groups? For example, um earlier in my questioning, we referred to certain
03:13:40 questioning, we referred to certain peace groups, Muslim women groups. Why did you use the descriptor uh radical uh Islamic scene, please? I I was I think I was just trying to
03:13:52 I I was I think I was just trying to convey that that was an area of activity that he was associated with and would be would be considered to be at that sort of edge of the spectrum. How would you respond if someone um suggested that
03:14:06 respond if someone um suggested that this reporting was influenced by bias towards uh the individual who's covered by temporary privacy by that person's Muslim identity? Or in other words, was
03:14:18 Muslim identity? Or in other words, was your reporting influenced by bias towards this individual due to his Muslim identity? No, I hope not. No.
03:14:28 Could we please take that document down and move to 0526839 MPS 0526839 page 7
03:14:45 sorry 0526839 is that
03:14:58 Right. Can I I'm going to take that. Um going to cancel that reference because I'm told that document has not yet been published.
03:15:09 published. The disscent affinity groups that you referred to earlier today when I was asking you questions about disscent. Could you be specific in relation to what affinity groups under or within the
03:15:23 what affinity groups under or within the descent network you were spying upon or reporting on please? Which if someone asked you please can you list what were the names of the affinity groups? What's your answer to that?
03:15:34 your answer to that? Well the bits of the the bits of disscent that I was most interested in were were the bits of it that were going to organize sort of direct action type things. So there was the blockades
03:15:45 things. So there was the blockades group. There were there was I'm going to slow you down here. So the blockades group because imagine we're writing a list of them. So the blockades group.
03:15:54 group. Yeah.
03:15:55 Yeah. Who else?
03:15:55 Who else? The the group that were going to form the um temporary climbing, you know, the eco village at Sterling. So the I don't know how I don't recall if they had a specific name but the camp group if you
03:16:07 specific name but the camp group if you like
03:16:09 like and the you know that
03:16:14 can you remember any any else any other affinity groups? I I wouldn't necessarily describe those as affinity groups. That's not really my understanding of what an affinity group is but that as an organizing bit of
03:16:27 is but that as an organizing bit of descent. those were the ones that the most, you know, the the uh pressure for information was coming down about. It was it was a focus on what was likely to be the direct action at the around the
03:16:38 be the direct action at the around the summit.
03:16:38 summit. You in your evidence earlier today, you referred to message boards, threads that you would leave messages on. What
03:16:49 on. What did you ever leave messages that could be described as misinformation? No, at all. What are the nature of the messages that you would leave?
03:17:00 messages that you would leave? I I was just chipping in with um uh you know supportive or a comment on previous posts and I I occasionally I can
03:17:11 posts and I I occasionally I can remember putting messages up just to say that I could help out with certain bits trans transpo you know moving stuff around.
03:17:20 around. I think that's I think that is as a direct direct result of one of those posts was how I ended up taking uh a big bunch of published material up to the up to the camp at Sterling
03:17:31 to the camp at Sterling when you left these various message messages on these message boards and threads. What was the username that you used? I.e. what would come up on the screen with the comments, please?
03:17:44 screen with the comments, please? I I I don't remember. I'm just going to pause. I want you to have a a think about this for this reason. Um that again if the suggestion was that you
03:17:55 again if the suggestion was that you have given a lot of evidence about as your deployments progressed you are doing more and more of your undercover work online
03:18:08 work online and as indicated leaving messages on message boards joining email groups but none of the individuals who were very familiar with those message boards
03:18:21 familiar with those message boards remember you. And so the that is the source of the question is well what what username did you use? You all you using all of these groups and message boards
03:18:32 all of these groups and message boards and threads but what was the name? Because if you say the name that you used whatever it was uh then um that would assist in that way. So I'm going to ask and press you on that. Can you
03:18:43 to ask and press you on that. Can you remember the username or or what this would it have been Simon Wellings for example?
03:18:47 example? No I don't think it was. I I certainly left my email, you know, on numerous times.
03:18:53 times. Would that have included Simon Wellings or S. Wellings or Simon W or words to that effect? It would have it would have included Wellings, I'm pretty sure. Yes. So, the email groups you would have
03:19:05 So, the email groups you would have used, it would have included the word Wellings.
03:19:09 Wellings. But what about message boards? Was there like a nickname? No, I think there was a you had a friendly name, if that makes sense, or some shorter identifier. I can't remember. I'm sorry.
03:19:20 remember. I'm sorry. I have a few more questions. If you remember, please can you say it before I stop?
03:19:24 stop? When you were answering questions on the John Charles de Menzes campaigns, um you stated that you were asked to
03:19:36 um you stated that you were asked to keep a watching brief of the way that you put it. Yes.
03:19:41 Yes. What was the name of the person that asked you to keep a watch and brief on the Jean Charles Dimenez's family campaign? Who was it? I
03:19:53 I I genuinely don't remember. It would it but I I in my mind I think it was somebody at the sort of cover level. It would have been one of the it would have been one of the DS's on the teams. I
03:20:05 been one of the DS's on the teams. I don't remember it being higher up if that makes sense. it would have come down at a fairly low level and and it wasn't I don't want to overstate that it was I you know I can remember it being mentioned and it was along the lines of
03:20:18 mentioned and it was along the lines of you know fellas if anything does come up that you know we need to know about very light touch but just let us know if there's anything about meetings or stuff coming up
03:20:27 coming up Bernie Greeny I don't think so Steven Teddy no he was long gone by then HN9 N
03:20:38 possibly. Possibly HN9. Steven Beals. Yes. Pro. Yeah. That would be the first one of
03:20:46 one of uh Ron Gilbertson. No, I don't think so. HN30.
03:20:55 Possibly. HN35.
03:20:59 Yeah, possibly. HN 315.
03:21:06 No. All right.
03:21:10 I'm going to ask if we could please call up null Douglas's witness statement which is at UCPI 3793. Could we please turn to page 11?
03:21:23 Could we please turn to page 11? Sorry, page five. Page five, please. Thank you.
03:21:50 So at page 11 uh sorry paragraph 11 no Douglas's statement it says the first occasion was on the night the Iraq war broke out and stopped the war has called for a demonstration at White Hall which was held to one side of the road by the
03:22:02 was held to one side of the road by the police demonstrated tried through pushing to get through police lines to block the whole road. I was with SW who was aggressively referring to you Simon Wellings. I was with SW who was
03:22:14 Wellings. I was with SW who was aggressively trying to get everyone to push through the police lines. I overheard one of the commanding officers on the police side say him and him,
03:22:25 on the police side say him and him, pointing to me and Simon Wellings, suggesting that we were being targeted for potential arrest, at which point I held back, not wanting uh to be
03:22:37 held back, not wanting uh to be arrested. Um, is that correct that you were aggressively trying to get everyone to push through the police lines? No, I
03:22:50 to push through the police lines? No, I it's not. I I'm not saying I wasn't doing some pushing and shoving. I absolutely would have been if others were involved in that. I would have I would have been doing the same thing probably to the same degree that they were. You know, to do otherwise would
03:23:02 were. You know, to do otherwise would have been to sort of immediately show out. I'm not suggesting for a moment I was
03:23:08 was What do you mean by the word show out? Just so that we're clear. I'm I'm sorry. I you know it would have you know if I you couldn't if if other people around you in the group that you were
03:23:18 were you know you were infiltrating were behaving in that way. It wasn't as if suddenly you could sort of clutch your pearls and go back to the you know get and just walk off and take no part in it. You had to you had to accept that
03:23:31 it. You had to you had to accept that there was a certain level of behavior in role that would be expected that people would expect you to be behaving like them and and doing what they were doing. Another occasion is referred to in paragraph 12. I wonder if we could
03:23:42 paragraph 12. I wonder if we could please expand paragraph 12. So this describes um the Selfridges protest and this is from null Douglas's statement saying that you um and again
03:23:55 statement saying that you um and again referring to your reports on this protest, but he says this again here far from merely observing we were trying to get in the store through the doors which were being blocked by police officer.
03:24:07 were being blocked by police officer. This involved pushing. I was there but not at the front. Simon was in front of me and was by far the most enthusiastic pusher, aggressively trying to whip up
03:24:18 pusher, aggressively trying to whip up the activist, saying, "Come on, come on." And even putting his hand up in the air to attempt to block the view of the police camera surveillance officer stationed in the corner of the doorway,
03:24:30 stationed in the corner of the doorway, filming everything. Again, for me, this was not a situation that was worth getting arrested over. But Simon played a direct role here in trying to create a hostile and aggressive atmosphere
03:24:43 hostile and aggressive atmosphere against his fellow police officers. So in short, as has just been set out there by null Douglas that rather than just doing enough not to show out to use your
03:24:55 doing enough not to show out to use your words, um you are acting essentially as an ajon provocator uh being uh at the forefront and again his words aggressively trying to whip up the
03:25:07 aggressively trying to whip up the activists. What is your reaction to that please? No, I respectfully it would be as per my previous answer.
03:25:20 Have you heard the expression secret pinks in relation to description of folders that were kept in the SDS office?
03:25:29 office? I' I've heard of secret pinks, but not not in the SDS office. Do you recall any secret pinks that were in relation to police accountability groups at all?
03:25:41 police accountability groups at all? No.
03:25:43 No. A secret pink to me would is is recognizable in my previous work on different teams within special branch and as my understanding that was a a slightly separate class of back in those
03:25:56 slightly separate class of back in those days paper files which were held in registry. A number of the questions that I've put to you involve justification. I've asked you a number of times, well, do you think that that report, for example, was justified and in some
03:26:09 example, was justified and in some instances you have indicated that it would not have met the tests. Now, I just want to clarify what you mean by that. in the reporting for example about
03:26:21 that. in the reporting for example about minor matters of people's personal life uh and the like um do you accept that not only not justified now but also
03:26:33 not only not justified now but also not justified at the time would you accept that yes yes I would
03:26:41 I'm going to ask if we could please take this document down and turn up MPS35842 two.
03:27:06 The second report, Virginia Rodino. Virginia Theresa Rodino is an American activist resident in Baltimore. Rodino continues to have close links with the
03:27:19 continues to have close links with the that's the bottom report. I wonder if we just
03:27:24 just has close links with the London-based anti- capitalapitalist group Globalized Resistance. And then you set out Rodino's date of birth and a reference to her passport number
03:27:37 to her passport number the date that the passport was issued. um the next of kin given by uh in that passport and also two contact telephone numbers. But why did you report this
03:27:51 numbers. But why did you report this information about an American activist? Um again because it was you know those were hard data points as we discussed
03:28:02 were hard data points as we discussed yesterday. Um, she stayed with me uh on that visit to London. Um, and I put her up for a couple of nights in my Duff accommodation and she left a passport lying around and I recorded the details.
03:28:18 Where did did you where did you can you remember where her passport was? How did you come across her passport? It was I I think it was left on the coffee table in
03:28:29 think it was left on the coffee table in in the little, you know, very small living room that I had in that flat.
03:28:36 Did you go through her bags? No, I gave her when she stayed with me, um I I gave her use of my bedroom, tidied it up a bit, you know, laundered
03:28:48 tidied it up a bit, you know, laundered the sheets, sorted it out, and then when she was when she was staying and she, you know, she said, "No, no, no, don't be silly. I'll sleep on the sofa." And I said, "No." and gave her the room and I kicked on the sofa. But no, I didn't go
03:29:00 kicked on the sofa. But no, I didn't go through her stuff at all. Um, apart from clearly her passport apart from sorry, apart from clearly recording the details of her passport.
03:29:11 of her passport. Going back to the various forums, the online forums india, to what extent would you agree that you contributed to
03:29:22 would you agree that you contributed to uh political discussion and contributed to the discourse in that way expressing views?
03:29:29 views? Um, very limited.
03:29:33 When the True Spies documentary was aired, did your managers tell you to be careful about your interaction with
03:29:44 careful about your interaction with those that you were spying upon? Did they ask you to take extra care, be careful not to get caught out as a result of what was aired in the True
03:29:55 result of what was aired in the True Spies documentary? No. No, I don't think so. So I mean it was it was a topic of conversation but I think they already would would be advising people to be careful. I don't recall any specific advice along those
03:30:07 recall any specific advice along those lines.
03:30:11 The core participant that we are calling Rosa
03:30:15 Rosa um tracked down the SDS office. She called the SDS office a number of times and it meant that the SDS office
03:30:27 times and it meant that the SDS office moved. What is your recollection of that please?
03:30:32 please? Yeah, that was that was that was really quite early days for me I think. Um uh I I recall that it it happened that suddenly the office was moving at very
03:30:44 suddenly the office was moving at very short notice and there was a bit of a flap on um and I don't think I even knew at the time what exactly the reason was but I in subsequent conversations it
03:30:55 but I in subsequent conversations it came up that they'd received a telephone call along those lines and obviously that was a compromise and they had to move.
03:31:03 move. Was it um did it stand out particularly in your memory because it was something that happened early on in your deployment? Possibly.
03:31:13 Possibly. Was there a lot of discussion about it? No, not a great deal. No. uh was the fact that a um a female had
03:31:26 was the fact that a um a female had called the office um alert you to the fact that Jim Boiling had had a relationship whilst undercover? No, I don't think it was. I I it they
03:31:39 No, I don't think it was. I I it they didn't they kept the information about that really pretty tight and I I I no I don't think those two are linked in my mind at all.
03:31:50 linked in my mind at all. Was it not a a topic of regular conversation then that the whole SDS office had to be moved because Rosa um had been in a relationship with Jim
03:32:02 had been in a relationship with Jim Boiling and had managed to work out what the phone number was? No, I Yeah, I I can't remember the context. I mean, it was certainly a quite a long time after we'd actually moved. I I learned that
03:32:16 we'd actually moved. I I learned that someone had I think that somebody she had seen some telephone records or something, but I I don't remember it being directly associated with Jim at all. What is your
03:32:29 associated with Jim at all. What is your evidence of the first that you became aware that Jim Boiling had embarked on sexual relationships whilst undercover? I think I saw it on the BBC news website. I think it was I'm pretty sure
03:32:41 website. I think it was I'm pretty sure it was in mainstream media reporting. Sir, those are my questions. Is there any re-examination? No, thank you, sir.
03:32:52 No, thank you, sir. I'm afraid uh you're not quite finished because there is a topic to which I must return. It was what you were asked about uh yesterday afternoon, the um abortive
03:33:04 uh yesterday afternoon, the um abortive uh suicide stunt when Sharon visited the United Kingdom. Uh have you read or heard any of the evidence of Guy Taylor, Nel Douglas, or
03:33:18 evidence of Guy Taylor, Nel Douglas, or MT?
03:33:19 MT? No.
03:33:21 No. As you will appreciate, I have both read their evidence and listened to it uh given in in this room.
03:33:33 Their evidence is clear and unequivocal about who the individual was who was proposing that the stunt be staged. You know the name of that individual.
03:33:44 know the name of that individual. Yes.
03:33:45 Yes. And it's not to be mentioned. Understood.
03:33:54 Apart from the contemporaneous and subsequent reporting attributed to you and your own evidence in this hearing room,
03:34:05 room, I know of nothing which would cause me to doubt that the evidence that they have given about who it was who proposed the stunt.
03:34:16 the stunt. uh some of the reporting attributed to you, you have told me uh is not yours and is in some respects inaccurate.
03:34:31 It is never too late to admit that mistakes have been made and that um
03:34:39 firmly held the belief may be uh you might be wrong. I I want you to reflect on that a moment and tell me whether you might indeed be
03:34:52 and tell me whether you might indeed be wrong about who it was who proposed the stunt. No, I I I don't believe I am. I That is my clear memory.
03:35:05 Thank you. Your evidence over the two days is now complete. I do not anticipate that you will be asked to come back to give evidence again, but in the unlikely event that you are, I trust you will comply.
03:35:17 you will comply. Thank you. Um I don't know whether tomorrow's evidence is going to be the subject of any restrictions. Does anybody know that? So, may I just confirm the position?
03:35:31 So, may I just confirm the position? I'm sorry, I shouldn't have sprung this on you. I should have asked outside, but uh
03:35:37 uh anybody can assist then I Yes,
03:35:44 Yes, significant restrictions. So, maybe I can advise you in relation to what those are. Yeah, I I I don't need to know what they are, but there will be live evidence tomorrow. But as you've heard, it will be subject for legitimate
03:35:56 it will be subject for legitimate privacy reasons to restrictions
03:36:01 until 10 tomorrow.