The witness, HN18 (Robert Harrison/Hastings), is questioned on his lack of formal training regarding RIPA and the Human Rights Act, his reporting on non-criminal activities, and the ethical implications of infiltrating grieving families and political figures.
00:03:54 Mhm.
00:05:49 Mhm.
00:07:44 Mhm.
00:09:39 Mhm.
00:13:10 Good afternoon, everybody. This afternoon's proceedings are going to be live streamed with the usual 10-minute delay. Those with mobile devices may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after
00:13:22 hear in the hearing room, but only after 10 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. Yes, sir.
00:13:29 sir. Thank you, sir.
00:13:36 Mr. Hastings, um I'd like to ask you about your understanding of the relevant legislation around your deployment. You say in your witness statement at paragraph 38 that you had a vague
00:13:48 paragraph 38 that you had a vague understanding of RIPA and the Human Rights Act, um but no recollection of any training. Did you have SB training prior to joining the SBS in relation to those
00:14:01 joining the SBS in relation to those pieces of legislation? Not that I recall.
00:14:05 recall. Did you have an understanding about necessity, that legal principle of necessity, in the undercover context? I think as my statement says, I don't recall being advised on that.
00:14:19 Uh at paragraph 38, do you say you have a vague understanding of RIPA and the Human Rights Act. You can check that. And then go on to say I have no recollection of receiving any training or guidance.
00:14:31 or guidance. I do not recall being advised on the proportionality, legality, accountability, and necessity of my deployment in line with RIPA and the Human Rights Act, HRI. Yeah. And my question to you is, did you have an Given that you have a vague
00:14:43 Given that you have a vague understanding of RIPA and uh the Human Rights Act, did you have an understanding of necessity in the undercover context? No. What about proportionality and legality?
00:14:55 What about proportionality and legality? No.
00:14:57 No. Uh
00:14:59 Do you recall attending uh a meeting and being asked to sit uh an assessment in relation to RIPA? I believe as Yeah, as my statement says,
00:15:10 I believe as Yeah, as my statement says, I believe so. Yes. Yeah. And uh what was the purpose of that? I I don't know. It was It was um instigated by DCI Flurd, I think, in his in your witness
00:15:22 witness Was there a requirement that you needed to be familiar with those documents? It was It wasn't They were not documents. I think if I recall correctly, it was no more than a questionnaire Okay. that was handed to us and we were expected to, by way of a a short exam, I
00:15:35 expected to, by way of a a short exam, I think,
00:15:36 think, and we're expected to just complete it. But there had been no requirement for you to be familiar with the RIPA and Human Rights Act documents before that.
00:15:51 You say in your witness statement at paragraph 43, "In hindsight, I do not consider that training and guidance received was adequate as it did not address the breadth of potential consequences
00:16:03 consequences of immersing yourself within a totally different culture and living a different life."
00:16:09 life." What did you mean about the consequences? The actual The complete impact of being a
00:16:18 a UC in its totality on your life. I don't As I say, I don't think there was
00:16:24 was I mean, arguably, there's a question there as to is there any training that you could be given that could potentially prepare you for the impact of being a UCO. But the consequences you were concerned with were those on on you personally. My
00:16:38 with were those on on you personally. My family. What about the consequences on those you were infiltrating? The likelihood is that I wouldn't have considered that at the time. Uh
00:16:47 Uh the legislation is obviously there to protect the public, but is it right then that you had no working knowledge of the legal framework around your deployment?
00:16:58 legal framework around your deployment? I would say that I had a vague understanding as I as indicated, but I didn't know the legislation the necessary legislation in detail. Okay. But what the the principles you said you didn't really understand what necessity,
00:17:09 understand what necessity, proportionality No, what those sorts of things.
00:17:11 things. not quite true. What I would say is that proportionality, legality are principles that are applied within policing generally, so they are not specific obviously to Ripper or Reaper.
00:17:22 specific obviously to Ripper or Reaper. Um so obviously within the context of my policing career, those would have been general principles that I would have applied, but that was a non-UC context. So not in the context of infiltrating
00:17:34 So not in the context of infiltrating people's private lives. Certainly. And so in that sense, is it fair to say that the public were not protected from the scope of your deployment in the way
00:17:45 the scope of your deployment in the way that they might have been had you been familiar with those principles in your undercover deployment? Possibly.
00:17:52 Possibly. And was that a failing do you say on the part of management for not enforcing that and highlighting that with you, or is that a failure on your part for not inquiring more about that
00:18:03 part for not inquiring more about that and ensuring that you knew what you needed to know for your role? I think in fact it would be fair and appropriate to say that perhaps both.
00:18:15 Were you at any time given a sense of the thresholds of gravity of potential offending or disorder that you were to report on? And by by that I mean in in
00:18:26 report on? And by by that I mean in in Ripper, um serious crime is an offense for which a person who has attained the age of 21 and has no previous convictions could possibly
00:18:37 convictions could possibly uh could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more. Well, I wasn't reporting on crime as I've indicated. I was very much an intelligence gatherer, but no, specifically I wouldn't have considered that.
00:18:50 Did you have any consideration as to what your powers were when on duty undercover to enter private property? No.
00:18:58 No. What about stay overnight in someone's home? No.
00:19:02 home? No. What about search through people's property, bags or correspondence? No. One example of specific uh uh reporting is it MPS 00 stroke
00:19:16 uh reporting is it MPS 00 stroke 4424
00:19:18 4424 is behind tab C 47 serve bundle four.
00:19:24 Can have that up on screen. So, in relation to somebody being in receipt of income support, a member of ISM,
00:19:33 ISM, um, you note how much a week income support this person gets and that it's paid paid into a post office account and the number is printed there, the full post office account number, which has
00:19:44 post office account number, which has been redacted. How How did you come about that information? I can't recall. Can it be assumed though that you had seen that written down or
00:19:55 seen that written down or I had seen it written down or committed it to memory at the time. Uh, and is that that a person has said to you, "I get this amount of money and it gets paid into this post office
00:20:07 it gets paid into this post office account. This is the number." Does that seem likely or is it more likely that you've you've found that document?
00:20:14 document? No, as I said, I don't recall how I came by this information. Did you look at people's correspondence or search people's homes when you were there?
00:20:24 there? No.
00:20:26 No. Did you search people's bags when you were in their company? No.
00:20:34 Um, did you give any consideration to people's Article 8 right privacy, not Human Rights Act?
00:20:47 In a review of your deployment in April 2007, there's reference to collateral intrusion. Can I have up on screen, please, MPS 007
00:21:00 have up on screen, please, MPS 007 3308.
00:21:04 It's behind tab B 83 of bundle three.
00:21:10 So, this is a review of your deployment. Page four, please.
00:21:20 The reference to collateral intrusion in box two.
00:21:27 Says there have been no instances of collateral intrusion. Focused tasking and briefings will continue in an effort to minimize any such intrusion.
00:21:38 Collateral intrusion is inevitable, particularly in areas that consistently attract eccentric but well-intentioned persons.
00:21:48 persons. But CW Common Wheel is tightly focused on those individuals planning antisocial and serious manifestations of public dissent and disorder.
00:22:01 So, um
00:22:07 Your Your evidence so far is that you didn't really have a sense of boundaries by April 2007
00:22:16 when this document is being authored. Had you got a sense of collateral intrusion and that it you were focused on those individuals, only those
00:22:27 focused on those individuals, only those planning antisocial behavior. Well, I think if we look at the first page of this particular document, it's authored by DCI Flood. I have no idea what
00:22:38 what DCI Flood means by what he's written here.
00:22:40 here. Is that a true reflection though of how you conducted your deployment?
00:22:55 I can't comment on that. In your witness statement at paragraph 70,
00:23:04 You talk about collateral intrusion.
00:23:10 You say that it was never discussed, no guidance around that. Is that correct? As I Yes, as I've said. And you understood that you should focus reporting on individuals and groups I
00:23:21 reporting on individuals and groups I was connected to. Um is it fair to say that that wording is quite different to the wording on this document that you were focused on reporting on
00:23:33 that you were focused on reporting on individuals that you were connected to as opposed to reporting on individuals planning antisocial and serious manifestations of public dissent and disorder? I mean,
00:23:45 of public dissent and disorder? I mean, it could be both because certainly I'd been involved in individuals who planned large-scale or rather relatively speaking large-scale demonstrations in London.
00:23:58 You're saying that that they're similar? I I think that they're I I think that there there is a a relationship between the two.
00:24:05 the two. Do you accept though that yours was much broader? Yes. In terms of reporting on uh Islamic terrorism
00:24:18 and uh as you've said, those people who might try and use ISM to facilitate that sort of objective. How did you plan to identify
00:24:30 How did you plan to identify those individuals? Did you Did you have any training on that as to what to look out for? No, not specifically.
00:24:44 Can we have a look at some of your reporting now, please? Moving on to um your actual reports or those that have been sanitized for you by back office. The first is MPS 0039548.
00:25:04 And this is the first report that we have
00:25:06 have for you
00:25:07 for you through the inquiry. It's to do with the US election.
00:25:15 results
00:25:24 Now, why did you consider this was important? A meeting at the Friends Meeting House. I think I would have reported that because of the attendance of George Galloway. And what were MPs, as far as you were
00:25:37 And what were MPs, as far as you were concerned, fair game for reporting on? I would have regarded George Galloway as being someone that I would have reported on. Why? Because of his involvement, his long-standing involvement as an activist with a particular left-wing bent.
00:25:49 with a particular left-wing bent. Did you have any guidance on the limits of reporting on politicians? No.
00:25:58 Uh the next document, please, is MPS 0039660.
00:26:09 It's behind tab C2, sir, in bundle four. And this is a report of 7th 17th of November, 2004.
00:26:24 And it appears to be one of the first reports you make in relation to ISM. And it's the Rampart Street door entry code. So, Rampart, was that like a social venue? So, Rampart, at the time,
00:26:37 social venue? So, Rampart, at the time, was located in East London. Um and it was a squat, for want of a better term, that was used by could be used by activists and other groups to hold meetings, social events.
00:26:52 And did you attend there fairly regularly? Over the course of my deployment, yes.
00:27:00 There was a an ISM training weekend, according to this report, over the weekend of the 13th to the 14th of November 2004. Did you attend that training weekend?
00:27:12 Did you attend that training weekend? That's not come up. Sorry. Is it not? Just in the main report. I've still got the ISM and part street door entry code in front of me.
00:27:23 of me. Yeah. And so, in the box just below that I can't see the box below, I'm afraid. Right, okay. Has that come up now? So, in the main report, the door access code for the Ram
00:27:34 report, the door access code for the Ram Street Center. Yeah. And it was used for an ISM training weekend.
00:27:37 weekend. Yes. Do you see that? And did you attend that training weekend? Yes. Um
00:27:46 Did that touch at all on Islamic terrorist activity? No, it was concerned with things that activists should consider were they to travel to Israel and the likelihood of the questions they
00:27:57 and the likelihood of the questions they would be asked at the borders. And that training took place almost monthly, is that right? I can't recall. How many training sessions did you
00:28:08 How many training sessions did you attend? In relation to this, I believe this I attended as someone who was fairly new to the organization. I may have attended other events subsequent to that uh as a member
00:28:21 events subsequent to that uh as a member of ISM, someone who didn't necessarily need to go through the training again. Um but generally, the whole training was about legitimate actions of traveling out to Palestine, is that right?
00:28:32 out to Palestine, is that right? say it was about things that people should consider if they traveled to to Israel-Palestine occupied territories. But no whiff of people taking on terrorist activity.
00:28:43 people taking on terrorist activity. Well, at that time, I wouldn't have been in a position to comment on that. I don't didn't know what people's intentions were. They were going to training.
00:28:51 Why report on the door access code?
00:28:56 My view on that would have been that that was information that was likely in all likelihood not known to special branch and so therefore it might potentially be of use to special branch. For for access to them? For them to use
00:29:07 For for access to them? For them to use in any way they saw fit.
00:29:13 Was any uh feedback given to you about reporting things like that? Not that I recall. The next report is MPS0039725
00:29:25 behind tab C3 bundle four. And this is the a report of the 30th of November 2004.
00:29:39 So it doesn't appear to come up. That's all right. 0039 752.
00:29:56 Sorry, 13th of 11th 2004. Yes. Okay. Um so this is a report about somebody being deported from Israel and
00:30:07 and we can see that um
00:30:17 there's a a
00:30:21 a a suggestion that there should be internal security within the ISM.
00:30:29 Well, I would have reported exactly what I heard.
00:30:31 I heard. Was there significant internal security within the ISM? At that time I wouldn't have been able to comment. Did you join the ISM quite easily? One doesn't join
00:30:43 the ISM quite easily? One doesn't join an organization like the ISM. It's uh as is often the case with an arco anarchist groups, it's often by way of association.
00:30:55 And how easy did was it for you to um associate and and attend these meetings? Well, I certainly attended the training event. And from then I then went on to develop friendships with the members of
00:31:07 develop friendships with the members of the group and become more involved and attend more meetings. Um in terms of ease, I don't know if they undertook any security checks against me, for example. But was it particularly difficult? I personally didn't find it that difficult.
00:31:19 didn't find it that difficult. And why did you think that uh Special Branch would be interested in this person in particular? Well, you're looking at an individual who claims to have traveled to Israel and claims to um
00:31:30 have traveled to Israel and claims to um have been deported. This is an individual who perhaps then may be of interest to Special Branch because of their interest and maybe perhaps what they may or may not be doing. Uh but all all speculative at the at the
00:31:41 Uh but all all speculative at the at the time. Yes, but that's the nature of intelligence. It's very much about forward as much as about events that have taken place. It can also be in terms of forward thinking.
00:31:51 The next report, please. MPS 0040147.
00:31:58 It's behind tab B 41 in bundle two. And this is uh an example of a composite raw report. Is this your own report? Did
00:32:09 raw report. Is this your own report? Did you author this document?
00:32:15 That's possible.
00:32:18 Is this how you would present your reports to the back back office and then they would
00:32:26 uh type these up in sterilized reports? Well, I would pass on information to the back office and it would then be up to the day the officer to consider how they would then sanitize the report, how they
00:32:37 would then sanitize the report, how they would break down reports into particular lines, or how they would separate elements within contained within the information that I provided. The third paragraph is in relation to an
00:32:49 The third paragraph is in relation to an ISM vigil held outside Downing Street to commemorate the death of ISM activist Tom Hurndall. And he was a young man that was shot on
00:33:02 And he was a young man that was shot on the 11th of April 2003 by an Israeli soldier in Rafah. And is it right that we've heard evidence that he was actually trying to help clear children
00:33:15 actually trying to help clear children from the path of Israeli snipers at the time when he was shot? I don't know. I can't comment on that. You were there at the vigil, is that right? at the vigil, yes. And that was uh
00:33:27 And that was uh an event where there was no public disorder?
00:33:32 disorder? There was a quiet gathering as I recall of um
00:33:34 of um of ISM activists. As I say, it was a commemoration Okay. of Tom Hurndall. So, no crime or public order to report? No, but certainly part of the activity
00:33:45 No, but certainly part of the activity of ISM.
00:33:50 Um and it has details of Mr. Hurndall's treatment in hospital. Yes.
00:33:59 Yes. And what Why was that of importance for you to include in the report? I would have seen that presumably as providing further context to the to the reporting. So, I would have provided as much
00:34:10 So, I would have provided as much information as possible that was available to me. This is post-event. How could that have been of interest to Special Branch? Because it involved ISM. Okay, that was
00:34:21 Because it involved ISM. Okay, that was that That was the criteria. Absolutely, yes. Um Was this I think you say this was the first event where you met Atif Choudhry. I believe so, yes. It Could it be that you met him
00:34:33 so, yes. It Could it be that you met him previously at a party hosted by Charlotte Carson? At a house party before that. Which is Atif Chaudhry's evidence. I'm
00:34:44 Which is Atif Chaudhry's evidence. I'm not certain. My recollection, specific recollection of meeting Atif for the first time, was at the vigil. And the reason I recall that is because he was carrying a bag of I believe
00:34:55 he was carrying a bag of I believe clementines. Of what?
00:34:57 Of what? For some reason that stuck in my brain.
00:35:01 Sorry, what was he carrying a bag of? a bag of clementines. Oh.
00:35:09 And that was here at this vigil. I believe so. And how would you have described him when you first met him?
00:35:19 Uh circumspect. Not particularly given to opening up initially. Possibly quite wary. Wasn't immediately
00:35:31 Wasn't immediately welcoming or open. If I recall. Can we look at paragraphs 5 and 6 of this document, please?
00:35:52 You give a physical description of him.
00:35:56 Was it important at the time to record race? Yes. You describe IC4. And what was the purpose of that? Simply because within the police environment, in order to be able to identify an individual,
00:36:08 to be able to identify an individual, there are there there are I don't know if they've changed it, but there were certainly codes in place that were used by police to help define or to identify individuals according to racial categories.
00:36:20 He has described himself as being uh withdrawing from activity activism or um taking a break from ISM.
00:36:33 from ISM. And you report that. So, from a very early stage, were you aware that he was not really that engaged with ISM save for fundraising? I think the issue here is that he may have claimed that, but I certainly wasn't in the position to
00:36:44 certainly wasn't in the position to confirm that to be true. Did that fairly quickly become apparent to you as soon as you started spending time with him? Not really, no. No.
00:36:57 In what way? Well, the chief was involved with I think an olive oil company.
00:37:05 company. Where the proceeds of which I think were made available to individuals within Palestine.
00:37:13 So, he's he's engaged in fundraising events, but primarily this is a British citizen businessman who's involved in uh grassroots community
00:37:26 uh grassroots community business initiatives. Is that right? Well, he might describe it like that. Would you not describe him I would describe him as someone who was within the orbit of the ISM. Therefore, he was of interest to me. In terms of the company that he
00:37:39 In terms of the company that he established, Zaytoun, that organization, was that something that you thought was a legitimate target for reporting on? Zaytoun was not a target for me, but
00:37:50 Zaytoun was not a target for me, but certainly his involvement with it would have been.
00:37:54 It would have been part of it, the general intelligence picture as to the individual, what they were involved in, what their interests were, including business. And so, you thought it was legitimate to
00:38:06 And so, you thought it was legitimate to report on the ins and outs of the business itself, did you? Insofar as any activity that he undertook in relation to this, I would have reported on.
00:38:16 Um just while we're on this document, page two, paragraph five,
00:38:25 Um there's reference to a few other um initiatives as well. We've got uh emails from the organization Global Resistance.
00:38:36 Resistance. Um
00:38:36 Um I've highlighted a few more events. So, is this
00:38:40 is this uh to the extent that you're you can recall, did you report on uh Global Globalized Resistance through email activity? You had access to Uh
00:38:52 email activity? You had access to Uh this looks as if it may have come from some generic mailing list of some kind. Okay, so you were you you were receiving information about them and reporting on them to that extent? No, I didn't to the extent that I was not deployed to
00:39:04 to the extent that I was not deployed to report against Globalized Resistance, certainly. But then this has come up and I knew that they were an organization that the Special Branch at that time had a very keen interest in. So, if that had come across, then I would have just put
00:39:15 come across, then I would have just put it in as a matter of course.
00:39:19 So, just a matter of course because it it touches on left-wing activity. No, because Special Branch had a specific interest in Globalized Resistance. I knew that.
00:39:31 Um
00:39:34 Report number MPS 004 1000,
00:39:40 1000, please.
00:39:46 21st of February 2005. It's behind tab C7 of bundle four. An ISM
00:39:55 An ISM supporter being involved in a a fundraising event for the 18th of March.
00:40:06 Okay. Um fundraising was a big part of the group's activities. Is that fair to say? Uh certainly they had fundraising activities, yes. And what did that normally involve?
00:40:17 normally involve? Uh well, was where my role with um sound equipment and with DJing was of some use to them.
00:40:24 to them. And so you would often DJ at events and and that would be for fundraising. that would then obviously generate income.
00:40:32 income. And do you know how much you used to generate? No.
00:40:38 Um report number MPS 004 1092 behind tab C8.
00:41:01 It's a report on an ISM activist.
00:41:06 A description there. And the fact that he may have a daughter about 10 years old. Why was that important to report? Because in the context of the individual it might have
00:41:17 context of the individual it might have been information that would have helped identify him as far as um desk officers were in or concerned at SB. No sense of not reporting on children at all.
00:41:29 all. Um next report MPS 0041817.
00:41:40 24th of March 2005. About a collective of art, music, politics. Says that it's a collective of about three people.
00:41:51 about three people. The purpose of which is to organize and coordinate social events with a specifically political dimension. Again, uh
00:41:59 Again, uh was it your impression at the time that you had to report on anything that had to do with political activity? That Well, yes, because also I think I would have been I was aware of the location.
00:42:10 have been I was aware of the location. So, yes, that I would have just reported on because of the the political element to it.
00:42:17 to it. MPS 0041332 behind tab C14 is a report on Charlotte Carson and her contact with Atif Choudry.
00:42:31 She's a keen supporter of Zaytoun,
00:42:37 a company that distributes in the UK. These are all legitimate uh activities, nothing to do with uh
00:42:47 uh uh public disorder or criminal enterprise. Is that right? Again, it's the reason this would have been reported by me would be it would be part of the larger intelligence picture that could then be developed by the officers at
00:42:58 then be developed by the officers at NSY.
00:43:05 Um
00:43:07 save to do with fundraising. Did Atif Choudry strike you as somebody that was uh uh very much involved in planning
00:43:20 uh very much involved in planning any uh
00:43:22 any uh events that would lead to disorder? No.
00:43:28 And by now in March 2005, you've been in the field for some time. Was there any sense that what people like Charlotte and Atif were up to
00:43:41 like Charlotte and Atif were up to was of anything other than what uh uh uh
00:43:46 uh can be seen as legitimate activity supporting Palestinian rights in Gaza and other places? Again, I make the point they are part of ISM, and I'm still reporting on
00:43:57 part of ISM, and I'm still reporting on them because of the fact we are not sure who's going through, who may be coming through ISM. The next report MPS 0041329
00:44:13 behind tab C12 of bundle four.
00:44:37 The two again Gus is somebody that you're reporting on and he has a daughter. Yes. A 10-year-old daughter. You've reported both the fact that he
00:44:48 You've reported both the fact that he claims to be in receipt of disability allowance and also her name. Was there any specific reason for that? Because if previously, depending on when this report was submitted,
00:44:59 this report was submitted, I don't know the chronology here, but it would have been another means of helping to identify who she was and identifying him. Why would you need to know who she was? Because she's his daughter and it's a mechanism whereby
00:45:12 a mechanism whereby for example, if you've got two activists and both of them have the name Gus, one of them has a daughter and one doesn't, that extra detail might help in the the branch officers in terms of being able to identify that individual in particular. And you thought that Gus
00:45:26 particular. And you thought that Gus was somebody that was of interest to Special Branch. Yes. What was it in particular about this person that you thought Special Branch needed to know about? As far as I can
00:45:37 needed to know about? As far as I can recall, he was as I say involved in ISM and I believe he may even have traveled out to the territories.
00:45:46 The next report MPS 0042113
00:45:52 is behind tab C17
00:45:58 is an ISM impromptu demonstration in Cavendish Cavendish Square on the 13th of April 2005.
00:46:08 And it's in relation with War on Want and the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. Um
00:46:17 Supporters of the demonstration have been asked to arrive at midday wearing Caterpillar t-shirts. The Caterpillar t-shirts was a campaign against CAT the Um vehicle company, is
00:46:31 against CAT the Um vehicle company, is that right? Uh possibly or maybe even on Caterpillar. Cat- Caterpillar, yeah. And and that's because of their involvement in uh well, the supplier Construction and demolition that as as
00:46:42 Construction and demolition that as as identified in the um in Israel, the occupied territories, Palestine. So, that they're involved in in demolishing Palestinian homes.
00:46:54 in demolishing Palestinian homes. I can't say for certain what those vehicles are concerned with, but I know that they're used out there. Okay. And uh we'll come on to it, but Caterpillar was one of the vehicles that
00:47:05 Caterpillar was one of the vehicles that was involved in the death of Rachel Corrie, is that right? I believe so.
00:47:11 Um In terms of this report, this is uh lawful protest trying to raise awareness about that uh company, is that right? It's a It's
00:47:24 company, is that right? It's a It's indicative of the fact that there will be a protest, whether it's Is it lawful? Yes, it would appear so. However, you've got Caterpillar t-shirts and the the line the organizers then say the event will then make itself clear.
00:47:36 the event will then make itself clear. Suggest to me that there's a potential there for um public order disorder. Although in the comment section, it says that it's not thought that this will be a violent event. Uh no numbers were known. It is not
00:47:48 Uh no numbers were known. It is not thought that this will be a violent event. That doesn't say with great certainty this will be a non-violent event.
00:47:57 Uh The next report MPS series 042125 behind tab C19
00:48:07 from the 12th of April 2005. This is in relation to the ISM preparing for a visit to the UK of the parents and sister of Rachel Corrie.
00:48:18 sister of Rachel Corrie. And she was the activist killed in Gaza, Palestine on the 16th of March 2003. She was 23 years old. Um and she was trying to stand in
00:48:30 Um and she was trying to stand in solidarity and protect Palestinian homes being demolished when she was um
00:48:36 um killed as a result of the movement of caterpillar uh caterpillar vehicle. Is that right? That's That's what you're telling me. Okay. Were you not aware of that as a
00:48:47 Okay. Were you not aware of that as a member of ISM? It's quite high profile. Well, I'm aware of the death of Rachel Corrie, yes. And I'm also I recall the visit to the UK of her parents, yes, certainly. And And so this is reporting on a a
00:48:59 And And so this is reporting on a a grieving family who are coming over to make contact with uh others who may have known Rachel and spent time with her. Yes.
00:49:07 Yes. And why was that of relevance to Special Branch? Because it related to the ISM.
00:49:16 Did you meet Rachel's family? I did, yes.
00:49:20 yes. Uh so did you attend this social that was mentioned in the report? Did yes.
00:49:26 Did yes. And did you have conversations with Rachel's family about Rachel herself? I don't recall.
00:49:35 In terms of being an undercover officer
00:49:39 officer was it open to you to avoid an event like this that didn't have any potential for public disorder or um
00:49:48 or um uh
00:49:49 uh criminal activity? Possibly, but I obviously felt that it was appropriate that I attended. Why was that? Because it was the ISM.
00:49:59 A linked report to this is behind tab C40 MPS0064124.
00:50:11 And it's in reference to the the family of Rachel Corrie looking to maybe hire a room in Parliament. And
00:50:19 And uh
00:50:20 uh MP Jeremy Corbyn was involved in facilitating that.
00:50:27 Again, reference to a member of Parliament. Um
00:50:33 Um doing very legitimate parliamentarian activity. Was there any sense that you shouldn't be reporting on a a politician in that way? At the time, no.
00:50:47 Were you explicitly tasked to monitor the family of Rachel Corrie? No. Um we know that references to Rachel Corrie uh preemptive intelligence and a
00:50:59 Corrie uh preemptive intelligence and a link between Rachel Corrie's family and ISM London were included within the RIPA authorization documents which we've had a look at. I don't need to take you I don't think to the
00:51:10 don't think to the to the documents themselves because you weren't familiar with them. Um but there was no sense was there of you being told by back office or management not to report on
00:51:21 office or management not to report on this No. uh family or their uh their movements. No.
00:51:26 No. I remember discussing my attendance at this event with another officer. And
00:51:31 And how I felt having attended uh the event.
00:51:38 Uh is is that an officer who is an open officer? Can you tell us his name or would you like to write it down? No, it's not an open officer. Okay. Can you write the name down for us, please? Uh the or the The officer
00:51:49 us, please? Uh the or the The officer that you spoke to.
00:52:09 I'd like to write this. All right. I need to write this.
00:52:36 Thank you.
00:52:45 Just leave them there for now.
00:52:48 And And how did you feel about having reported on that? I think I recall describing it to him as an absolutely horrendous moment. That
00:52:59 That to see two parents who were clearly in pain
00:53:02 pain and had been hurt by the experience of the loss of their their daughter. And did you give any thought to how they might feel knowing that there was an undercover officer in their midst? I think if
00:53:13 officer in their midst? I think if they'd known, they would have been absolutely appalled. And did you raise that point with the officer that you spoke to? No. I think that what I spoke about was to how I'd felt about having to attend.
00:53:26 And did you think about raising anything with management about that? No, because I
00:53:31 I it was appropriate? Because I'd put the report in in, so therefore my expectation would have been if there were any questions or problems, they would have come back to me. If you felt there there any problems with the scope of your reporting, did
00:53:42 with the scope of your reporting, did you feel that you could query that and raise the issue with management to see that you were on track Well, I think my expectation was that I provided the information and then if there were any issues or questions that
00:53:53 there were any issues or questions that then arose, they would then write bring them up with me if you like into for discussion. As a
00:54:03 holder of the independent office of constable though it's right, isn't it, that you should feel that
00:54:10 feel that or you believe that you are right in your own actions and that you have authority in your own actions and not just take direction from your line managers. There is certainly an
00:54:21 managers. There is certainly an expectation of independence on the part of of officers. This is a separate question to how that actually operates in the real world. And in terms of the real world, you didn't feel that it was your
00:54:32 didn't feel that it was your role to raise any issues about At the time I would have At the time I would have seen this as being me reporting on something that was necessarily linked to the ISM.
00:54:45 Can we have up on screen, please, MPS 004 to 118? It's behind tab C18.
00:54:55 This is in relation to an ISM activist who claims to have been in contact with extremists. And presumably this is when you heard this, was this exactly the sort of thing that you thought you
00:55:07 the sort of thing that you thought you were in the field to discover? Well, no, because my issue here is the fact that the title there, activist claims to have been in contact with an extremist. I'm not certain I would have I wrote that.
00:55:18 not certain I would have I wrote that. And also, if you look at the main body of the report, there is no mention as far as I can see of the word extremist. Okay. It's in relation to um uh
00:55:28 uh uh Asif Mohammed Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif and their involvement in an incident in Palestine in 2003.
00:55:39 incident in Palestine in 2003. So, this is a a a couple of years before your your report here. And um we know that those two were Well, one was a suicide bomber, one was an attempted suicide bomber
00:55:51 attempted suicide bomber um in relation to an event um
00:55:56 uh in Gaza. Can we bring up, please, MP uh sorry, UCPI 39734?
00:56:06 It's behind tab B133.
00:56:11 It's in bundle four. And this is a BBC article written at the time.
00:56:18 time. And if we look in particular at paragraph one,
00:56:25 you can see that it relates to two Britons
00:56:29 Britons allegedly seen visiting a Gaza apartment belonging to a pro-Palestinian group 5 days before the attack. Uh
00:56:37 Uh Rafael Cohen is an activist who you report on quite extensively as part of your operation. And um
00:56:45 And um uh he says that he spoke to the pair for about 25 about 15 minutes on the 25th of April.
00:56:53 April. Um and if we go on to paragraph 12, please.
00:57:07 Um he says that he did ask them, "Who are you and what organization do you belong to?" And they said they didn't belong to any organization. But he didn't form any impression of them. And after about 15-minute chat,
00:57:19 them. And after about 15-minute chat, the group went to lay flowers at a nearby site where Rachel Corrie had been killed, and then went their separate ways. And several days later, they obviously uh, performed the act of
00:57:31 obviously uh, performed the act of terrorism, uh, one of them dying in the event and the other one being found a couple of weeks later dead.
00:57:40 dead. So,
00:57:41 So, in terms of that, obviously this is something that was, uh, uh, of quite a high profile event at the time. BBC reported on it. ISM activist quite open about his
00:57:53 activist quite open about his involvement, uh, with the two, uh, the two people who traveled there, the two Britons. Um, and no connection with ISM beyond
00:58:05 Um, and no connection with ISM beyond the cup of the cup of tea and them attending the vigil. Well, that's what's reported in here. Whether that's true or not is a separate question. Did you do any report, research or ask anybody about any
00:58:17 research or ask anybody about any further information on this? Not that I recall, no. Uh, would it be fair to say that the inference would be that MI, well, that the security service would have known all about this and done particular research? You would have to
00:58:28 particular research? You would have to ask them. And that there was nothing really that you could add to what they already knew from 2 years ago. I think that the fact of the matter is that it's information and it might still be of
00:58:39 information and it might still be of value.
00:58:43 Suicide bomber. That's worth remembering. It is and
00:58:50 It is and presumably that was what you thought at the time was quite a a big thing and that was almost justification for your deployment. Was that the sense that you had and that's why it was reported? No,
00:59:03 had and that's why it was reported? No, as I said to you, there's a link here that appears to be with ISM, so therefore I would have reported it. I'm in the intelligence report, I'm really reporting something that I've become aware of.
00:59:13 aware of. Um,
00:59:15 Um, notwithstanding that it's 2 years down the line and something might have been done in the intervening period by security services. Possibly.
00:59:26 Um, can we have a MPS 004?
00:59:45 Um,
00:59:49 Sorry, MPS 004 3231, please.
00:59:57 A report of the 6th of May, 2005, behind tab C22.
01:00:05 This is about uh War on Want
01:00:10 having closer contact with ISM. This is again in particular in relation to the Caterpillar protest and and uh the protest that
01:00:23 protest that would be held in the John Lewis department store. I'll give you a moment to read that.
01:00:45 Okay. So, again, because of Caterpillar's involvement in um activities in Israel, stockists of the brand became a bit of a
01:00:57 stockists of the brand became a bit of a target for protest, and that's what uh you're reporting on here. Is that right? That would appear to be the case, yes. And was it important for you to be able to report on
01:01:08 to report on events that may impact on um businesses? Or is it simply because it involves ISM? It's because it involves ISM, it's a in terms of trying to understand the direction of the group.
01:01:23 Um, next report MPS 0062335, please.
01:01:38 And this is again an example of your raw reporting.
01:01:43 And we can see that um Sorry, you say that, but this is not signed by me, is it?
01:01:48 it? It's not signed by you. You're saying that you didn't write your reports up like this. What I'm saying is I can't say with absolute certainty that I wrote this report. Did you used to type them?
01:01:59 Did you used to type them? Handwrite and type. And write and type. And would you generally sign them at the bottom?
01:02:05 bottom? Potentially.
01:02:10 Um do you Does
01:02:13 Does Does this sort of reporting Does it seem familiar to you in terms of the the font and the layout? Well, it's less about that and more about the content, clearly.
01:02:32 And is this content the sort of content that you would report? I would say so, yes.
01:02:42 Um Having looked at this Moving on to page two as well, please.
01:02:51 please. Generally reporting here in relation to ISM people going out to the occupied territories, um
01:02:59 um attending there. First paragraph on this page, we can see there's going to be a cantata for Rachel Corrie
01:03:09 held at the Hackney Empire and in in an effort to raise some money.
01:03:20 Um Jeremy Corbyn was involved in this event as well. Is that right? I can't confirm that.
01:03:25 that. Can we have a look at the Is there other reporting that contains that information? page Yeah, paragraph four just below.
01:03:34 And it appears that this is the sort of report This is the report that um was made into a sanitized report later on.
01:03:51 Okay. Um potentially powerful and influ- influential friends. Is that a reference to Jeremy Corbyn? Well, that looks like that's obviously comment and
01:04:03 looks like that's obviously comment and Corbyn certainly would have been considered by members of the ISM to be someone worth having links to or with. Okay.
01:04:12 Okay. And again, that was seen as important. As part of the general context intelligence picture of ISM, yes.
01:04:22 Page three of this report, please.
01:04:28 Paragraph one relates to a Palestinian male who's been redacted for as privacy.
01:04:36 Lives in a large warehouse where he usually shares Excuse me, which he usually shares with Raphael Cohen. Um
01:04:44 Um it goes on to say that uh there are uh
01:04:53 uh there's reference to two of his immediate family being involved in suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. One of those was his cousin, the other his brother.
01:05:04 the other his brother. And apparently one of those was motivated to attack the Israelis because of the death of his cousin.
01:05:11 cousin. So again, you've got this reference to a suicide uh uh bomber, and obviously that sparks or triggers
01:05:20 triggers uh interest in in in your uh view. And the fact that obviously he's he's um obviously has a relationship with Raphael Rowe. Um in terms of this particular person,
01:05:33 Um in terms of this particular person, was there any suggestion that he himself was of any threat or danger to the UK? I wouldn't be able to say. That would have been something that would have would have been had to have been investigated
01:05:45 have been had to have been investigated by either special branch or other agencies.
01:05:49 agencies. Um
01:05:51 Um and did you have any sense of whether other agencies were already looking at this person? Well, at the time you asked me earlier today, you asked was I aware that my reports had been passed on to the security services, and I obviously
01:06:02 the security services, and I obviously wasn't. Um it's quite possible they may have undertaken their own research once this information been put into the system.
01:06:09 system. Had this person been known to security service, would you have expected to have been told about that or targeted to find out more information about him or I I to be fair, I don't quite know I don't
01:06:20 be fair, I don't quite know I don't understand or know how the security services operate. So, I can't therefore comment on their modus operandi. And is it right that you weren't asked to delve any deeper into this person's
01:06:33 to delve any deeper into this person's uh uh background? receiving a specific tasking. I then just continued to then report on him so that further gathering further information to tell me the identification of who he was and what he might be about.
01:06:44 might be about. In terms of the rest of this page, we can see that you do set out in some detail
01:06:49 detail uh information about his family life and his immediate family.
01:06:59 Um did your reporting on him go beyond this or this is the the end point of of your reporting on this person? I'm not certain. I would have to know see the my my intelligence reports in
01:07:10 see the my my intelligence reports in their entirety and then check that name against what I submitted, but clearly this has been presented and submitted by me to provide further context to help understand who this individual was, what
01:07:21 understand who this individual was, what his intentions may or may not be while he's in the UK. Um as far as you can recall, was this any significant person that you were targeted against? Not that I'm aware of.
01:07:33 Not that I'm aware of. Uh instead you you continued with your primary targets, those being uh uh Well, I I looking back at this, I would say that I picked him up and identified him because of the relationship that he had with Charlotte and also Raphael. There
01:07:45 with Charlotte and also Raphael. There was clearly a strong relationship that involved this individual.
01:07:54 Um can we have up on screen, please, MPS 0062497?
01:08:04 This individual, MCD, member of ISM, um it's negative reporting in terms of uh intelligence about them not attending
01:08:16 them not attending the G8 summit and instead would be handing out flyers at Hyde Park on Saturday the 2nd of July in relation to a concert. Uh was that
01:08:28 Uh was that seen as non-intel that was just as useful as positive intel? There's a difference between positive intel and non-intel, so I would say this is intelligence.
01:08:39 So, any any intelligence is good intelligence. In this instance, it clearly identifies the fact that this individual will not be traveling to Scotland, where at the time I believe they were they were expecting um
01:08:50 expecting um potential public order disorder because of the event that was taking place up there.
01:08:54 there. We have a couple of reports. I don't think I need to bring them up on screen. The first one is that Atif Chaudry attended at Glastonbury. Um with uh friends.
01:09:05 Um with uh friends. That's behind tab C27 and behind C28, the fact that Atif Chaudhry also planned to participate in G8 activities. Um again, fairly legitimate activities
01:09:19 Um again, fairly legitimate activities on the part of Atif Chaudhry. Part of interest to the special branch to understand what this man was about, what he was doing. And potentially his movements. And somebody who goes to Glastonbury and
01:09:30 somebody who goes to Glastonbury and spends time there, that's just his general socializing, isn't it? Well, I certainly wouldn't attend Glastonbury. What I would say here is that it's part of understanding who this individual is.
01:09:43 Um
01:09:47 Next report, MPS0062505.
01:09:58 Um 28th of June 2005.
01:10:04 MPS0062502.
01:10:10 Behind tab C29.
01:10:14 Plans of ISM to go up to the G8 Scotland event.
01:10:35 Um
01:10:37 The reference here to the travel arrangements, was that of particular interest as opposed to just activities at the G8 and and planned disorder? This would have been
01:10:49 planned disorder? This would have been part of understanding the activist that I was reporting on if they had indicated they would be traveling to Scotland and clearly that would be of interest to Special Branch.
01:10:59 Um can we look at page two, please?
01:11:09 There's reference in the comment section um to uh the minibus being driven by Emily Apple, described as a leading light in the Disarm uh DSCI campaign.
01:11:22 light in the Disarm uh DSCI campaign. Um
01:11:23 Um was she a target at that time, a known target for you to report on? No, Emily Apple was not a target, specific target for me during my deployment.
01:11:34 for me during my deployment. Was she somebody that became known to you through discussions at uh the SDS meetings? No, I certainly knew of Em- the name Emily Apple prior to being um
01:11:46 the name Emily Apple prior to being um deployed within SDS.
01:11:50 And so, her name coming up in discussion, would that be something that you would immediately think needs to be reported?
01:11:56 reported? If that name had come up and it was most certainly related to her, then yes, I would have reported it. She's noted as having a file in the research section. Did you read her file? No, I don't recall doing so.
01:12:12 Can we have up, please, uh UCPI 38560?
01:12:20 Page 44.
01:12:24 This is part of an exhibit that has been provided to the uh inquiry by uh Asa Winstanley.
01:12:34 And it is a an email from you to Red Room. Is Red Room one of the forums that you were a part of
01:12:45 forums that you were a part of in your capacity as an ISM member? I don't recall.
01:12:54 Um RSP Harrison@yahoo.co.uk. Was that one of the email addresses that you used?
01:13:00 you used? I believe that was a email address that was specifically linked to my activities with ISM. Okay. And Asa Winstanley, he was somebody that you knew as a member of a ISM, is that
01:13:11 you knew as a member of a ISM, is that right? Yes, I met Asa um as part of uh him being part of our or associated with ISM.
01:13:18 ISM. So, this is June 2005 and um it looks like you're providing a draft document as to the general principles of ISM. Do
01:13:29 as to the general principles of ISM. Do you recall writing that email? No. Um it appears that what is being set out is a draft mandate or if you like um or a set of principles to guide ISM
01:13:41 um or a set of principles to guide ISM as a group. Um
01:13:44 Um would you have been somebody in a position to have tried to formalize this if there wasn't already a document like this in existence? W- When you What do
01:13:55 this in existence? W- When you What do you mean by formalize? And put something down in writing and and make it a a proper draft document. I would potentially I may have This appears to be a draft of some kind, but in terms of if you're asking whether I
01:14:06 in terms of if you're asking whether I would have had the final say on whether this all was or was not accepted by the group, then clearly that's not the case as appears to be suggested by the the opening to the email.
01:14:17 Sorry, you say it's not accepted by the group? As promised, here's the start of the draft document. It's a draft document and clearly part of a some kind of conversation that appears to be taking place between myself and Asa. Yeah.
01:14:29 Asa. Yeah. So So, were you involved in drafting the the principles for ISM? It would appear that I appear to have been involved in the drafting of this document. And would that be because there wasn't a formalized set of principles for ISM at
01:14:41 formalized set of principles for ISM at this time? Or perhaps this was being used to replace it. Um paragraphs two and three, about halfway down the page, if we can have a look at those, please.
01:14:55 In terms of the principles that set out there, I'll give you a moment to have a look at them.
01:15:10 Okay. Would you say that it was clear by this time that ISM had no interest in violence or terrorism? That clearly is a clear statement of that, yes.
01:15:22 that, yes. And in fact, none of your reporting focused on Islamic terrorism in the UK or the views of ISM London members regarding Islamic terrorism as a
01:15:33 members regarding Islamic terrorism as a as a goal or objective, save for the the the reports to do with suicide bombers from previously. Well, as I said, if I would have discovered something, I would have reported it.
01:15:46 The question remains though as to you have to be available in order to discover something in order to report it.
01:15:54 Was it open to you to be uh in the group, just not reporting anything that didn't at least meet a basic level of uh interest to Special Branch? Possibly,
01:16:06 uh interest to Special Branch? Possibly, but I reported everything. Can I ask you about the campaign for Jean Charles de Menezes? Of course. Um
01:16:15 Um MPS 0748828, please.
01:16:28 Um, this is in relation to Alister uh
01:16:33 uh involved in the current political campaign centered around the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.
01:16:40 Menezes. Um, and then his details. Um,
01:16:43 Um, it's described as a political campaign by you. Did Did you recognize that perhaps it would be more accurate to call it a justice campaign?
01:16:54 call it a justice campaign? The first thing I would say, of course, is did I write involved with the police campaign arising from the death of Jean Charles de Menezes? Um, but certainly the main body of the intelligence appears to be something that I would have provided.
01:17:05 have provided. Was it your sense that the SDS saw it as a a political campaign? Was it discussed by people in the in the SDS? Not that I recall. Was there any discussion about
01:17:17 recall. Was there any discussion about his death in the SDS at the time? No, but I certainly recall the fact that I attended a meeting that was held at LSE, which is something I perhaps you will touch upon. Um, and subsequent to that,
01:17:28 touch upon. Um, and subsequent to that, there was a discussion I was told not to to report on them in any way, shape or form.
01:17:35 Um,
01:17:50 sorry, bear with me one moment.
01:17:57 Yeah, we can bring bring that reference up. It's at MPS0722
01:18:03 169 behind tab B82 in bundle three.
01:18:18 And if we go down to
01:18:23 um, at the entry uh, of April 2007 in this document. This appears to be a uh
01:18:31 uh uh
01:18:33 uh a note or a diary of of your deployment. Um
01:18:40 Um drafted by HN30, who is one of your cover officers, I think. Is that right? Um I'll have to just check if you don't mind.
01:18:49 Okay, yeah.
01:18:55 Um sorry, if we can if we can go up, um this is the this is a document from, yeah, 10th of April 2007. Um and it's the note a special note at uh
01:19:08 a special note at uh 11th of October 2005. So, if we can scroll up.
01:19:16 Sorry, I haven't made a a note page reference.
01:19:24 Next page.
01:19:29 Yes, at the top of this page, we can see there's a special note of the 11th of the 10th 2005 concerning the Jean Charles de Menezes campaign, and CW has been instructed not to seek
01:19:41 and CW has been instructed not to seek out nor to place themselves in a position where they will have access to legally privileged or confidential material. Is that the Is that what you're referring to? That that's an
01:19:52 you're referring to? That that's an instruction to you. I recall and I don't believe it was HN30 who would have instructed me not to um report
01:20:02 report on uh the Menezes campaign. It wasn't a case of not to place themselves in a position where they would have access to legally privileged or confidential material. And again, I didn't I didn't write this report. Okay, but
01:20:13 Okay, but um it'll be appreciated that is quite different to not reporting on the campaign at all. you there's a difference there, but I can only tell you what I was told. Um
01:20:25 Um the reference you made to the campaign, the public meeting at the LSE, that uh is a report that you made on the 11th of October 2005.
01:20:36 11th of October 2005. MPS 064162.
01:20:42 So a report of the same date is this special note.
01:20:50 MPS 064162.
01:20:54 Behind tab C41.
01:21:06 So we can see here this is a a meeting that was held on the Monday, so the day before.
01:21:14 before. Um public meeting at the LSE. 300 people attending and you've listed the people there that have spoken at the event.
01:21:23 event. If we
01:21:25 If we scroll down, please. It just
01:21:29 It just general question, there was no disorder at this event, is that right? Not that I can recall, no.
01:21:42 Uh you mentioned uh somebody that's been
01:21:47 is identified as uh living with Atif Choudry as an ISM activist.
01:21:58 And the handler has noted source has been instructed not to seek out nor place themselves in a position where they will have access to legally privileged or confidential material. So that would appear to be a note of the
01:22:11 that would appear to be a note of the person who has then processed the instru- the that appears to be a comment that's been added by whoever processed and was responsible for putting this report together in terms of placing it onto this document.
01:22:25 terms of placing it onto this document. And who was it who you thought gave you the instruction not to be involved at all?
01:22:30 all? Forgive me a moment.
01:22:41 HN72. So, that was the DI. Yes. And um the note that we were looking at just a moment ago was a note by HN30 who
01:22:52 just a moment ago was a note by HN30 who was the DS. Who would have been reporting into that DI? The sergeant. And it may have been her, it may have been the other one of the other sergeants who wrote up this report
01:23:03 other sergeants who wrote up this report mentioning uh the reference there in terms of the handler. Possibly, yes. But are you saying that the detective inspector told you "Don't go anywhere near this campaign. Don't report on the campaign."
01:23:14 report on the campaign." So, I was told that after I'd attended this meeting. Yeah. Um and it appears that's when these notes were made as well, the special note on the I I wouldn't be able to say when those notes were drafted. Okay.
01:23:29 Did you make a note or is this just your recollection now looking back to that time that you were told "Do not target the campaign."? I didn't make a note at the time not to do that that I'd been
01:23:40 the time not to do that that I'd been instructed not to target the campaign, no. Is it likely that this note, this contemporaneous note, is more likely to be accurate that in fact what you were told is just not to have any access to
01:23:51 told is just not to have any access to the legally privileged material around the campaign? No. I have a very clear memory of being told by that particular DI not to engage further with the campaign.
01:24:02 And did you understand that to mean simply not go to any of the campaign meetings, or did that also encompass not reporting on the people who are involved in the campaign?
01:24:14 in the campaign? Primarily, it would have been not to go to any of the meetings that may have been held onwards from that point. In terms of In terms of the individuals, it seemed clear looking at this report in that
01:24:24 in that one of the individuals who was involved in
01:24:27 in the organization, whether true or not, because it's been reported as potentially, I may have continued to report on.
01:24:36 Can we have a look at MPS0526805,
01:24:41 please?
01:24:48 Page 13.
01:24:55 So, this is an update report of your authority signed by HM53, who is the uh
01:25:04 DI on page 22.
01:25:08 22. On the 1st of September 2005, we can perhaps just go to that. So, that was the detective inspector at the time.
01:25:16 the time. Could it have been HM uh 53 that spoke to you? In relation to uh not reporting on the campaign?
01:25:34 I don't believe so, no, because HM that particular individual um to the best of my recollection was not especially involved in the day-to-day operations of intelligence operations
01:25:46 operations of intelligence operations side. This was an individual who was very much concerned with the sort of back office bureaucracy, if you like. And I think to be fair, HM53 was the DI up until September '05 before
01:25:59 was the DI up until September '05 before 72 took over in the October. Yes, 72 did replace him, yes. Okay. Um can we go to page 16, please?
01:26:13 And paragraph four.
01:26:19 This is the the operational objectives and we can see that um UCA common wheels position within the organization
01:26:28 and this is talking about ISM will also afford an opportunity to gauge and assess any attempt to subvert or hijack the nascent campaign for justice for
01:26:39 the nascent campaign for justice for Jean Charles de Menezes the Brazilian man shot dead at Stockwell on the 22nd of July 2005.
01:26:50 Did you understand you were supposed to be gauging and assessing any attempt to subvert or hijack the nascent campaign? No, I recall no. As I said, I was told explicitly not to engage with the
01:27:01 explicitly not to engage with the campaign.
01:27:03 campaign. Uh was there any sense that you could protect it from outside ulterior agents?
01:27:11 agents? I think generally within Special Branch that would have been something perhaps that might have been considered because there will always be political groups, organizations that will latch onto a particular campaign and will seek to utilize it for their
01:27:22 and will seek to utilize it for their own well for their own gain.
01:27:26 Uh and um was this seen as something useful that the SDS could provide to Special Branch, a UCO that was there to detect
01:27:37 Branch, a UCO that was there to detect any sense of other political organizations latching onto the campaign, trying to subvert it? Possibly, but as I've said, I wasn't I didn't go on to report on that particular campaign. And that wasn't
01:27:49 particular campaign. And that wasn't communicated to you? No, I was told not to report on the Jean Charles de Menezes campaign as I've said.
01:27:54 said. Well, it appears from the contemporaneous documents that you were only
01:27:59 only told not to uh uh uh uh view the legally privileged privileged documents. I didn't write this document so I can't comment on the veracity of it. Um
01:28:10 Um the Met police were obviously involved directly in the taking of the life of a young Brazilian man. Was there any sense that that could affect the reputation of the
01:28:23 that could affect the reputation of the Met police and you were to assess that the the the threat to the reputation of the Metropolitan police. I don't think so, no.
01:28:37 Was there any sense
01:28:42 that you got that the campaign needed protecting from being subverted? No, I would have only been able to come to an opinion on that if I'd been reporting on there being present to understand the dynamics of the group and
01:28:53 understand the dynamics of the group and identify the individuals who may or may not have been engaging with that group. I wasn't in that position to do so, so therefore I couldn't have possibly have offered a credible view as far as I'm aware.
01:29:03 aware. The individuals that you um report on that were involved in the campaign and there are a number of examples of those. We don't have to go to all of them, but did you speak with them about
01:29:16 them, but did you speak with them about the campaign itself? Were you speaking with individuals about what the campaign was doing? No, I certainly recall being invited to the first meeting and attending after that. I can't recall at this moment any
01:29:27 I can't recall at this moment any particular conversations regarding that campaign with those individuals. Although again, I haven't got all of the reports in front of me.
01:29:38 Um can we turn to page uh 23 of this document, please?
01:29:51 We can see that the customer squad comments. So, this is C squad signed off by TN 24 on the 7th of September. About halfway down paragraph one.
01:30:09 It says, "Following the shooting, a number of groups have sought to make political capital out of the tragedy through attacking the police and government policy on Iraq."
01:30:21 government policy on Iraq." Was that something that you were aware of? Was that something that I didn't write this document, so I can't comment.
01:30:38 And your evidence is that this was never discussed in the group meetings at the SDS. I don't recall it being discussed within the meetings of the SDS.
01:31:00 Although not reporting on the campaign itself or any meetings of the campaign beyond that first one at the LSE, um
01:31:11 um were you nonetheless still looking to report on those who had some involvement? I may possibly reported on them, but perhaps it my primary reason for doing so would have been the fact
01:31:22 for doing so would have been the fact they'd crossed my radar, um not the fact they were involved in a solely with the John Jean de Menezes campaign.
01:31:42 Uh Patricia Ramani de Silva in her witness statement at paragraph 1.42, I don't need to go to it, but she says that the family organized a fundraiser party
01:31:52 party with the Peace Not War Collective at Jam in Brixton. Uh Yasmin Khan, Assad Rehman, and another privacy person
01:32:03 another privacy person were there and arranged the DJ. Were you involved in that fundraiser at all? I can't recall.
01:32:37 Um Patricia Armani de Silva in her witness statement she Jean Charles de Menezes' cousin she gave evidence to this inquiry.
01:32:49 she gave evidence to this inquiry. Um she says in her witness statement at paragraph 2.68 that I believe HNAT had infiltrated a particular event or incident or access for reporting
01:33:00 incident or access for reporting specifically about these campaigns and these campaigners on the 18th of April.
01:33:06 April. Asad was one of the founders of the campaign. He was very important to us at the time. He never left our side helping us with everything. I find it very intrusive the SDS took
01:33:17 I find it very intrusive the SDS took his personal email address to monitor him and us. And in that uh she is referring to um a document uh MPS 00 65523
01:33:35 which is behind tab C58 where you've reported on Asad Rehman and the email address that he was using.
01:33:48 that he was using. Did you supply that because you thought the email address might be used to see what the campaign was doing? No, I think I would have reported this because of Asad Rehman
01:33:59 reported this because of Asad Rehman who was known to be an activist. Did you check his file? No.
01:34:05 No. I don't recall doing so. So, although you say you reported Asad on Asad Rehman because he was an activist, you're making a specific link with Jean Charles de Menezes. It's you're reporting on him, he's an
01:34:17 you're reporting on him, he's an activist working within the campaign. Was that something you wanted to flag to Special Branch? So, the top the point of that report appears to be flagging the fact that Asad Rehman
01:34:28 flagging the fact that Asad Rehman um may have a link to this campaign, not on the direction of the campaign itself. Okay. Rehman is the important part of that document. But it's his tie with the campaign that was important to you. Is
01:34:40 campaign that was important to you. Is that fair? Yes. It's No, it's it's him as an individual.
01:34:46 Um but his activist his his support of the Jean Charles de Menezes campaign, why was that important? Why has that made its way into a report? It's clearly appears to be a statement that in some
01:34:57 appears to be a statement that in some way there was a link there, but as I make clear to you, Rehman was the was the point of interest there. Okay, but
01:35:06 Okay, but why is that important? If you've been told don't report on the campaign at all in the year before in 2005, why are you putting the name of the campaign in your
01:35:17 putting the name of the campaign in your reports? What would have they would have said if I hadn't included it? If that was a fact, and I've reported that as that's something that's true, then I would report that as true. Rehman is the point of interest here, not the Jean Justice for Jean campaign.
01:35:30 not the Jean Justice for Jean campaign. Rehman would have been involved in other things as a as a political activist. He's the point of interest. Okay. Um
01:35:41 And can you understand the upset that has been caused by this reporting on the campaign in SDS reports? Well, in the same way that with um
01:35:54 Well, in the same way that with um I think the loss of a son or a cousin or a daughter, of course, is going to be incredibly traumatic. So, yes, I have sympathy with how that might be interpreted, the report you might be interpreted.
01:36:05 interpreted. Um and and did you understand at the time that the campaign was to find out the truth about Jean Charles's death, to bring those responsible for his death to justice, and to campaign to end the shoot-to-kill policies that was
01:36:17 shoot-to-kill policies that was understood at the time? I can't recall.
01:36:22 Uh and in that sense, is it fair to say that the campaign didn't fall within your supposed remit of reporting on Islamic terrorism or anarchist crime or disorder? No, that's fair. That's a fair
01:36:34 disorder? No, that's fair. That's a fair comment.
01:36:37 And so, does it really not serve any purpose to put it into one of your SDS reports? No, I think it does serve a purpose, and the purpose is very much concentrated and centered on Asad Rehman as a political activist who was known to
01:36:49 as a political activist who was known to Special Branch.
01:36:54 Um MPS 0065545, please.
01:37:05 Behind tab C59.
01:37:10 Uh now,
01:37:19 um just to know the name that's under this privacy uh redaction. Um I'm just going to give you a reference on the cipher list in front of you. It's not the officer one, but the civilian cipher list. If you look at
01:37:31 civilian cipher list. If you look at item 15 on that document,
01:37:42 Yeah. Do you recognize that name? I I yes. And was there any uh reason to be reporting on him other than his involvement in the Justice for John campaign? Well, he was also a very
01:37:54 John campaign? Well, he was also a very close associate to uh Atif Chaudry and lived in the same um co-op.
01:38:02 Um there is a report where you note that that he lived in the same co-op as Atif Chaudry, but interestingly about this report that his involvement with the campaign, what was the point of interest
01:38:14 campaign, what was the point of interest about his involvement with the campaign and why was that in the report? It's not. The point of interest is that name. The the name of the individual and the fact that they are linked to Atif and obviously Atif is part of ISM, so it's
01:38:26 obviously Atif is part of ISM, so it's part of a relational There's a relational structure there at play and that's what I would have would have been reporting on. The Justice for Jean campaign would not have been my primary objective as I've already
01:38:35 already um
01:38:35 um made clear. Would it have been in your mind that this person is linked to Atif Chaudry and therefore might be trying to undermine the campaign
01:38:47 campaign for John Charles? No, it's would have simply been this individual is linked to Atif Chaudry. So, there's no reason why their campaign appears in report, then? Well, it's a fact that if he was If I've
01:38:59 Well, it's a fact that if he was If I've said he was involved with it, then that's a fact.
01:39:04 Can we have a look at MPS0526935?
01:39:14 Find her B54 in bundle three. It's uh
01:39:41 Um there is reference um to
01:39:51 Sorry, no. If I can take that down, please, and go instead to UCPI 38358.
01:40:04 Please, this is um
01:40:09 an exhibit Now, this is in relation to um at your postings as BoogieBoy. Or a blog as BoogieBoy. Do you recall I recall blogging I recall posting on that
01:40:23 recall blogging I recall posting on that particular forum, yes. And do you recall blogging in relation to the meeting? Um Yes.
01:40:31 Um Yes. The open meeting at the LSE. And do you recall um making a comment on page four, please?
01:40:43 Um we can see here
01:40:48 at big green B, BoogieBoy, this is your entry in relation to this thread. And you're responding in the box to the box, the gray box.
01:41:00 Reference is made in that gray box to the amount charged to the campaign for the use of the LSE room. And you um say that that was a
01:41:12 And you um say that that was a disgrace. What do they think was going to happen? Did they think that there was going to be a riot? And someone from the LSE should be called to account. Um
01:41:22 Um blogging about that meeting, was that uh something that you understood you had authority to do? Yes. And um clearly you didn't think there
01:41:33 And um clearly you didn't think there was going to be a riot. There was going going no public order in relation to that. Well, I don't know if you can say that. The fact is this is obviously being posted within the persona of
01:41:44 being posted within the persona of Boogie Boy, Rob Harrison. So, therefore, that comment is being is being pasted within the context of the website and also the discussion that would have been taking place. So, I would not obviously have
01:41:56 place. So, I would not obviously have gone on there and and made it a and presented my own opinion. So, this is a a a in your within the context of of my cover identity,
01:42:08 cover identity, maintaining cover, building that sense of who this individual is in relation to other people.
01:42:14 people. And can we have a look then at UCPI 38360? This is exhibit 13 to Patricia Armani da Silva's uh witness statement at page two,
01:42:27 uh witness statement at page two, please.
01:42:34 Is this page two?
01:42:40 Is If we can scroll down, perhaps the next page. Yes.
01:42:46 Yes. Um
01:42:47 Um the blue
01:42:49 the blue Uh sorry, the green B, please.
01:42:54 Um Now, this is sometime later on the 15th of January 2006, where you make a a post in relation to discussion about the
01:43:05 discussion about the uh the the killing, and you say
01:43:10 you say at the very last part of your entry, "If this was indeed the case, this leads me to suggest that Mr. de Menezes was dead before he actually entered the
01:43:21 dead before he actually entered the station."
01:43:23 station." Um
01:43:25 Um commenting on the nature of the um the event and the the killing of uh Jean Charles was that something that you felt was within your scope of deployment that you
01:43:38 within your scope of deployment that you could do that because it was in your cover identity? Yes, within the context of maintaining legend, building credibility, being in a particular space. It's highly unlikely
01:43:49 particular space. It's highly unlikely that I would have posted on there a comment that was supportive of the Metropolitan Police. What What was the purpose of doing that though?
01:43:56 though? To maintain the legend the persona that existed on Urban 75. Um page seven, please.
01:44:16 Uh it's the the one just above BB Boogie Boy.
01:44:28 And again, you say um "I find it hard to believe that a senior officer would not have been involved in the process of surveillance and in the consideration of the implementation of a shoot-to-kill action."
01:44:38 action." So, again commenting on uh the death did you consider the appropriateness of you doing that as a police officer? No, I saw it very much as being part of
01:44:50 I saw it very much as being part of maintaining that persona within that space.
01:44:52 space. Um
01:44:54 Um given that you were still a police officer and bound by um the
01:45:00 um the uh codes of conduct of a police officer in the undercover capacity did you give any consideration as to your actions and the appropriateness of that at all? In relation to this, no.
01:45:14 that at all? In relation to this, no. Did you give any consideration to what the family might think if they were to find out that an undercover officer had been posting uh in this way?
01:45:27 And was it your that on these forums you could say whatever you wanted to, no matter how extreme, so long as it was in the
01:45:39 was in the the the identity of your cover persona. As long as within on the various forums existed, I would be able to post within the persona that I had, yes.
01:45:53 And can you understand how family members would be very upset now that this has been discovered about an undercover police officer
01:46:02 officer posting in this way? Absolutely, yes.
01:46:08 Um
01:46:10 going back in fact, now is probably a good time for a break. Yes, I think it would.
01:46:17 would. 10 minutes? 10 minutes.
01:55:04 Mhm.
01:56:59 Mhm.
02:00:49 Mhm.
02:02:10 Yes. Thank you, sir.
02:02:17 Mr. Hastings, we um looked at one document before the break, and that was a a raw report, if you like, a typed-up
02:02:29 a raw report, if you like, a typed-up document that addressed a number of different reports that would later be made into separate sanitized reports. And you queried whether that may have been something that you
02:02:40 that may have been something that you authored. And in the in the break, we've been able to check the metadata and it does say that the author was Robert Hastings. Does that help you recall whether you were the author of that
02:02:51 whether you were the author of that report?
02:02:52 report? what the metadata says, then yes, I have to accept that. Thank you.
02:03:01 Um in the chronology now then in terms of your reporting um where in August 2005 So for um reporting on Jean Charles de
02:03:13 So for um reporting on Jean Charles de Menezes, um we took the the the scope of the reporting beyond um
02:03:20 beyond um uh uh
02:03:21 uh uh autumn of 2005. Um just for the sake of keeping that topic together, but I'd like to go back now to 30th of August 2005.
02:03:32 now to 30th of August 2005. Um MPS0063026
02:03:37 is behind tab C27 of the bundle. Volume four.
02:03:49 And this is a report specifically on Atif Chauldhry.
02:04:00 And you describe him as uh an activist involved with the ISM. It's right, isn't it, that the ISM was an an international movement that had
02:04:12 an an international movement that had been established for quite some time. It was actually the London ISM that Atif Chauldhry was a part of. Is that right? We were certainly based in London.
02:04:23 We were certainly based in London. Okay. And is it right that globally there were different um ISM um groups? My understanding would be that you perhaps if you think of them as cells
02:04:33 cells who would have been involved in different locations. Okay.
02:04:37 Okay. Um
02:04:39 Um in terms of the London group Ahtif Chaudry um had been a part of it. By the time you're reporting now in uh
02:04:50 you're reporting now in uh August 2005, he hadn't been very active at all in the group save for um fundraising events. Is that fair to say? I would say I have reported this
02:05:01 say? I would say I have reported this again because of the link to ISM. But in terms of his activity is it right to say that he wasn't uh really active within the group save for fundraising? Well, I would have to
02:05:12 fundraising? Well, I would have to survey all the information that I provided and made available to you in order to provide you with a view on that.
02:05:18 that. Um his predominant activity is the management of Zaytoun, the the business that he had set up to import Palestinian um goods. Is that right?
02:05:29 um goods. Is that right? He was certainly involved with that, yes.
02:05:33 yes. And uh you say that he lived in a a four-bedroom premises. You call it a collective, but is it fair to say that it's actually more of a cooperative? I think that would be a fair
02:05:44 I think that would be a fair description. And it's really a type of um premises where it's multiple occupants saying it's about I think Mr. Chaudry
02:05:55 saying it's about I think Mr. Chaudry described it as trying to build more of a community around housing, but it's not a collective as one would imagine it to be.
02:06:04 be. I think that would be a fair description.
02:06:07 Um nothing at all suspicious about the the that
02:06:13 the that housing setup? Well, this looking at this report, this is about again painting in the details, providing further information in terms of the individual.
02:06:28 Having reported on him uh over the period of a a year or so, or probably about 6 months. Um
02:06:37 Um had you got a sense of what he was involved with and how he spent his time, a really good sense of that? No, I think as I said earlier to you, the point was to maintain that brief, the watching
02:06:48 to maintain that brief, the watching brief, in regard to the individual and the organization. By this time, had you started spending a lot of time with him socially? We were certainly um spending time socially together, yes.
02:07:00 together, yes. And would you attend at his house um often unannounced? Yes, he would invite me over and other times I would turn up and we would just spend time together. Did it get to the stage that you were
02:07:12 Did it get to the stage that you were attending
02:07:13 attending almost every every other day? I don't know if it was that if that was if it was that frequent, but certainly he and I developed what I think we would describe as a close friendship.
02:07:26 describe as a close friendship. Um in terms of that close friendship, it wasn't a genuine friendship, was it? I don't know, I remain conflicted about that as a question. And is that because he didn't really
02:07:37 And is that because he didn't really know who or what you were? No, on the that my feelings towards him as an individual. A Teefe
02:07:47 One of the ways I would I've described a Teefe is in a different entirely different setting, I can absolutely see that a Teefe and I would have been extraordinarily close friends.
02:07:58 friends. And that's much to my regret that I met this individual in the context in which I did and not hadn't met him outside of that.
02:08:07 Um if you were close with him, did you understand that actually he wasn't involved in anything that Special Branch could possibly be interested in?
02:08:19 Branch could possibly be interested in? Again, I make the point he was part of ISM. This was stuff that I was reporting back. It's for them to make a decision in terms of what was and wasn't needed or required. Um ISM as a a movement you could have
02:08:31 Um ISM as a a movement you could have carried on reporting on without reporting on Atif Chairldries. Is that right? Well, at the same time you have to think that I embedded myself. It's part of my legend. It would be very strange if I just suddenly said to Atif
02:08:43 strange if I just suddenly said to Atif one day, "Well, I'm sorry. You'll not see me ever again." and disappear off. Is that in large part because you'd inveigled yourself so closely within his private life?
02:08:58 I think there are two things in operation there. There's a genuine friendship that I felt for him and the need to report on him.
02:09:06 That that you need to report on him, do you say?
02:09:08 you say? He's part of ISM, so yes, I'll be reporting on him.
02:09:13 Uh and and uh in terms of the ethical element of that, did you have doubts as to whether you should be reporting on him? Not at the time, no.
02:09:23 And why was that? It because I saw my role as to report. I was a special branch officer deployed within SDS. My role was to gather as much intelligence as possible.
02:09:36 Can we have a look at MPS0063027,
02:09:41 please? It's a report of the same date behind tab C33.
02:09:49 And this is a report on um
02:09:57 If you get your site privacy cipher list out.
02:09:59 out. I I know who it is. you know who it is? Thank you. Um again, somebody who's living privacy'd out, living as part of you say the collective. Um but living in a house in
02:10:10 collective. Um but living in a house in that same development. Is that right? We Well, to use the term that you've used I'll I'll use that within the property, yes.
02:10:17 yes. Uh
02:10:18 Uh uh and is the purpose of reporting on this person the fact that he lives there and that's where Atif Chaudry lives. No, he was a close friend. He and Atif obviously were fairly close. And also I
02:10:29 obviously were fairly close. And also I became aware that this individual was very strongly political. And so the issue question as I recall then became for me what what are the politics? What what is this guy about if
02:10:40 politics? What what is this guy about if he's going to Cuba? You know, has he been to Palestine? Has he been to All these sorts of questions then come up. Was he a member of ISM? Well, you I I would question the use of
02:10:52 Well, you I I would question the use of the word Again, I go back to what I said earlier. It's not about uh being a member. It's about being associated. It's not like left-wing uh there are some left-wing organizations, for example, where clearly you would be a member, you would
02:11:03 clearly you would be a member, you would pay a fee, a subscription of some kind. That's not how ISM operated.
02:11:09 Uh Had it become by this stage that you were not only reporting on Atif Chaudry, but anybody within his private life? That fell, as you understood it, within
02:11:20 That fell, as you understood it, within your remit. Yes.
02:11:23 And the fact that you say this person was political, you thought that that legitimized reporting on that person. In so far as there's an obviously an ongoing process in trying to discover
02:11:35 ongoing process in trying to discover what this individual is about, what are their interests, where can we locate them within a spectrum of of of politics, if you like. And what exactly is the link to Atif? Is it just friendship or is there more going on?
02:11:46 friendship or is there more going on? Was it your understanding that if somebody is reported on enough times, they'd end up with a file, a Special Branch file? Well, I No, because I don't know the processes that Special Branch
02:11:58 know the processes that Special Branch use for a file, but certainly individuals You're right in in pointing out that individuals perhaps for whom there'd been a lot of reporting on, not only from SDS, but elsewhere, a file perhaps would be opened on them.
02:12:11 And did you recognize that having a a Special Branch file may have implications for somebody's life in other elements such as work, um um, vetting for other things, travel. I'm
02:12:22 vetting for other things, travel. I'm not sure that that's the case because the question then arises who would have had access to the special branch file.
02:12:31 So, you don't accept that having a special branch file opened on you can have some repercussions for that person as an individual. I make the point that's that's possible, but the question then follows from that, who is likely or
02:12:42 then follows from that, who is likely or what is likely to have access to special branch file? We're talking about files that were kept locked away. Not easy access. Had to be signed for before you took them out to read them.
02:12:54 them out to read them. These were not ready available, in my experience. And was it any consideration that you had that before you get to that stage there ought to be very good reason for
02:13:05 there ought to be very good reason for somebody having a a file? Perhaps, but the decision as to when to open a file would not have been mine. That would have been made by some by somebody else.
02:13:17 Um, we know from the evidence of Atif Choudry that, um,
02:13:25 that, um, you were visiting his house often. Um,
02:13:29 Um, you recommended people to live in the cooperative, um, when a room became available. I don't recall that. Um, Is there a report that makes reference to that?
02:13:43 I I have it as uh that this is the person that Atif Choudry later came to be married to. Do you rem- remember that? the individual, yes. So, is it right
02:13:55 the individual, yes. So, is it right that you recommended that woman to move into the home and that's when they struck up a relationship. I don't recall that and I think that would have been unlikely because that person was close friend My understanding
02:14:07 person was close friend My understanding was that friend that person was close friends with Charlotte Carson and they'd known each other, um, previously. So, I think it's far more likely that if there was a recommendation, if I didn't make it, it would have come by way of Charlotte.
02:14:20 And as a result of that, she then was reported on by you. She would have been reported on, yes. Um
02:14:29 Um after she moved in, is it right that you visited nearly every day? Often without advanced notice. Again, I can't say for certain what the frequency
02:14:40 can't say for certain what the frequency was of my visits to that location. And
02:14:44 And it is it right that he confided in you often about uh uh very deeply personal things about his difficult childhood and his family?
02:14:56 difficult childhood and his family? I don't recall that specifically, no, but we were certainly close friends. When sat there listening to him confiding in you about uh all sorts of different things, did you ever consider
02:15:07 different things, did you ever consider that you shouldn't be there as a an undercover officer listening to him? At the time, I wouldn't have done so, no. You didn't think about the At the time, I wouldn't have done so, no. Yeah, thanks.
02:15:19 thanks. Um you met members of his family, is that right? Yes. And you DJ'd at his sister's wedding. I did, yes. And is that something that you volunteered for? He didn't ask you, you put No,
02:15:29 No, as I recall, he asked me to do that. And as I recall, I think it would have been odd if I had chosen not to do that because of the fact he knew me within my persona, this was something that was part of of what I did.
02:15:41 that was part of of what I did. Could you have come up with a reason for being away at that time? Possibly, but at the time I didn't, and I decided and I did it for him as a favor. You didn't think about the
02:15:52 You didn't think about the appropriateness of an undercover officer DJing at his sister's wedding. No, because it was all part of maintaining my legend. Do you recognize now that the impact of
02:16:03 Do you recognize now that the impact of your deployment uh
02:16:06 uh that the knowledge of that has had a significant effect on Atif Choudry so that all these memories of, you know, him meeting his wife, them
02:16:15 them getting his partner, them getting together, them having children, his sister's wedding, all of that is is now tainted somewhat by the thought of there being an undercover officer in the midst. I can certainly appreciate that
02:16:27 midst. I can certainly appreciate that that would be that could possibly be the case, yes, of course. And now looking back, uh, you recognize that perhaps you shouldn't have been involved so far in his personal life. I
02:16:38 involved so far in his personal life. I recognize that being a special branch officer working within the SDS can have an absolutely catastrophic effect on people's lives, yes, including mine.
02:16:51 Do you think you should have been told about that, trained on that, and instructed not to be so involved in people's personal lives? I think as we've explored that wasn't covered so
02:17:03 we've explored that wasn't covered so in retrospect it would have been very helpful.
02:17:07 helpful. Can we have a look, please, at MPS 0064199?
02:17:15 It's a report from the 17th of October 2005.
02:17:22 It's a fairly extensive report on Atif Choudry entitled antecedent details. And it talks in some detail about his uh, siblings
02:17:34 uh, siblings including their names their places of work
02:17:42 how Atif feels about places that they work
02:17:46 work um, the ages of people um,
02:17:51 um, where they attend school
02:17:56 where Atif Choudry attended university where he worked And that
02:18:04 And that the eldest brother works in the Libyan Embassy.
02:18:10 Embassy. The fact that his family originate from Bangladesh. This is all very personal information. To what extent did you think that was important
02:18:22 important special branch to be aware of? A year into your deployment. At the time I would have seen that as very much contributing to the intelligence picture that existed about him.
02:18:35 that existed about him. And his family. Was the fact that his family originated from Bangladesh and that his eldest brother worked at the Libyan Embassy something that you thought this is
02:18:48 something that you thought this is this is something special branch need to be aware of because of the origins, the national origins.
02:18:56 origins. So, you're asking me did I report on this because of the fact they came from Bangladesh and that was primarily why I reported it. No, of course not. It was general context. It was greater contextual information.
02:19:07 Were you close to him because he was an Asian man with a Muslim background? No.
02:19:16 No. And that was why you thought there was a an element of Islamic terrorism or fundamentalism, extremism and that's why you latched onto Atif Choudry out of all the people in ISM.
02:19:29 Choudry out of all the people in ISM. Well, let's break that down. Atif Choudry, no. His race or where he came from was of no real consequence to me.
02:19:40 No consequence to you, but you obviously thought it was important for special branch to be aware of that. Yes, as I said for context. For them to understand who the individual is, what they're about.
02:19:55 Um his
02:19:57 his ethnic background, his race had no bearing upon his activities as part of London ISM, did it? I can only say those details were reported because that is who he is as a person,
02:20:09 because that is who he is as a person, as an individual. Those are material facts. Um
02:20:16 Um was there any concern about his brother working at the Libyan Embassy? I clearly reported it, but I can't comment as to whether that was developed or researched or any further work was done on that.
02:20:27 or any further work was done on that. Was there any concern about one of his brothers start starting work at the immigration service? I cannot report on that. I can only say that the information was provided and if it was developed it would have been
02:20:38 it was developed it would have been developed by officers in New Scotland Yard.
02:20:41 Yard. Did you give any consideration that there might be consequences for those brothers given a report that that that inclusion in a special branch report? At
02:20:52 inclusion in a special branch report? At the time, no. And why was that? Because it as as at the time I saw it my it was my duty to report as much intelligence as possible. So I reported what it I reported this information back to NSY.
02:21:05 information back to NSY. Um but there was no intelligence, was there, that these uh brothers had any ulterior motive in terms of their careers? Well, I can provide the basic facts and then it may well very
02:21:17 basic facts and then it may well very well be for a New Scotland Yard officer to look at this and to develop it if they think it's appropriate to do so.
02:21:24 We heard evidence from Mr. Chaudhry last week and he talked about going out to Palestine, um standing in line with many other international
02:21:36 other international uh supporters from ISM
02:21:40 from ISM and having the sense that because of his uh ethnicity, because of his race, he was perhaps targeted by the Israeli soldiers. Are you aware of that
02:21:52 soldiers. Are you aware of that No. sense that he had um and for that reason he felt that he couldn't be as effective as some of the other white international people who were in
02:22:04 white international people who were in the area.
02:22:06 the area. I can't comment on that. Uh
02:22:11 being back in London, trying to assist with the cause through fundraising to a limited extent, what do you say about him then being
02:22:22 what do you say about him then being targeted by his own police force um
02:22:26 um because of his uh ethnic background, uh where he's from, his home, where his brothers work? Um and uh
02:22:37 Um and uh his involvement in that way, does it does it ring uh
02:22:44 does it raise any concerns with you that now he's being targeted and reported on again by his own police force? No, at the time, no.
02:23:00 Was there a sense that because he was one of the only Asian people within the group and he was one of the only people with a
02:23:11 and he was one of the only people with a Muslim uh background, his heritage, that was the reason why you were reporting on him? No. I reject that completely. And why do you reject that? Because
02:23:22 And why do you reject that? Because those specifics were not they didn't inform my decision to report on him. It was the fact that he was linked to ISM. I didn't report on him because he was family from Bangladesh or he was Asian,
02:23:34 or he was Asian, South Asian. It was the fact that he was a member or associated with ISM. By the time you come to be reporting on him, he's not even one of the the key
02:23:45 him, he's not even one of the the key activists in ISM, is he? I think he was certainly involved. And the question then becomes what is his role?
02:23:55 Had you not Had you established that fairly early on though that he was fairly withdrawn from ISM? Well, I'm I As I said to you earlier, it's a question of a watching brief to determine what people are doing.
02:24:11 His trip out to um Palestine
02:24:16 Palestine you report on MPS 0064259.
02:24:25 And that's on the 31st of October 2005 behind tab C44.
02:24:33 Simply reporting that he's gone out there and when he's due back. Any intel that you had about what his activities were when he was out there? I would have Whatever intelligence I would
02:24:44 would have Whatever intelligence I would have had available to me I would have reported.
02:24:46 reported. And there's a similar report in relation to Ace Win Stanley as well. Um Were you driving them to and from the airport?
02:24:57 airport? I don't recall driving I could be wrong but I don't recall driving a chief or Ace to the airport.
02:25:05 Did you regularly drive other um London ISM activists to the airport? No, but I do recall drive picking up taking an individual to the airport not
02:25:16 taking an individual to the airport not linked to ISM and picking up an individual and bringing them back to London from an airport. Is that just at one occasion you say that you did that? were two occasions when I recall picking people up either taking them to
02:25:27 picking people up either taking them to an airport or returning them from the airport back to London. But you you're saying you only did that on two occasions. I can only recollect doing that on two occasions. Is it likely that you did that more
02:25:39 Is it likely that you did that more regularly particularly with ISM or London ISM members? My reflection is that I didn't I may be wrong, but to the best of my current recollection, I don't recall taking
02:25:50 recollection, I don't recall taking members of ISM to the airport.
02:25:54 Was um
02:25:58 um uh was your car Was it a car that you had as opposed to a van? Yes. Um Did you use your car for the purposes of the operation to be able to say where people were and and where they lived?
02:26:09 were and and where they lived? Potentially, yes. Um and in that way, did you um on the the occasions that you say you did take somebody to the airport and pick them up, would would that form part of your reporting as to where they were and how
02:26:20 reporting as to where they were and how long they were going for? From what I would have known at the time, I would have reported it and certainly having a vehicle would have enabled that because a great many of the activists, of course, didn't have access to vehicles or rather chose not to.
02:26:34 Um we have another report at at MPS0064486.
02:26:44 Behind tab C48.
02:26:54 It's a report of the 7th of December 2005.
02:27:01 This is a list of people that have been privacied out. ISM contacts in 2002 who may have included possible shaheeds. And do you
02:27:13 included possible shaheeds. And do you mean
02:27:14 mean martyrs? Potential martyrs for the cause of Islam. Okay. And where is that contact list derived from? I have no idea. I can't remember.
02:27:28 And this is 3 years at least before you're reporting this. Is this an old list?
02:27:46 Why is this forming part of your report in 2005?
02:27:50 in 2005? Looking at this now, I would say it's possible there was an ISIL activist who was moving from their their home
02:28:01 their home and they had a lot of material in their house that they couldn't keep there and they needed it to be kept safe.
02:28:08 safe. If this is where that that may have come from there because there was a folder that I provided to Special Branch that had been kept within the general materials that were that
02:28:19 the general materials that were that this activist had at their home address. And how did you come to possess that? It would have If If that's where it's come from, it would have been because the information would have been drawn
02:28:31 the information would have been drawn from that
02:28:32 from that that document. Uh if it assists, um if you look at item 22 on your cypher list,
02:28:50 I think it's in relation to the fourth name down. Does that name ring any bells?
02:28:58 Not immediately, no. Did anything come out of this report at all?
02:29:03 all? Not that I'm aware. I wouldn't have been told if the report had gone in any subsequent work that would have been undertaken on it. I wouldn't have been told about. And why would you say that these include a possible shaheeds? I Again, I I can't
02:29:17 a possible shaheeds? I Again, I I can't comment. I can't recall. Is this exaggerated reporting? I'd like to think I didn't exaggerate my recording at any point.
02:29:31 Um if we can go to page six of this document, please.
02:29:44 Uh, we can see the comment. PIW, what does that stand for? Uh, could be possibly identical with. Okay.
02:29:52 Okay. Uh, suicide bomber in Tel Aviv. Do you have any further details about that? No.
02:30:02 But it was from uh, a 2002 similar to the previous report. Was it in relation to the two bombers in 2003? It's possible there's an overlap,
02:30:13 2003? It's possible there's an overlap, yes.
02:30:15 yes. And did that have any further
02:30:19 further interest for you? Did you follow that up in any way? Follow up? This report. Try and find out any further information. Did you do any further research yourself? I wouldn't have undertaken independent
02:30:31 I wouldn't have undertaken independent research. I would have just reported what I was finding in terms of intelligence. The research, if there was research that was required in regards to this intelligence, it would have been undertaken by, um, special branch officers back at the
02:30:42 special branch officers back at the yard.
02:30:46 We have a report of, uh, Asif Chaudry's trip with his mother. It's MPS 0065137.
02:31:10 Um, and this is about him going to live in Libya with his mom, where we know that his, uh, brother was, uh, working. Um,
02:31:19 Um, and his evidence was that it was to go and see his nephew. It's his birthday. Do you recall that? No, what I would say is
02:31:30 No, what I would say is excuse me. The information I had available to me would have been would have been what I would have reported. So, um you've reported that he's uh going to Libya with his mom
02:31:42 going to Libya with his mom for about 3 weeks, taken to the airport by his father, and you've noted that that was a a small car, and I think that's his um reg plate.
02:31:55 Um
02:31:59 Given that you've got a report relating to
02:32:04 to potential Shaheed, and not long after you've got Atif Chaundry's trip to Libya, are you trying to
02:32:15 are you trying to say that there's something of interest about this trip to Libya? Not specifically. I'm just merely recording the fact or reporting the fact that Atif
02:32:26 the fact or reporting the fact that Atif would have been traveling to Libya. But why would that have been any of any interest to Special Branch? Would you have been reporting that if he was going to
02:32:36 to France on holiday? Likely, yes. Why? Because it's about the context, about knowing as much as possible about an individual. Well, it was at the time, I would say. And um reporting on his mother and his
02:32:49 And um reporting on his mother and his father's car and their um reg plate, why would that have been of interest to Special Branch? As I said previously, it's about the wider contextual picture that could be drawn
02:33:01 contextual picture that could be drawn up.
02:33:03 up. Um putting it in a wider contextual picture, do you see that there's a a danger that actually Atif Chaundry going on holiday to see his family may well be
02:33:15 on holiday to see his family may well be seen as more sinister than it was a a
02:33:20 a innocent trip to go and see his family. I can only report as appears to be the case. I can only report what's available to me at the time. The nature of your deployment though is
02:33:31 The nature of your deployment though is to try and pick up on uh serious crime, uh possible Islamic terrorism, and this is what's going into the reports. Do you
02:33:43 is what's going into the reports. Do you see the impact that that may have on Atif Choudry and his wider family? Possibly.
02:33:48 Possibly. And the fact of their uh heritage, the fact of the the country that they're going to
02:33:56 going to Do you recognize that that could have an impact on
02:33:59 impact on uh both him and his wider family? I recognize the fact of there being potential.
02:34:07 And so, were you not that you're the person who's on the ground, you're the person that's spending hour hours with Atif Choudry? Were you not the person to filter out
02:34:19 Were you not the person to filter out the information that actually was of no interest to Special Branch as opposed to leaving it to members of your management who didn't know him?
02:34:29 know him? Well, it wouldn't necessarily been the management. It would have been the what the research work and related work would have been done undertaken, as I said, by Special Branch officers who would have undertaken further research if that's required. I just prefer I provided the
02:34:40 required. I just prefer I provided the raw data. It was for them to make decisions in terms of whether they're as you to use your terminology, you say whether this was sinister or not. They would have had to have had look at this and then determine whether there's anything there to be
02:34:51 whether there's anything there to be developed further.
02:34:54 You Were you Were you actually told uh Atif Choudry's evidence is that he told you that he was going to visit his brother, it was his nephew's birthday, he was very excited.
02:35:06 he was very excited. Were you aware of that? I don't recall that, no. If you had been told that, is that the sort of thing you would have put in the report or that would have made you think there's no
02:35:17 made you think there's no reason to report this? No, I think at the time it's highly likely that I would have included all the details I say all the information that was available to me.
02:35:36 Was reporting on things like this
02:35:41 like this like the old references to suicide bombers a way of justifying your deployment with
02:35:50 with little else to report on? No, I would never feel the need to justify my deployment and ultimately the factors to whether my deployment continued or not would not have been mine to make. It would have been completely out of my control.
02:36:04 Did you feel that you had to be putting in reports even though you may not have had an awful lot of material to report on? No, I never felt compelled that I I in any way I had to
02:36:15 compelled that I I in any way I had to reach a certain number or perform in a particular way in terms of the reporting.
02:36:25 Can we have a look at MPS 0065300?
02:36:31 Behind tab C52 volume four. This is a London ISM action at John Lewis
02:36:41 Lewis on Oxford Street on the 16th of March 2006.
02:36:48 And this is a an action where people uh went into the branch of John Lewis, put on some caterpillar boots and uh made speeches and caused a fuss.
02:37:03 and uh made speeches and caused a fuss. Are you saying they did that or because this report seems to be before that they intend to? They intend to do that and I think they did do that ultimately. Um
02:37:13 Um no intention of causing damage physical or physical harm. Uh it's a publicity stunt.
02:37:22 stunt. That kind of small-scale activity, that action,
02:37:25 action, was that something that you thought needed to be brought to the attention of special branch because it was going to be something that uniform police needed to be aware of or what was the purpose of reporting that? Just to be make them
02:37:37 of reporting that? Just to be make them aware of the fact that there was an activity that was likely to take place. Um and it would be for them Again, this is beforehand. Um so it would have been that it would have been developed later on if further
02:37:48 have been developed later on if further information was available in terms of whether the question as to whether police officers need to be deployed, that would have been considered later.
02:37:56 And in terms of the amount of people that were going to be involved in that action, were you aware of that? No.
02:38:02 No. Uh it The comment there, if I wrote it, says at the moment uh the ISM do not know how many they will get to attend. Was it going to be a small group of people? I couldn't say.
02:38:13 people? I couldn't say. We're not talking large-scale public order event though, are we? Unlikely.
02:38:20 Unlikely. And so would it be the sort of thing that
02:38:23 that John Lewis security could manage with the option of calling for police if they needed any assistance? In fairness, I can't possibly comment on the capabilities of John Lewis security.
02:38:36 the capabilities of John Lewis security. Okay.
02:38:37 Okay. But this certainly isn't something where you're going to have uh public order police thinking, right, well, we need to get
02:38:44 get police out and and deployed ready to manage some kind of public order event. I don't know. The The question here is to how fluid these things can be. And something might be intended perhaps or even advertised as
02:38:56 intended perhaps or even advertised as being peaceful, but there's always the possibility that it might not remain so.
02:39:01 Were you of any understanding that John Lewis would be uh uh informed of any sort of event like this. No.
02:39:14 Can we have on screen, please, MPS0065437?
02:39:26 It's behind tab C55, sir. And this is in relation to a report on an individual who's in the process of applying for British naturalization.
02:39:38 And again, this background uh reporting in relation to somebody uh uh seeking naturalization is purely because
02:39:49 seeking naturalization is purely because they are linked with London ISM, is that right? Yes, and the apparent intention for them to travel to en- Well, obviously, they have an intention to gain entry to Israel.
02:40:01 And the intention of gaining entry to Israel would be to carry out activity in relation to London ISM. To carry out some form of political activity.
02:40:13 Um and if there had been any sense that that was anything unlawful, that would have been part of the report, I take it. I would have reported what was available to me at the time.
02:40:24 Uh MPS0065442,
02:40:28 please.
02:40:35 This is a report on a young woman aged early 20s, IC4. IC4 being
02:40:45 IC4 being Uh South Asian, I believe. Um
02:40:50 Um and
02:40:51 and detail about her her background, where she spent her childhood. Um and where she likes um or where where she's now living and
02:41:03 um or where where she's now living and uh
02:41:04 uh uh
02:41:05 uh travel in relation to the person who vacated that room. Are you reporting on her simply because she
02:41:14 she lives at the address where Atif Choudry lives?
02:41:18 lives? Looking at this I would say that I was likely reporting it because of that. That certainly would have informed part of the reason, but also the fact of Red Pepper, which is a magazine that might be described as leftist.
02:41:28 leftist. And that qualified her to then become the subject of a special branch report in your view? Um,
02:41:37 Um, looking at the box on page two, research box,
02:41:46 it's noted that she's uh unable to identify. Does that mean that you or somebody in back office has done some more research around this woman? Uh, that sug- Yeah, that suggests to me
02:41:58 Uh, that sug- Yeah, that suggests to me that someone has undertaken some kind of initial work and that there is um no trace current trace of that individual within special branch records.
02:42:08 Um, MPS-0065685,
02:42:13 please.
02:42:18 This is a report of about a month and a half later, 8th of May 2006. It's a further report on the same woman,
02:42:28 Atif Choudry, and his girlfriend, and his business. So, again, more reporting around Atif and those
02:42:39 reporting around Atif and those who are within his private life.
02:42:43 Again, you're saying that that is a legitimate a focus of your reporting. I go back to the point it's about the wider informational picture.
02:42:57 Um, can I just ask in relation to um
02:43:03 um the report on the the young South Asian woman, if you can you look at um the cypher list again, please? Yeah.
02:43:12 Yeah. And if you look at uh items 24 and 25
02:43:24 Yeah. Um do you know the person that it has been redacted out who's that's been referred to? In the list here, um Yeah.
02:43:37 So, the person is that person on the table there? report actually tries to consider asking his housemate and you've got the privacy that would to my mind is um a person who's named within 24.
02:43:50 a person who's named within 24. Yes, 24 and 25. Those were the two reports we just looked at. there's a female named in that. I think that would be her. Yeah.
02:43:57 Yeah. And um
02:44:02 Um this is not the same person as Maya, is it? No. Um did you have
02:44:14 any romantic uh uh
02:44:18 uh uh dealings with that person? If you mean did I have sex with that person or any kind of sex activity, then no, I didn't. Did you show any sort of sexual attraction towards that person?
02:44:31 sexual attraction towards that person? There was certainly certainly a flirting between the two of us, but that was all it was. Had you made advances towards that person? Not that I recall, no. Had you made uh
02:44:43 uh advances that she had rejected? No. She was um
02:44:50 No.
02:44:59 Um can we go to MPS0065734,
02:45:05 please?
02:45:16 Again, further reporting on Atif Chaudry, his girlfriend, and others at the address.
02:45:29 Uh
02:45:32 the origin, and it's it's the uh a national or racial origin of the person uh at this at like the third line of the report. Why was that of importance? Uh
02:45:45 report. Why was that of importance? Uh as I've said previously, the point there is to provide as much information to help identify a particular specific individual.
02:45:56 Was race of a particular interest to you because
02:46:00 because you were looking for Islamic fundamentalism? Islam is not a race, it's not a racial system, it's not tied to race, so no. No, but did you link it with uh people's
02:46:12 No, but did you link it with uh people's race? Was people Was a person's race of interest to you because of the uh
02:46:19 uh focus of your deployment? No, specifically race it was just part Things that are racial markers identified in a very particular system which is merely used for purposes of helping to identify those individuals.
02:46:33 You start reporting on No Borders um around this time uh spring 2006 as far as we know from the reports that we have at the the inquiry. Um
02:46:46 we have at the the inquiry. Um No Borders was network established in 1999,
02:46:49 1999, as we understand, in Europe opposing immigration controls in Europe. Uh it ran anti-deportation campaigns and raised awareness of conditions in immigration detention.
02:47:00 immigration detention. And the London branch began to form from around spring 2005. Is that
02:47:08 Is that accurate according to your recollection? I I certainly recall the fact that my involvement with with the at least within the London branch was probably they they were a fairly nascent
02:47:19 probably they they were a fairly nascent group.
02:47:20 group. So, within a year, really, of them starting to form and and uh
02:47:26 uh operate. Possibly. Without the details in front of me, I I couldn't say for certain. There's a report MPS0065740.
02:47:37 It's behind tab C65.
02:47:46 And this is a report on the No Borders Network presentation of at the cinema in relation to presentation on poor
02:47:57 in relation to presentation on poor conditions in detention centers. I'll give you a moment to have a look at that.
02:48:29 Okay. Yeah. So, about 15 people attended.
02:48:35 And this is a report post the event. Yeah. So, you will have known that there was no public disorder or or criminal interest in this event. Um why were you reporting on this small
02:48:46 were you reporting on this small gathering to raise awareness about immigration detention conditions? Because of the fact I think it was thought of as
02:48:56 as being
02:48:58 being Well, there's clearly politics involved there.
02:49:00 there. And I think this would have taken place after
02:49:03 after there had been an expectation of me to develop further more widely than ISM. And given that ISM um
02:49:14 um wasn't a sufficient justification for your deployment around this time. Is that
02:49:20 Is that fair fair to say? Is that the the the uh
02:49:24 the uh Well, I think you were given by management. think I would say that as I as I've indicated previously that I was told that the reporting on ISM they wanted me to expand or to yeah, to expand really. Um and to do
02:49:36 yeah, to expand really. Um and to do that
02:49:37 that No Borders was identified as being a potential place that I could move move across to. And when you say identified, who identified that? Was that your own identification? Quite possibly it may
02:49:49 identification? Quite possibly it may have been. And uh
02:49:52 And uh to what extent if at all were SDS management involved in identifying this as a group that there would be special branch interest in? I can't say for certain the extent to
02:50:04 I can't say for certain the extent to which to to which they were involved, but certainly I recall the reporting sergeant when I reported back that I was involved in No Borders that they seemed quite pleased.
02:50:15 that they seemed quite pleased. Did So, they they actually said yes, this is exactly the sort of thing that we're wanting a bit more information on. Or rather that it was they thought of it as a as a
02:50:25 as a as a a good move in the context of remaining within our activist circles. And and why was that? Did they give a reason? No.
02:50:38 Um there's reference to and in paragraph three of this report, looks like a a woman and you describe her
02:50:48 her in terms of physical appearance, mid to late 30s. You say best described as having a particularly robust figure. What did you Why Why was that important and why describe her in that way? Well,
02:51:00 and why describe her in that way? Well, primarily to provide further information that would potentially help a special branch officers identify the individual and a particularly robust figure. You could have said heavy set.
02:51:14 You could have said heavy set. Is this sexist reporting in that it's commenting derogatory in a derogatory way in relation to a woman's figure? I think it's a way looking at this. It's a way to try and make a comment and a and
02:51:25 way to try and make a comment and a and provide a description that if anything is polite.
02:51:33 You comment on the fact that she has a child and the age of the child. To what extent did you think that was appropriate? With it again as previously um described, this would have been
02:51:44 um described, this would have been information that I would have provided just in terms of helping to identify the individual. And you say that she's been involved in politically inspired activism for many years.
02:51:56 years. Doesn't talk about a particular type of activism. Presumably a lot of activism is politically inspired. Why did that fall within your remit? Well, the description there is the fact that
02:52:08 description there is the fact that clearly this is looks as if it's the first time I'd met this individual. So, the terms in which I'm using to describe there are obviously quite generic. So, there's scope there for further explanation for further exploration,
02:52:19 explanation for further exploration, sorry.
02:52:21 sorry. So, this is fairly again broad uh approach to a to a group trying to see if there's anything of any real value in reporting on them. Initial stages
02:52:32 reporting on them. Initial stages identifying individuals and but to provide as much information to be able to help special branch officers further identify them if need be. Uh MPS 0065979,
02:52:45 please.
02:52:51 This is report from the 5th of May, 2006.
02:52:55 2006. And it's a list of
02:52:59 of uh
02:53:00 uh email addresses. Yeah. Can we just have a look at the next page, please?
02:53:08 And the next page.
02:53:12 So, a a significant number of email addresses of has been provided in this report.
02:53:16 report. Yeah. And was it right that you thought that anybody that's in engaging with the Rise Up Network was worth reporting on, that their details should be Were engaging via the Rise Up Network
02:53:28 Were engaging via the Rise Up Network with no borders, yes, then I would have reported on them.
02:53:34 Um had there been any security around you signing up as part of the Rise Up email distribution list?
02:53:46 I think I mentioned this earlier, that access to it was gained by way of a recommendation from another activist.
02:53:57 Um once you're on that emailing list, uh
02:54:03 uh was it possible to that you would be easily deleted if you didn't engage fully with the organization? I couldn't say.
02:54:14 I couldn't say. Um just in terms of the information that was obtainable from an email distribution list like this, Yeah.
02:54:21 Yeah. it's obviously getting information from an email distribution list is a a less intrusive than having somebody in your home,
02:54:31 home, parties, social events, at the pub or meetings as a an undercover officer. Certainly, but as an as an SDS officer I would have I would have utilized both methods. And how easy was it for
02:54:43 methods. And how easy was it for officers
02:54:44 officers uh to get this type of information? How easy was it for the police to infiltrate a group like this through electronic means as opposed to physical undercover officers being deployed? I I
02:54:56 undercover officers being deployed? I I can't comment on that because I don't know necessarily what tools would have been available to them to do that. As I say, I make the point that my access to this was facilitated through a recommendation by another activist.
02:55:12 So, that might be an appropriate point to
02:55:15 to break for the day. Certainly. Um
02:55:20 Um tomorrow, beginning tomorrow morning, you're going to be asked about a topic that I know is of concern to you. Uh your relationship with Maya and the effect it had on you and on your
02:55:32 effect it had on you and on your ex-partner and children. And um I want you to be freshened ready to deal with that beginning first thing tomorrow morning. Thank you, sir. May I say something to those at the back
02:55:44 May I say something to those at the back of the room, please? Um
02:55:48 tomorrow's evidence, in particular that which will be given tomorrow morning, must be listened to in strict silence. Uh
02:55:57 Uh the
02:55:58 the interjections this afternoon uh
02:56:01 uh came at points of lesser importance, but it is very important indeed that this evidence is given without any conceivable interruption, not only to enable the witness to do his
02:56:13 not only to enable the witness to do his best,
02:56:14 best, but also so that Maya uh can hear it without interruption.
02:56:24 I I see a hand raised at the back.
02:56:28 Ah, the former. Thank you. Then, um
02:56:32 Then, um please follow that example, and I I do urge you
02:56:40 to heed my words, uh and, um allow the evidence to be given uninterrupted. Thank you. Very well, until 10:00 tomorrow.
02:56:51 Very well, until 10:00 tomorrow. Hold on.