The session focuses on the relationship between the undercover officer (HN18/Robert Hastings) and Maya, with counsel challenging Hastings on his treatment of her, including allegations of emotional abuse, manipulation, and a failure to provide support during a pregnancy scare.
00:01:59 Mhm.
00:07:44 Mhm.
00:15:24 Mhm.
00:17:12 Good afternoon, everybody. This afternoon's proceedings, apart from a short private session at the end, uh will be transmitted after the usual
00:17:23 after the usual 10-minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may use them to report what they're hearing in the hearing room, but only after 10 minutes have elapsed since the event they're reporting. They may not be used for
00:17:35 reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. Yes. Thank you.
00:17:46 Mr. Hastings, we left before lunch on the 20th of November 2006, and that email exchange that you'd had with Maya, in particularly where she um
00:17:58 with Maya, in particularly where she um said that uh she contemplated taking lots of sleeping pills and flirting with death. You did respond to that email, and we looked at that email.
00:18:09 and we looked at that email. On the same night, is it true, and I'm going to bring up a a document if I may, UCPI 39755.
00:18:20 This is a witness statement produced by Ben Leamy, a core participant in this inquiry.
00:18:27 inquiry. Page 13, please, paragraph 5.2.
00:18:34 And he presents evidence that on the 20th of November, so that same evening,
00:18:44 you spent
00:18:47 a significant amount of time online putting on uh posts, trivial posts, on Urban75,
00:18:56 Urban75, posting about the Urban 9 CD swap that we've we've heard about, and posting the times that you did so, those times being variously between 16:51
00:19:07 16:51 in the afternoon and 19:38. Is it right that having received this quite distressing email from Maya
00:19:19 quite distressing email from Maya you did respond to her at 5:30 but then you also spent quite a bit of time posting on Urban 75? That would appear to be the case, yes.
00:19:31 case, yes. And did you do anything else in terms of responding to Maya at that time? Did you There's there's no evidence at all that you went to her, that you called her, that you did anything else in response
00:19:42 that you did anything else in response to her email. Not that I can recall, no. And is that because you simply didn't care enough about her?
00:19:52 I don't believe that's true, no. What was so important that you had to spend the time on Urban 75 that evening rather than responding
00:20:04 75 that evening rather than responding in a more significant way to Maya's email? I clearly can't account for that. You said that you didn't raise the issue. Your evidence is that you were
00:20:15 issue. Your evidence is that you were struggling to cope with the relationship yourself, but you didn't raise it with SDS management. No, you asked me that previously. That's in the transcript. and you didn't raise it with the psychiatrist. No, I don't believe I did.
00:20:28 psychiatrist. No, I don't believe I did. And is the reason or for that that you knew that this relationship was prohibited by SDS management and so you didn't want to bring it to their attention? No, I think it was part of
00:20:40 attention? No, I think it was part of the general sense I had and internalization that what one did is that one dealt with these issues as an SDS officer. You didn't bring it to the attention of the SDS management.
00:20:52 to the attention of the SDS management. You felt that you had to deal with everything yourself. Yes. Um
00:20:57 Um is it also the case that you put your career before Maya's health and well-being?
00:21:05 I couldn't comment on that.
00:21:10 You didn't consider giving up your post as a an undercover officer? Not the time, no.
00:21:21 You've said that um it was a two-way relationship. You were both hurting. Uh in terms of Maya's particular complaints about the the state of the relationship
00:21:32 about the the state of the relationship and your treatment of of her that she set out in the emails, we can see that there's different issues that arise in relation to her, but what is it that you say she did that caused you pain in that
00:21:46 say she did that caused you pain in that relationship? Well, I'm going to say here that I'm not in any way, and I believe that it's quite possible that Maya may be listening to this, so I'm not going to take this as an opportunity to in any
00:21:57 take this as an opportunity to in any way denigrate Maya in any way. I just simply will not do that. Are you saying that her behavior in some way did cause you an awful lot of pain, but you're not willing to tell the
00:22:08 but you're not willing to tell the inquiry about it? No, I'm saying that the impact of that relationship um it did have an impact. I'm not certain that we are at the point
00:22:19 I'm not certain that we are at the point yet where the actual effect of the relationship we would discuss.
00:22:25 Is it fair to say at this stage of the relationship Maya seems to be coming off far worse than you were? Well, I would say there there's clearly a record of the fact,
00:22:37 there's clearly a record of the fact, and I don't dispute that Maya was clearly experiencing difficulties. Uh and there's no record at all or evidence of of you really suffering at all from the relationship, is it? The the truth that this was all one way in
00:22:50 the truth that this was all one way in terms of the hurt? No, we can explore this later on.
00:22:57 Can I turn to page 32 of Maya's exhibit, which is UCPI 38191.
00:23:19 Page 32. We can see that she has sent you an email at on Friday the 12th of January 2007. Not going to go to that email in particular, but you have sent her she's
00:23:31 particular, but you have sent her she's responding to you. We don't have the date that you sent the email, but we can see at the bottom of the page there's an email from you and it would have been sometime before Friday the 12th of
00:23:43 sometime before Friday the 12th of January. So, the email here is a response from Maya to the email at the bottom, yes? That's right. Okay. Yeah, that's that's what we understand from the chain of emails. So, the next over onto the next page, page 33,
00:23:55 onto the next page, page 33, we can see that this carries on. So, this is an email from you to Maya
00:24:02 that she's responding to on the 12th of January. Yeah. Paragraph two of this page, I think the key word is guilt.
00:24:12 And you say, "Not for anything that I have done. My withdrawal from you, us, has developed out of a continuing sense of guilt over how our relationship seems to have had an effect on you
00:24:25 have had an effect on you and one that isn't entirely positive." So, this is you recognizing that in fact the relationship is having a a negative impact on Maya. Is that fair to say? Yes.
00:24:39 And the longer that the relationship goes on, the more painful it becomes.
00:24:45 Is this because you had withdrawn over the Christmas period? I think looking at this it's this email is likely placed within withdrawing from the relationship.
00:24:56 withdrawing from the relationship. So, this is sometime at the the beginning of January 2007. Well, we have the date of the email, so that gives us some sense of when this took place. Um
00:25:07 Um Halfway down that paragraph, you say, "Increasingly, I felt that you considered considered those visits to be little more than [ __ ] trips." I hate that term, and that certainly wasn't the case.
00:25:20 case. And at paragraph five,
00:25:27 you say, "And so, I feel guilty because of my inability to understand and help the one person who needs a cuddle more than anything else in the world." So, this inability leads to my feeling
00:25:38 So, this inability leads to my feeling guilty, guilty at not being able to cope and understand more, and guilty for being selfish in wanting to sort through all the emotional baggage that I have before taking on anyone else's.
00:25:50 before taking on anyone else's. And sometimes, I just want to run away. So, you recognize that she needs a cuddle,
00:25:56 cuddle, but
00:25:57 but you had withdrawn and were withdrawing from her rather than providing that for her. Were you just protecting your position
00:26:07 position um and protecting your position in as a UCO? No.
00:26:13 You hadn't been present to provide her with a cuddle. Is that fair to say? That would be a That appears to be suggested here, yes. And you recognize the perception that
00:26:24 And you recognize the perception that she has started to develop that the trips that you took to her home for sex were little more than [ __ ] trips. Well, yes, and I also challenged that as well, as you can see.
00:26:40 This appears to be a a breakup
00:26:44 a breakup email. You said that you were withdrawing from her, but you did continue
00:26:50 to stay in touch with her. Looking back in hindsight now, was that a cruel thing to do to carry on and perpetuate this relationship?
00:27:03 perpetuate this relationship? Between which period? Between now, beginning of January, and when you actually did disappear from her life at this point in at Easter Easter time in 2007.
00:27:15 time in 2007. Yes.
00:27:19 Can we have a look at the email at page 43, please?
00:27:29 So, we're into March now, March the 5th 2007.
00:27:37 Paragraph one. She's questioning, "What do you want me to believe about you? I know you're hurting very much, but it doesn't matter but does it matter to you that I am hurting, too?
00:27:49 hurting, too? Or do you have to keep sending snide, hurtful suggestions and comments about my fidelity just to make yourself feel better to cover up the guilt for not actually dealing with me and with
00:28:00 actually dealing with me and with yourself?"
00:28:03 Were you even at this stage in March 2007 continuing to accuse her of infidelity? Not that I recall.
00:28:13 recall. Would that be inferred from this email, though? Do you accept that that was probably right if you don't recall it? I don't recall. But I can make I can recognize there that clearly, as was the case at the
00:28:25 that clearly, as was the case at the time, I clearly did feel very guilty about that about the relationship and how it had gone. The bottom of paragraph two, you say
00:28:34 you say that she says to you, "I couldn't function for a few days when you showed me
00:28:39 me bloody show photos to a friend. You can spy on my house all you like and interrogate anyone who knows me and you will know I don't bring men into my room.
00:28:51 room. Is it right that
00:28:54 that you had spied on her through her window in her own home? No.
00:29:00 No. Had you seen her showing photos to a a male friend in her home and commented on that? I don't know what that refers to. Uh
00:29:10 This is reference to a text message that she has written about in her in Sorry, in her
00:29:17 in her um
00:29:20 Uh Uh
00:29:22 Uh her witness statement say that you texted her, "You never show your photo albums to me."
00:29:30 Do you recall doing that? No. You outside the window looking through the window and some somehow is that what she says, that I was outside the window? Because from what I hear, it says, "You can spy her house." So, let's unpack that. What's actually
00:29:42 So, let's unpack that. What's actually meant there? So, she understands from that that she received Well, she says that she received a text message from you to say you never show your photo albums to
00:29:53 say you never show your photo albums to me.
00:29:55 me. And the only way you must have known about that is if you had seen that happen through her window. I I can't comment to that. Did you
00:30:04 Did you watch through her window? Don't recall doing so, no. Looking back at some of the evidence that we've heard already, we've heard that you have appeared outside her house and said, "Look out the window. I'm here."
00:30:17 the window. I'm here." We've heard evidence about you saying, "Well, Gabriel's watching over you." Did you stand outside of her house and watch her in her own home? I don't recall doing so, no.
00:30:28 recall doing so, no. You say you don't recall doing so. Yes, because you're asking me for You want absolute certainty, a yes or no answer, and I'm suggesting to you that in 2026, I cannot recall whether I did this thing.
00:30:39 this thing. But you are suggesting may have happened.
00:30:42 happened. Would being a a reasonably unusual thing to happen, it's likely, isn't it, that it'd be something that would stick in your mind?
00:30:52 All I can suggest to you is I do not remember doing this thing that you are suggesting. Okay. Can you help us with whether it's the sort of thing you might have done? No, it's not the sort of thing that I would do.
00:31:10 In that way, are you suggesting that Maya is making this up? I have no idea as to whether this is true or not.
00:31:21 At paragraph, um, sorry, page 44, paragraph three,
00:31:31 she says this, um,
00:31:34 um, "You know I can take a lot of pain and I've taken a hell of a lot." or a heck of a lot. "As well as physical energy, just taking in your assumptions about me and all the little questions and ways you like to
00:31:45 little questions and ways you like to evoke memories in me. Like how many people I have [ __ ] or no, your question of if I even sucked my rapist's [ __ ] Do you understand how it physically
00:31:56 Do you understand how it physically torments me to relive experiences through memories?" Did you ask her that question? Whether she sucked her rapist's [ __ ] I do not recall saying such a ridiculous
00:32:08 do not recall saying such a ridiculous thing.
00:32:12 Do you accept that you may have done because it she's she's clearly put this into an email to you? I do not recall saying such a ridiculous
00:32:23 I do not recall saying such a ridiculous and hurtful thing.
00:32:27 What did you think about that when you read it in the email?
00:32:34 Do I Again, I I to ask you the question, is there a response to this provided by me in an email?
00:32:50 There isn't. Not this particular email.
00:32:58 We have a whole chain of emails um
00:33:01 um to you right up until the 3rd of April.
00:33:08 Sorry, beyond that, the 20th of April. But no response.
00:33:24 How did you by this stage? Completely uh
00:33:31 checked out of this relationship.
00:33:37 I would expect that what had happened was that the relationship had come to an end.
00:33:46 Well, she says it doesn't come to an end until Easter 2007. This is still in um
00:33:55 um March, 5th of March 2007. But you haven't got any emails after that period in which there's an interaction or is it all one way? Um it appears all one way, but these are emails. Okay. So, there would be text messages that we can discuss.
00:34:07 messages that we can discuss. Well, I don't know if there are any text messages, but um was there a contact? Hang on.
00:34:21 Do you not recall what happened around this time? No.
00:34:26 No. That's why I'm asking if you've got emails or text messages because then we can discuss them and put them into
00:34:35 Um the emails that we have Sorry, there's probably some kind of evidence in the emails as to whether there is further
00:34:44 and contact between you.
00:34:50 Yes, I think there is because um we get to the point where there's a pregnancy scare.
00:34:57 Which would suggest that you've had Well, as I've already indicated to you there wouldn't have been a pregnancy scare because that would not have been possible.
00:35:05 possible. So, I want to ask you some questions about that, but just in relation to this email of uh the 5th of March, what did you think about that email where she's suggesting that you'd asked her
00:35:17 suggesting that you'd asked her quite an outrageous and upsetting question. Yeah, I absolutely concede you read that and that's horrendous. Absolutely horrendous, but do I recall saying that? No. What about reading?
00:35:29 What about reading? I'm reading it that you had with her. Reading it now, that is horrendous, but have I responded to it? So, I've got no contemporaneous record, which is the question I asked you. Do you have a contemporaneous record that gives you an indication as to how I may or may not
00:35:40 indication as to how I may or may not respond to this thing that Myra is is indicating I have said to her? So, do you not recall her saying this to you in an email? Is that not something
00:35:51 you in an email? Is that not something that sticks in your mind? That's something as Again, I
00:35:54 Again, I quite striking. It may have done, but there is no response. There is no record of a response outside of the email or text message. And you don't have any independent record recollection other
00:36:05 independent record recollection other than what's set out here in the exhibits.
00:36:08 exhibits. that's an absolutely horrendous thing to say. I look at that and I think anyone would look at that and be horrified. That
00:36:15 That it being horrified, that hasn't stuck in your mind since you read this. No, clearly not.
00:36:25 How is that such a a thing that's seemingly something that you forgotten? Can you explain how you've just forgotten about that? No, I can't explain that. Perhaps I didn't say it.
00:36:36 explain that. Perhaps I didn't say it. Maybe my saying I said that. Mhm.
00:36:39 Mhm. Um
00:36:40 Um but being accused of that, would you not remember that? Is that not something that you would remember if you had been accused of saying that? Well, I clearly didn't. So, was that because it wasn't true? I didn't say that and I just ignored it? I don't know.
00:36:54 At the the paragraph underneath that,
00:37:04 she says, "Dealing with your guilt at the ways you have betrayed gives you no right to call me a traitor. I haven't betrayed you and I certainly won't."
00:37:15 won't." Do you recall calling her a traitor? Sorry, I'm just reading this. Sorry, yeah.
00:37:52 No, I don't recall calling her that at all.
00:37:58 What would be the reason of her putting something like this into a an email to you, not to anybody else, but directly just to you, if that hadn't actually have happened?
00:38:09 if that hadn't actually have happened? I have no idea.
00:38:14 And therefore, although you don't recall it, do you think that maybe it did happen and you just have forgotten? I can't say. I can say I don't recall ever calling her that.
00:38:33 Um she says in her witness statement, paragraph 4.21, sometimes she received a a a text, "Oh, who are you going to [ __ ]
00:38:44 a a text, "Oh, who are you going to [ __ ] next?" Do you recall sending her text messages like that? No. But then undoubtedly, if if they were sent, then you have them, yes? No, we don't have text messages. Okay. We have what she's exhibited are emails, and that's what
00:38:55 exhibited are emails, and that's what she's been able to retain, but text messages, no. Okay. So, you're saying because it doesn't exist, it didn't happen? No, I'm saying, do you have it? Then I can comment on it.
00:39:06 Then I can comment on it. No, I don't recall sending a text text of that kind or that nature to her. So, your memory of that is that you have no recollection whether you did or didn't. Yes.
00:39:19 or didn't. Yes. Do you think it might be the sort of thing that you did send? "Who are you going to [ __ ] next?" I don't think so.
00:39:30 My says that if she didn't respond quickly enough, you would question where she had been, implying that she was with another man. And she says often
00:39:41 And she says often she wouldn't res- you wouldn't respond to her replies until the middle of the night,
00:39:46 night, which would make her feel increasingly on edge, finding it difficult to sleep, worrying she might miss a text in the night, and being and then be further accused of being unfaithful.
00:39:59 accused of being unfaithful. Do you recall behaving in that way No. through text messages? No. Did you used to text her in the middle of the night? I don't recall doing so, no. Would you want to know where she was? No, that's
00:40:11 want to know where she was? No, that's entirely her business.
00:40:16 Any behavior like that would obviously have a serious impact on a young woman, wouldn't it? I've got no doubt that some of the material that we've been described that we've been discussing, of course would have an impact.
00:40:28 impact. And this drip drip effect of allegations of being unfaithful, infidelity, that would have an effect on Maya, wouldn't it? allegations I've made and we've questioned that during the course of
00:40:40 questioned that during the course of of this as to whether that was the case or not.
00:40:43 or not. Um are you saying that Maya's emails just to you are not accurate at all? What I've said to you previously is that you have a very poisonous relationship that exists
00:40:54 poisonous relationship that exists between two people that is clearly destructive for both individuals involved. In terms of the poison that's injected into this relationship though, isn't that coming from you? There's no
00:41:06 that coming from you? There's no there's no suggestion in the emails at least that we have that there's anything that Maya's doing Well, you're saying you
00:41:13 you So you have a limited amount of material that you have available to you. You do not have anything that was taking place outside of that. So you're able to help us with that? No.
00:41:22 No. You have no recollection of what it was that was poisonous on her part? I think that the key thing for us was that we I was trying to deal with an individual who clearly was experiencing some great difficulties
00:41:33 was experiencing some great difficulties and as already been articulated by me previously in this, I am clearly struggling to understand what it is I can and cannot do to try and help this person but at the same time know that I'm not in control
00:41:44 same time know that I'm not in control of this person and that they have agency and they have choice and they have autonomy.
00:41:50 autonomy. Do you recall her trying to find you, coming and visiting your flat when you were living in Bow? I do recall that there were a number of occasions when I
00:42:01 there were a number of occasions when I think Maya was going to come over and try to see me. And she left you flowers on occasion? I don't recall flowers being left but I certainly recall that she did try to come over to see me. Okay. That's referenced in of the emails
00:42:13 Okay. That's referenced in of the emails where she says I've left you some flowers. Do you accept that if it's in an email it probably did happen? likely true, yes. Uh she left you uh those flowers and a
00:42:24 Uh she left you uh those flowers and a long letter saying she had not cheated on you.
00:42:28 on you. Do you accept that she probably wouldn't have done that if she hadn't if there hadn't been an allegation that she had cheated on you? I don't know. I can't comment.
00:42:37 comment. What about a gift of a book of poetry? From her me to her or her to me? From her to you. What can What can you tell me about that?
00:42:46 that? Uh
00:42:47 Uh a a book containing poetry was uh given to you. I don't recall that, no. gift. I can't recall that, no. A gift What about a gift an expensive turntable that could digitalize music as a show of
00:43:00 that could digitalize music as a show of affection and loyalty? She gave that That's No, she did, yes. Okay. And
00:43:06 And that gift, because it was expensive, was a significant one given Maya's limited means. She didn't have much money, did she?
00:43:13 she? As far as I'm aware, no. And did you understand that that was a show of affection and loyalty in particular? As far as I can recall, I was really shocked by the fact that she had done this thing or presented this thing to
00:43:25 this thing or presented this thing to me.
00:43:27 me. Did you
00:43:28 Did you think that it was appropriate to accept the gift? I I don't know if she presented it to me in person or if it was left with me. Did she say? Um no, it doesn't say whether Left where? At the I said at the Flying Bow.
00:43:41 where? At the I said at the Flying Bow. Would she leave an expensive gift like that outside? I can't recall being handed this thing. I I acknowledge that I was given this this gift. Yeah, you don't remember I can't recall how I received it. Okay.
00:43:53 I can't recall how I received it. Okay. Is it likely that she handed it to you in person? If it's Well, if it's expensive I'd imagine it's the sort of thing that you would do so. And did you consider whether you should accept it or not? At the time, no.
00:44:06 Uh moving to the pregnancy scare of at the end of March 2007, she sent a long email to you about her concerns and anxieties, and that starts page 48, please.
00:44:19 page 48, please. of the exhibit.
00:44:29 And she says, "Before you decide to snap again at me, take a deep breath and realize this is a letter." So, this is a a suggestion here that you'd had
00:44:40 you'd had verbal communication, at least, whether that was by phone or face-to-face. Possibly, yes. So, it's not that you had withdrawn
00:44:51 So, it's not that you had withdrawn completely from the relationship by early March 2005, is it? I think we we there's obviously some kind of withdrawal taking place. A prolonged withdrawal.
00:45:02 A prolonged withdrawal. I don't know how prolonged what that what the period of time was. It certainly didn't happen instantly. Fair to say, from about January through to Easter of 2007. 2007.
00:45:14 2007. Yeah, early 2007 through.
00:45:19 And she says, "So, you think it's as simple as knowing whether I am pregnant or not.
00:45:24 or not. Fine, but you know yourself that all this waiting is extremely stressful, and so you can understand when I get out of my mind stressing, when I too have a million other issues uh to
00:45:37 million other issues uh to over myself from the welfare of family members and certain friends, et cetera." She's telling you in this email about her concerns of being pregnant,
00:45:48 about her concerns of being pregnant, and she's telling you because you were the person that she slept with. Yeah. Is that fair enough? Do you recall this incident?
00:45:56 incident? Not until I've read this, yes. What sorry, what I I by that is I hadn't recalled it, but now I'm reading this clearly now. Yes. This is triggering memories of of this time. Possibly, yes.
00:46:08 memories of of this time. Possibly, yes. Um it's a it's particularly long email. Um
00:46:13 Um you've had this exhibit. I don't know if you've had chance to read through it, have you? I think I was presented with uh
00:46:19 uh quite new a num- a num- a cache of a number of emails quite quite recently.
00:46:27 Um
00:46:33 in terms of her upset about being pregnant,
00:46:38 pregnant, it appears that you didn't respond to that long email. Can you tell us why?
00:46:46 No.
00:46:52 Rather than emailing her, did you uh send her angry text messages in relation to that? I have to ask you the same question. Do you have text messages like Don't have text messages. We don't have emails. Okay. Do you recall that though?
00:47:05 emails. Okay. Do you recall that though? I don't recall doing so, no. Okay. So, where she said uh snapping angrily, there were angry text messages as well, according to her recollection. Do you accept that there may well have been?
00:47:16 been? That's the That's her recollection. It may not be mine. Were you angry about the pregnancy scare? No, I wouldn't have been.
00:47:26 She's obviously going through some turmoil in relation to the pregnancy. No, she's going through turmoil, but she would not have been pregnant. I appreciate that. In terms of the uh uh uh uh
00:47:37 uh uh uh
00:47:38 uh potential pregnancy as she understood it.
00:47:41 it. She was concerned that she may be pregnant. Is that fair?
00:47:45 Yes. And she thought that was as a result of her uh having sex with you. What was the reason for you keeping
00:47:56 What was the reason for you keeping secret the fact that you had a vasectomy? Because I think within the our relationship such as it was and by this time it's at the end, I wouldn't have felt that it was appropriate to share that with her.
00:48:08 appropriate to share that with her. There may have been discussions. We clearly hadn't reached a stage where I would have felt comfortable to let her know that was the case.
00:48:16 So, you're letting her go through this traumatic experience. She's going to the GP. She's obviously struggling with it. And you didn't say to her,
00:48:27 And you didn't say to her, "Don't worry. There's no chance of you being pregnant from me." No. That was cruel, wasn't it?
00:48:40 I think she's going through an experience of some kind, but we can see that she's I know she's clearly not pregnant.
00:48:46 pregnant. So, you're sat quite satisfied, nothing to worry about. You're clear that you can carry on this relationship with no consequences. as we can see the relationship at this
00:48:57 as we can see the relationship at this point such as it is appears to be if not already has come to an end or is certainly coming to an end. If I put it this way then, you have engaged in a relationship with Maya
00:49:09 with Maya knowing throughout that there could be no consequences of children as a result of your relationship. Yeah.
00:49:16 Yeah. So, you're quite satisfied that's not going to be what would other otherwise be a quite serious consequence of a sexual relationship. Yeah. And so, does that give you a sense of
00:49:28 And so, does that give you a sense of security that you're not going to have to ultimately tell anybody else about this? You're not going to have to disclose this to your managers. No.
00:49:40 Does it not give you a sense of security at all?
00:49:43 at all? Insofar only that she's clearly not pregnant. There's clearly going to be There is clearly going to be not knowledge on my part that this clearly isn't true.
00:49:54 You were quite satisfied that you could engage sexually with Maya without a pregnancy risk. Did you think about telling that to her so she didn't have to use any other form of contraception?
00:50:07 to use any other form of contraception? No.
00:50:08 No. Why not? I don't recall us ever really having a discussion about contraception.
00:50:17 Um
00:50:29 Is that a particularly selfish thing for you to for you to do in the course of a what would otherwise seem like quite a serious relationship? I think if you look back at this, then clearly yes, it
00:50:41 look back at this, then clearly yes, it could be viewed in that way.
00:50:45 In Easter 2007, you suddenly ended the relationship according to Maya's recollection. So, you'd had contact up until this point. Easter in 2007 was end of March.
00:50:58 point. Easter in 2007 was end of March. Um
00:51:00 Um and you said to her that your mother was dying of cancer, you had to travel to Durham.
00:51:05 Durham. Is that right? I may have said that if that's her recollection. And you said that to her by text or phone. You didn't say that face-to-face.
00:51:16 phone. You didn't say that face-to-face. Do you recall that? recall that, no. Is it fair to say that you knew she would be devastated by that news? No, I didn't consider that, but it's worth mentioning that during this period of
00:51:27 mentioning that during this period of time in the real world, my mother was ill and did die of cancer.
00:51:33 She sent an email to you on the 20th of April 2007 expressing her devastation. Did you think about contacting her, speaking to her further about it?
00:51:46 speaking to her further about it? About the A- about um about you leaving her, about why you were leaving her. I don't think so.
00:51:56 Did you leave Maya because of the pregnancy scare? No, because there wasn't a pregnancy scare.
00:52:03 scare. In In not in your mind, but in her mind there was. There was no possibility of her being pregnant. Did you uh What was the purpose of you leaving her? Why did you leave her? I think the relationship was just It was
00:52:15 I think the relationship was just It was fairly clear that it was very destructive at that time. You had two individuals who
00:52:21 Someone, perhaps, I don't know, should have stepped in and said, "You two are clearly not right for each other. You need to separate." Did her friends try doing that and you told her to ignore them? I don't recall doing so.
00:52:34 Is that likely? I don't recall doing so. Do you recall recognizing that some of her friends thought you were a prick? I don't recall that. they were saying that because it was in
00:52:45 they were saying that because it was in an email. You saw it in an Yeah, where the email it says, "I don't care if your friends." Well, that's suggests to me that that may have been communicated to me by Maya, but I don't So, you don't remember anyone I don't can't recall being called that by anyone any of Maya's friends. Okay.
00:52:59 by anyone any of Maya's friends. Okay. Was that a sense that you got that from with a particular friend or some of her friends collective? No.
00:53:09 Um were you focused at this time on the G8 in Germany and the Gatwick camp, which we'll come on to later. In terms of work, I think that would have possibly been in that period of preparation. Okay.
00:53:22 preparation. Okay. So, we're going into the summer months as
00:53:25 as in the SDS. You're still operating as a UCO. You haven't withdrawn from your deployment, have you? I don't think so, no.
00:53:33 no. Were you involved in any other sexual relationships at that time? No.
00:53:38 Was this a part of a a withdrawal strategy? No. It was just simply you personally deciding that you were going to finish the relationship with Maya. It was our relationship coming to an end.
00:53:51 relationship coming to an end. By way of what had obviously gone on in the poisonous nature of the relationship, how it become. And that was a unilateral decision by you. It wasn't a mutual breakup, was it? No, that I certainly had taken that
00:54:02 No, that I certainly had taken that decision.
00:54:03 decision. For the best, like you can see from the material that we've discussed that clearly Maya was in It appears to be a great deal of stress, and the best possible thing I could do would be to remove myself from that.
00:54:14 would be to remove myself from that. She sent you a further email as I've referred to already on the 20th of April 2007.
00:54:21 2007. It's at page 53 of the bond of the exhibit.
00:54:29 And it's the next page that I'm interested in. So, right down at the bottom, "I get thoughts such as you and over on the top of the next page,
00:54:40 and over on the top of the next page, must have used me for a [ __ ] ride, and now you're bored. I mean, look at the facts. After you hurt me by accusing me of cheating on you, and I sent you lots of messages about that and letters,
00:54:51 lots of messages about that and letters, then you text me in the middle of the night on Friday that you wanted to come in my ass." Do you remember sending that text message? No.
00:55:04 Do you have that text message? We don't have text messages. We have emails. Okay.
00:55:11 Is there any reason that she would send this message to you other than the fact that that actually did happen? I can't say, but that's clearly awful. And what did you think when you read
00:55:22 And what did you think when you read this email? I'm reading now, well, reading at the time I clearly if I haven't responded then I clearly haven't responded.
00:55:31 Um
00:55:34 I'm sure I think we do have this, don't we?
00:55:47 Um
00:55:50 further down
00:55:55 the last paragraph "Saturday, when you yelled at me asking if I thought it was funny to call you from different phone different numbers, and I was in a phone box while I phone was nearly dead or low
00:56:08 box while I phone was nearly dead or low on on low battery." "Your tone of resentment broke me down to cry so badly I fell there, a BT phone box somewhere in the middle of Euston Road, unable to move and have six people
00:56:21 Road, unable to move and have six people over the course of time asking me if I was okay."
00:56:27 Do you recall her phoning you from a phone box? No. She's
00:56:33 She's desperate at the end of a relationship thinking that you have walked out on her, you're not responding to her, you're not answering her calls.
00:56:44 to her, you're not answering her calls. And she's telling you about what happened when she was by a phone box trying to call you from a different number. Do you remember telling her to um [ __ ] off, just [ __ ] off
00:56:55 um [ __ ] off, just [ __ ] off before hanging up on her? No. Do you remember telling her that did she think it was funny calling from a different number? No.
00:57:08 The fact that she set all this out to you in an email um
00:57:15 um shows that this is something that's quite clear in her uh in her recollection. She's got a very clear memory of it and she's got the contemporaneous document here that she
00:57:26 contemporaneous document here that she sent to you. Is it more likely that this is true
00:57:32 compared with your hazy memory that you can't remember sending these messages. then this is awful. I make no excuses for this.
00:57:41 for this. So, and if it's true Well, you say if it's true. Well, I wasn't there, so I can't verify whether this happened or not.
00:57:50 Are you saying you didn't receive a phone call? You've asked me if I recall if I recalled receiving the phone call. I said to you, "No." So, you have You Your Your evidence is it didn't
00:58:02 You Your Your evidence is it didn't happen, or your evidence is you don't remember whether it happened or not. I don't recall this happening. Okay.
00:58:09 But, I make the point to be clear, if this is true, this is horrendous and it's awful. The suggestion that you sent her a text um saying that you wanted to come in her
00:58:21 um saying that you wanted to come in her ass,
00:58:22 ass, is that the sort of thing that you would text to her? I can't comment on that.
00:58:29 Did you send her explicit sexual messages like that? Certainly during the course of our relationship, there were explicit messages exchanged, yes.
00:58:38 Um and was it the that sort of thing? They would broadly what most people would regard as being quite vulgar and coarse.
00:58:46 coarse. So, it's not completely off the scale. You would never write that. This is not something that you would have done. It's just you don't recall having done it. that.
00:59:02 Um She says and quite uh vividly recalls that it was quite out of the blue when she received that text.
00:59:13 she received that text. Not in keeping with the context of other communication at the time. And such a sexually explicit message caused her to feel shocked, insulted, and demeaned. And in hindsight, she
00:59:26 and demeaned. And in hindsight, she considers it to be highly sexually predatory behavior. Do you accept that characterization of your behavior in the context of you having withdrawn from the relationship?
00:59:38 having withdrawn from the relationship? I as as you've asked me do you I recall sending that message? I can't recall sending that message.
00:59:48 You continued to contact her intermittently after you said you left in um
00:59:55 in um Easter 2007. Do you recall sending her a text in the summer of 2007 to read Dead Man in Deptford about Christopher Marlowe? That sounds
01:00:07 about Christopher Marlowe? That sounds possible. Is that a book that you were reading at the time to It is It is a book that I'm familiar with, yes. that cast him as a spy for the crown? Yes. And were you expecting her to pick up on that? When was this email sent or
01:00:19 up on that? When was this email sent or text message? Summer 2007. Do you have that? We don't have text messages. Okay.
01:00:28 Did you Were you wanting her to decipher some code about that? I can't say. What did you send that to her for? Probably cuz it's a fantastic book. If you haven't read it, I I I very much
01:00:39 you haven't read it, I I I very much recommend it. So it was just a book recommendation as opposed to a reference to you being an undercover spy? I wouldn't recall it it as being intended to be in any way deciphered as such.
01:00:52 to be in any way deciphered as such. Was there any sense that you were finding it funny or a game playing with Maya
01:00:59 Maya in this way post leaving her? Absolutely not. No.
01:01:05 By summer 2007, Maya says that she'd started to use heroin and crack cocaine to cope with your departure. Are you aware of that? I wasn't Well, I believe there may have been references
01:01:17 I believe there may have been references in
01:01:18 in on a blog to uh, things that potentially could be references to this activity. To be clear, I never saw Maya undertaking any such activity. I never saw any drug paraphernalia of any kind during the
01:01:30 paraphernalia of any kind during the course of our relationship. Did you go to pick her up from a friend's house in Woolwich around summer 2007?
01:01:39 2007? I don't recall doing so. She recalls that you drove to pick her up and take her home, and she'd been using heroin at that house.
01:01:51 heroin at that house. And that was the second or third time you'd met since you claim to have moved out to Durham. So, though although you moved to Durham in Easter No, I didn't move to Durham. I was still in East London. Did you tell
01:02:03 was still in East London. Did you tell her you'd moved to Durham to be with your mother? I still think I'd said I'd gone up to there because it was part of my legend. And how long did you tell Maya that you
01:02:14 And how long did you tell Maya that you were going to be up in at Durham? I don't recall giving specific time. So,
01:02:20 So, it appears from her evidence that she understood you you'd claim to move to Durham to be with your mother. But then you'd met up a couple on a on a two or three occasions post that.
01:02:33 two or three occasions post that. And on this occasion, she said that you picked her up from the house. Do you remember that? Don't recall that, no. She said that you took her home. And she told you in the car that she'd
01:02:45 And she told you in the car that she'd smoked heroin using silver foil. Do you remember that? No.
01:02:51 And you said you'd always be watching over her somehow. Again, is it this sense of like an angel watching over her? don't recall saying that at all. I don't recall as I've said to you, I don't recall actually picking her up.
01:03:05 So, in terms of giving her a sense that you would always be watching her, looking over her in some way, did you give her a sense whether that was when you uh, uh, uh, during this car journey or
01:03:16 uh, uh, uh, during this car journey or when whether it was on another occasion when you met up? I certainly felt very protective towards her as I've as I previously described, given some of the experiences that she was describing by way of email. And so, did you give her to have the
01:03:28 And so, did you give her to have the impression that she would be watched by you? No.
01:03:35 Would you say something like that, so that she would always be thinking of you, that you were around somewhere? No.
01:03:46 Um, that
01:03:49 that suggestion, she recalls now in hindsight, as being quite creepy. Do you accept that? If you had said that, would that be quite creepy thing
01:04:00 that, would that be quite creepy thing to say?
01:04:01 to say? I don't know how she If I If I had said that, which I don't recall, I'm not saying how I would have interpreted it. But you used the sense of, you know, you being Gabriel, you being a an angel. I I don't deny that I felt very protective
01:04:13 don't deny that I felt very protective towards Maya, even though when the relationship was finished. And did you give her the sense that you would be watching over her as a as as an angel? You can't remember saying things like that. I don't recall saying anything like that at all.
01:04:25 at all. Um,
01:04:26 Um, that brings to an end your relationship with Maya during the course of your deployment. Um, I want to ask you questions about post-deployment contact with Maya, but that will probably be tomorrow. Okay. Uh, now, in terms of
01:04:39 tomorrow. Okay. Uh, now, in terms of your relationship with Maya at this stage during the course of your deployment, do you accept that your treatment of Maya amounted to domestic abuse?
01:04:49 abuse? I accept that I was involved in a relationship with someone that was unwise to engage with, was wrong, morally and ethically wrong,
01:05:01 morally and ethically wrong, and I should not have done so. What about your treatment of Maya during the course of that relationship? I think it's fairly clear that it was a relationship of two people who should not have been together and should not have got engaged with other in any way
01:05:12 have got engaged with other in any way whatsoever. What about specifically your treatment of her?
01:05:18 of her? Do you think that that amounted to domestic abuse? No, but I would say that it was certainly
01:05:26 clearly the relationship the way that we treated each other was was cruel and destructive. And in terms of the way that she treated you, how do you say that was cruel and destructive?
01:05:39 say that was cruel and destructive? Well, I think there was certainly an impact from my relationship with Maya.
01:05:46 I certainly felt guilty about the relationship and that guilt continued to go on and have some pretty powerful
01:05:52 powerful effects
01:05:54 effects subsequently. Are you saying she caused you to feel guilt? I'm saying that I felt guilt as a result of that relationship having taken place.
01:06:06 Are you saying that's Maya's fault? No, I'm not attributing blame. I've simply said that you had a relationship of two people who perhaps should not have been together.
01:06:15 together. And both
01:06:16 And both individuals obviously caused harm to each other in different ways.
01:06:22 Thank you. Sorry, just bear with me one moment.
01:06:41 Um just two points on the pregnancy issue if I may before we move on. Um
01:06:47 Um in your witness statement you do say a paragraph 192.2 that you assumed Maya was taking precautions. Is that fair to say?
01:06:59 Yes.
01:07:03 And why would she need to be taking precautions? I just assumed that she would be doing so. I was never asked by her to use any form of contraception. The assumption there
01:07:13 there in that is that therefore this is something that she perhaps as part of her would have taken is something that she's taken care of as a res- not responsibility for but that's something that she's attended to. And you didn't
01:07:24 that she's attended to. And you didn't have feel any obligation to or do you it responsibility towards her to make sure that she did feel comfortable and she did feel um
01:07:34 um secure in her own sexual reproductive life in that way? No.
01:07:42 Atif Choudhry says in evidence that you spoke with him about the possibility that Maya might be pregnant.
01:07:54 And that you had cried on him about that. Or you had cried in front of him about that. Do you recall that occurring? No.
01:08:05 Would that have been
01:08:11 Again, are you saying that that didn't happen that Atif is wrong about that or that you just don't recall that happening? I'm saying to the absolute best of my recollection I do not recall ever having done that in front of him or spoken about this to him.
01:08:23 spoken about this to him. Uh if you had would that have been part of some kind of um
01:08:28 um carrying on the the the deployment, the performance of what was going on in your life with Maya? Well, as I say I don't recall doing that so your question therefore is potentially to what
01:08:39 to what Thank you. You're welcome. Those are all the questions I have in relation to Maya and so I'd like to continue now with your reporting. Um Before we move on to that, may I ask a question out of
01:08:50 a question out of arising out of those that you have asked?
01:08:51 asked? Yes, of course. And the answers given. You you said about your relationship with Maya
01:08:58 with Maya and I I've got your words down word for word. Both individuals caused harm to each other in different ways. Uh you've acknowledged the ways in which
01:09:10 Uh you've acknowledged the ways in which you caused harm to her. In what way did she cause harm to you? I think the question I would have is in relation to the guilt that developed in relation to the relationship in terms of also the fact that I was unable to
01:09:22 also the fact that I was unable to help her.
01:09:23 help her. Given the things that she described to me in the emails, I clearly didn't step in and help her in the way that perhaps I should have done. And I think I've always felt and continue to feel a great sense of guilt around that and
01:09:34 a great sense of guilt around that and the relationship itself.
01:09:39 The harm comes from the fact that mentally that started to have a real impact on me.
01:09:52 I'm far from sure I understand you. The
01:09:58 thrust of what you're saying is that it was your own actions which caused you harm to yourself. No, the what you have there, forgive me with respect. The fact is that you've got a relation
01:10:09 The fact is that you've got a relation with two people. It's not a single person. You've got two people involved in a relationship. Quite put quite a toxic relationship as you can see. There are harms on both sides. I don't see it as a one-way street.
01:10:24 I forgive me. I'm still at a loss to understand how it is
01:10:29 how it is that you can say of her that she caused you harm.
01:10:36 you harm. By way of
01:10:38 By way of the fact that there is guilt because I could not understand how best to cope with her reaction to what was going on to her. And that sense of guilt was damaging to me. And that guilt arose out of the
01:10:50 And that guilt arose out of the interaction that had taken place between Myra and I. Is it your sense of guilt
01:11:01 which caused damage to you? I think that the guilt for me would go on to play an important part in future events.
01:11:17 That I can understand. What I simply don't understand is how any of this can be laid in the sense of blame at the door
01:11:28 laid in the sense of blame at the door of Maya.
01:11:32 Forgive me then, the fault is on my side that I'm obviously not able to explain this to your satisfaction. Look, you I I readily understand that the sense of guilt that you felt from these events
01:11:44 felt from these events and we're going to come on to this later had an impact upon your relationship with your ex-partner and your children, your family. Yeah. That I readily understand.
01:11:55 understand. But what I don't understand and I we've covered this now I think enough for me to understand the thrust of your answer. But what I don't understand is how you can possibly say
01:12:07 can possibly say that this is in any way Maya's fault.
01:12:12 Are you saying it is in any way her fault? I've given my explanation, sir. I'm sorry if you I'm sorry I'm not able to explain it in the to the depth of detail or to your satisfaction.
01:12:24 satisfaction. And I don't say that in any way to be rude.
01:12:26 rude. No. All right.
01:12:29 I I leave matters there, but you will appreciate that the answers that you've given to me um
01:12:37 um I have difficulty in accepting as they stand. I understand that. Yeah.
01:12:51 Can we have up on screen, please, MP S0069142?
01:12:57 It's behind tab C70, bundle four. And this is a report from the 19th of July 2006
01:13:07 July 2006 in relation to a candlelit vigil and protest in Parliament Square against the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon.
01:13:18 Lebanon. Small number of ISM London ISM activists attempted to sit down in protest in the road.
01:13:29 Were you at this event? Do you recall it?
01:13:32 it? I believe so.
01:13:35 Can we go down to the source comment, please?
01:13:44 So, this is source comment. So, this is coming from you a number of years ago. It was secretly reported that MT was considering wearing a mock explosive
01:13:55 was considering wearing a mock explosive body belt during a demonstration against the visit to London by the Israeli Prime Minister.
01:14:03 Minister. Do you recall where you got that information from and why? Is it Is it likely you got this from HN118, Simon Wellings? I don't recall.
01:14:15 HN118, Simon Wellings? I don't recall. Do you recall if you got it from another UCO?
01:14:18 UCO? I don't recall. I would I would say that it's would be most unlikely that I would utilize another UCO's information as part of my own reporting. We understand this to be reporting
01:14:31 We understand this to be reporting emanating from HN118, Simon Wellings' deployment. Um and
01:14:39 Um and I'm just trying to understand how it's ended up in one of your reports. Well, it could be. I'm just trying to think cuz I'm aware I remember that Simon Wellings was certainly involved in an incident where someone had indeed he'd
01:14:50 incident where someone had indeed he'd reported on the fact that someone had mocked up
01:14:54 mocked up to undertake action such a way as to cause disruption. So, it may have been that he had mentioned that person and so therefore that may have gone into this report. Why did you feel the need to put in
01:15:06 Why did you feel the need to put in something in relation to this that had happened uh years ago? Well, that's a comment. So, it's it may very well have been that this is someone that's previously been looked at, been reported
01:15:17 previously been looked at, been reported on, so therefore you may be interested in this.
01:15:21 Is it because it was something to do with a an explosive body belt and anything to do with suicide bombing, you thought that's at least something that I can put in my reports to try and justify
01:15:34 can put in my reports to try and justify my deployment? No, I did not. I didn't have to justify my deployment.
01:15:40 Can we have up, please, MPS0069446?
01:15:46 Behind tab B72, which is in bundle three, sir.
01:15:54 This is a report
01:16:09 of a meeting of activists at LSE in London on the 1st of August 2006 to discuss potential anti-war actions.
01:16:21 to discuss potential anti-war actions. And we can see here that the people involved
01:16:24 involved were individuals
01:16:28 including people from the ISM London and No Borders London. About 70 people presented from a number of different groups.
01:16:39 of different groups. 70 70 to 80 members from disparate groups.
01:16:44 And the meeting was known as Lebanese Assembly which later became State of emergency. Or rather State of Emergency the group emerged out of this meeting. Okay.
01:16:56 Um this is a type of reporting from you that's the raw reporting that is then made up into the individual uh sanitized reports. Is that fair? It would appear to be so.
01:17:08 We understand from the sanitized reports that we have that it's this one uh raw report is made up into then four separate
01:17:16 separate uh sanitized reports. I'm not going to go to those. I'm just relying upon this one report that you make in relation to the LSE meeting and there's a number of different potential uh demos or protests
01:17:28 different potential uh demos or protests that were being considered to raise uh uh to to protest against the war.
01:17:37 Um about 10 to you say in your report what about 10 to 15 people call for some form of direct action. And if we can look at paragraph four on this page, we can see that one of the
01:17:48 this page, we can see that one of the actions
01:17:50 actions is in relation to RAF Brize Norton. Do you recall that? I don't recall the specifics of the specifics of that but clearly it's been included in this reporting.
01:18:01 included in this reporting. And effectively people would try and attend at Brize Norton and demonstrate there because that's one of the RAF bases from where planes were flying. Is that
01:18:12 that The tension that would have been why they had an interest in that. And we can also see that another potential um protest under consideration was in relation to the US Embassy in
01:18:24 was in relation to the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square.
01:18:33 And it might involve people breaking through the low-level fence into the Embassy area and into the building itself.
01:18:42 itself. Um these locations would have had security anyway, wouldn't they? They would have known that they would be a potential for different protests. Is that fair to say? And given that there had been protests
01:18:54 And given that there had been protests at these places before, it's not an unusual thing to think that they would be alive to the fact that they would have to have security arrangements in place to deal with any
01:19:05 arrangements in place to deal with any protest or direct action. Is that fair to say?
01:19:11 Over on page two in paragraph one, we can see that part of the plan at the Embassy would be to throw eggs.
01:19:22 Although one of the protesters, because she was vegan, considered that paint balloons might be a better option. So, these aren't seriously criminal
01:19:34 So, these aren't seriously criminal uh uh
01:19:36 uh uh protests that that that they're contemplating. Well, it seems to be that you've got a number of different discussions taking place about a number of different potential actions. And this seems to be there is there is a discussion taking place as to
01:19:47 discussion taking place as to very much an embryonic discussion as to what form those protests may take. Okay. In paragraph two on this play on this page, we've got again consideration given to an action outside Downing
01:19:58 given to an action outside Downing Street on the 5th of August 2006 that might involve either eggs, paint, or dye in the street. What was dye in the street? What was a dye in? So,
01:20:10 street? What was a dye in? So, to the best of my recollection, what would in that would involve a group of protesters coming together and then they would deliberately, obviously, then lie down in the street and then cause disruption to traffic because of the
01:20:22 disruption to traffic because of the blockage they would then cause. Okay. So, is it is it an inconvenience caused by blocking the roads? That would be my understanding, yes. And would that be obstruction of the highway sort of offending? Public order disruption, yes. Breach of
01:20:34 Public order disruption, yes. Breach of the peace. It would depend on how the police officers present chose to deal with it. Okay. Um generally speaking, low-level protest with a direct action element to it. The
01:20:47 with a direct action element to it. The issue here is that you've got this this appears to be from what I can see here a discussion. The issue here is that although you might have individuals you can have different individuals arguing to undertake different things and there's
01:20:59 undertake different things and there's always the potential that something might start something but then they might because of the nature of protest as being together um
01:21:07 um you might then get other actions and cert- and some protesters might decide then to take undertake actions that are not part of that general discussion. So there might be a bit of a breakaway. That that was always that that could always be possible. person It would that
01:21:19 always be possible. person It would that would very much be determined by in often case by the types of the specific individuals who were present as activists stroke protesters. And was that something that you came
01:21:30 And was that something that you came across
01:21:32 across uh as part of your deployment? I can certainly recall on at least one occasion there was a large demonstration in London
01:21:40 in London and a group of individuals some of whom I think were certainly would later if not before or after a moment I would identify as being members of state of emergency
01:21:47 emergency uh during the course of a large-scale demonstration it sought to hand out some type of message to get people to converge on the US Embassy um with the
01:21:59 um with the possible view of being undertaking some form of action directly against the embassy itself.
01:22:05 Along the lines of what was being contemplated here or But as to the as I say from what I can recall and this was reported by me into at the time live in a light as a live event
01:22:16 a light as a live event it was to get enough people together around that location um to get a critical mass if you like of individuals and then the protesters then would then be able to agitate or
01:22:27 would then be able to agitate or aggravate in some way if they if that's what they wanted to do and they would then have individuals around them some of whom may whether they'd intended to or not might then be drawn into any kind of action that was then undertaken.
01:22:41 In terms of people being drawn into direct action, is it fair to say that the groups that you were infiltrating um ISM London, No Borders London and ultimately state of emergency
01:22:52 ultimately state of emergency would not require people to be part of any direct action that that would be entirely somebody's own individual uh choice. It could be a group choice or
01:23:03 uh choice. It could be a group choice or it could also be a group choice. It could be a group choice sorry forgive me or an individual choice. Very often the decision as to whether an individual engaged in direct action was clearly
01:23:14 clearly a a decision of the a decision if you like or a a choice made by the individual although you would clearly have other actions where individuals would agree to come together and they would then undertake an action and agree what action what steps they
01:23:25 and agree what action what steps they would take beforehand, who would agree to be arrested, what would happen in the event of an arrest, what they were seeking to do. And and was it your understanding that nobody would be forced to take part in a
01:23:36 nobody would be forced to take part in a direct action if they didn't want to? I don't Yeah, I mean from the reporting that I I provided I can't recall anyone ever being forced to take part in a direct action.
01:23:47 direct action. Uh
01:23:47 Uh Paragraph four on this page, please. Got reference to Atif Chaudry at the bottom.
01:23:56 And it it's reported that he suggested targeting
01:24:03 targeting the arms manufacturer manufacturer sorry, manufacturer Rafael located in Duke Street. Not really clear on uh whether they are located on Duke Street,
01:24:16 whether they are located on Duke Street, but you say that it was he that suggested that um uh potential action. He denies that. He said he did not propose that as a target and did not
01:24:29 propose that as a target and did not attend any of the demos that were were uh
01:24:33 uh foreseen in this at this meeting. And if he did attend the meeting, it would have been as an observer. Could you have got this report wrong in relation to
01:24:44 relation to Atif? I don't think so. My recollection is it was Atif who invited me to this meeting.
01:24:49 meeting. to accompany him to the LSE event. I don't think he disputes that he was there, but he disputes that he then suggested Rafael as a a target for a a demonstration. Is it fair to say that
01:25:01 demonstration. Is it fair to say that that might have been inaccurate in in this report? No. So, you don't accept that you got this wrong. What I would say is if I've reported it at that time, then at the time of reporting, I obviously considered that to be true.
01:25:13 considered that to be true. When you write your reports, do you write them there and then or do you make the reports when you get home in in the evening or at the weekend? Or do you type them up on a Monday when
01:25:24 Or do you type them up on a Monday when you're in the SDS safe house? It could vary. Is there a chance that between attending the meeting and then writing up the report,
01:25:35 report, you've mistaken who it was that that actually made that suggestion at the meeting? Reading this report now, it seems fairly clear that the italics suggest that this
01:25:47 clear that the italics suggest that this was something that stood out. So, I would I also have the tense written in. I would suggest that no, that was reported as I understood it to be.
01:26:00 Page three, please, paragraph one.
01:26:13 It's noted that there's um wide publication of uh
01:26:18 of uh uh
01:26:19 uh uh
01:26:20 uh meeting information. The last sentence this then led to the realization that the action would have to be discussed with a wider gathering when it reconvened and given the public and
01:26:31 reconvened and given the public and necessarily open nature of the meeting the information would effectively become public knowledge at that time. So this was an open public meeting at the LSE for anybody that wanted to
01:26:43 at the LSE for anybody that wanted to attend. Is that right? Well I attended on the invitation of a thief so whoever chose to attend I don't as I I can't recall there being any barriers in terms of who could or could not attend.
01:26:56 What were you able to report from this meeting that any police source wouldn't be able to obtain from less intrusive means that from that I
01:27:07 less intrusive means that from that I mean
01:27:08 mean not having an undercover source infiltrating the group but just attending a public activist group. there's a recognition in this reporting that
01:27:18 that there may have been there were breakout groups in the meeting. So that suggests to me that if you've got
01:27:24 got you would need a UC within that environment to identify the correct or the right breakup groups with individuals to be part of to look and discover whether there's any potential action intended.
01:27:35 potential action intended. Very often in this situation you'll have wider meetings where general topic talk to be discussed in the most general of ways and after that you would then potentially have breakout groups and individuals would then convene and then
01:27:47 individuals would then convene and then decide with what kind of form of action there would be. Whether that would be reported back to the general group would be open to discussion. As you can probably appreciate from some at for committed activists that's not the thing they would want to see happen.
01:28:00 the thing they would want to see happen. And at the time were you aware of you being the only UC amongst that group of people? I wouldn't have known. I mean arguing unless it was another SDS officer
01:28:12 unless it was another SDS officer that I would have identified, but beyond that, they may very well have been other officers, but I would if they unless they'd been identified to me, I wouldn't know. And by other officers, you're talking about normal undercover plainclothes
01:28:24 about normal undercover plainclothes police officers attending a public meeting.
01:28:28 meeting. Not somebody that's uh
01:28:30 uh infiltrated a group long-term. I don't know. Forgive me. You You might have had
01:28:38 have had They may very well have been another officer or two in there undercover. I don't know.
01:28:44 Um
01:28:49 Okay, but out outside of the SDS group, you mean? Possibly, yes. If there was another Let me put it state this clearly, forgive me. If there was another SDS officer in the room, You would have recognized them. I would have known that.
01:29:02 On some of the sanitized reports, and one of the examples is MPS 0069426.
01:29:13 Behind tab C76.
01:29:19 We can see that a source comment refers to privacy, surname unknown, is involved with bringing refugee children from Gaza to the UK for
01:29:31 children from Gaza to the UK for respite.
01:29:33 respite. And it appears further down that that person was then researched. What was the point of reporting on something like that? Can you just reduce that box down,
01:29:45 Can you just reduce that box down, please, so I can see that? Yeah.
01:29:48 That would have been included because I'm reporting on the targeting of the US Embassy,
01:29:54 Embassy, and you have this individual. Again, it's can they be identified by virtue of the extra information being provided to identify them.
01:30:03 So, you're saying that the fact that somebody is bringing refugee children from Gaza to the UK for respite is a source of information that might lead to the identity of this particular person.
01:30:14 the identity of this particular person. Potentially. If you notice it's snow, so that would suggest that they didn't know this obviously they didn't know the surname of the individual.
01:30:22 Okay. If it helps, um it's item 32 on the cipher list.
01:30:40 Item 32, please.
01:30:51 Right, okay. So, do you do you recognize that name? The first name, yes. Uh it's the source So, in the box 32, the source comment reference,
01:31:03 box 32, the source comment reference, that person's name in red. Do you see Do you see it in in the cipher list?
01:31:09 Box 32, it's the person Yes. noted next to source comment. Yes.
01:31:14 Yes. Did you know that person?
01:31:18 Given the way the nature of this reporting, I would suggest that I didn't know her well at this time. Okay.
01:31:25 Was Did you think it was of interest about uh refugee children being brought in from Gaza to the UK for respite? Is the Gaza link something that you thought was
01:31:37 Gaza link something that you thought was important that Special Branch should know about? I think the interest here is that you've got an you've got an individual has some form of link to Gaza and they're attending a meeting whereby they are discussing the possibility of targeting the US Embassy.
01:32:01 Asa Win Stanley in his exhibit UCPI38560
01:32:13 page 57, please.
01:32:19 Exhibit an email.
01:32:30 Now, this appears to be through the red room
01:32:33 room chat. Can you explain what the red room Is this a forum for for ISM members to communicate? To be honest with you, I'm not sure. I know that this has come up previously
01:32:45 know that this has come up previously during the course of our discussions, but I can't recall what it was specifically. It looks like you do engage with this red room. I think I think it's a forum
01:32:56 red room. I think I think it's a forum or an emailing list where you're using your rsp.harrison@yahoo.co.uk
01:33:04 emailing address. And it's about Balata Kids request. And this is from the 22nd of August 2005, so sometime before this report, about a
01:33:15 sometime before this report, about a year before. So, it Were the Balata Kids a reference to refugee children coming to the UK for respite? Possibly.
01:33:27 for respite? Possibly. And had you known about that um
01:33:34 charity or um
01:33:39 mission, if you like being something that was facilitated for some time? I can't recall.
01:33:50 There's a request that had been sent that the Balata Kids will be staying at such and such on Tuesday night before leaving on Wednesday. We need to provide
01:34:01 leaving on Wednesday. We need to provide them with bedding. Can you help provide a sleeping bag, duvet, camping mat, and if yes, bring to blank
01:34:09 blank St. George's on the night? And you reply, "I've got a sleeping bag or mat that I will bring over on Tuesday if that's okay."
01:34:20 if that's okay." Did you take the sleeping bag? I can't recall. Do you recall meeting the children that had been brought over from Gaza?
01:34:28 Gaza? no, I don't. And they'd been brought over from the refugee camps, is that right? I don't recall.
01:34:38 Uh yeah, I've just um had confirmation the red room is an emailing list. Is that
01:34:46 So, is that an open access email list or is it closed?
01:34:52 Um my understanding is the red room was an invite only from ISM members, but we will check that because I'm not completely sure about that.
01:35:06 Do you not You don't recall anything about that? I don't remember, no, I'm sorry. Um did you engage with this project to bring children over for respites at any other on any other occasion? Not that I
01:35:17 other on any other occasion? Not that I can recall.
01:35:22 Um and so, your evidence is you didn't have anything to do with those children who were part of that initiative. I don't recall, no.
01:35:31 Can we have on screen, please, 0069652,
01:35:37 please?
01:35:41 This behind tab C90.
01:35:46 And it's a report of the 23rd of August 2006.
01:35:56 Again, we're still looking at Lebanese Assembly. They haven't become state of emergency just yet. And on page two, please, paragraph four,
01:36:09 we can see that you report that the group are keen to organize an action at RAF Brize Norton on Saturday the 9th of September 2006.
01:36:20 September 2006. So, this follows on from that earlier um meeting, that general meeting. Um
01:36:30 it said that two people are to approach either Oxford Stop the War Campaign or Swindon Stop the War Campaign to assist with the organization of this event. And there's a suggestion here that
01:36:43 there's a suggestion here that um uh that the S- that State of Emergency would come in like behind the the the st- uh uh uh uh
01:36:52 uh uh Stop the War Campaign is kind of like the secret uh
01:36:57 uh uh uh uh uh uh secret protest group, this direct action group, and hoodwink the local police. Do you Do you see how that's been presented in the report? I do, yes. I can certainly say that the
01:37:09 I do, yes. I can certainly say that the individuals who made up State of Emergency
01:37:12 Emergency certainly saw themselves as being committed activists rather than just generalists, if you like. And clearly they were
01:37:23 politically astute and politically involved. In terms of they took their politics far more seriously than uh uh uh most ordinary people do. And did you consider this some kind of
01:37:35 And did you consider this some kind of subterfuge that only a UCO could have a obtained that was not otherwise discoverable by local police?
01:37:46 discoverable by local police? I can only speak in general terms, but as a tactic, that would be quite terms, but as a tactic, that would be quite useful.
01:37:52 useful. And it wouldn't be unusual. We can speak about the meeting that at the LSE earlier. And what was fairly clear during the course of that meeting is there were members of the left-wing group had gathered of another left-wing group had gathered together and were
01:38:04 group had gathered together and were seeking to divert the general meeting in its own particular direction. Did you believe that local police would be taken unawares despite previous direct action being undertaken at
01:38:16 direct action being undertaken at Brighton or Norton? Well, I I from what I'm reporting here, that would appear to be the case.
01:38:23 Or is this reporting in fact an exaggerated reporting making something out of not very much in terms of any threat or
01:38:36 not very much in terms of any threat or risk of serious crime or disorder? you've this is something that's come up previously. I'll say the same thing to you. At no stage did I exaggerate when I'm when I'm reporting.
01:38:55 There's a There's a note in I'll bring it up. NPS 0070350
01:39:04 behind tab B78.
01:39:10 So, this is one of the reviews of your authority. And I understand from your evidence you never saw these Ripper authorities or reviews or updates. my understanding, yes. Page two, please.
01:39:28 In paragraphs four and five
01:39:35 I'll give you a moment just to look at that.
01:39:48 Okay. It's suggesting that the state of emergency collective was going to almost take the place of what was the Wombles. So, a fairly significant, well-known direct action
01:40:00 significant, well-known direct action group.
01:40:01 group. Well, I clearly didn't write this report. Didn't have access to it, but that seems to be what the author of the report intends to be understood. Based upon your reporting. Likely, yes. Okay.
01:40:12 Okay. So, we can see that um intelligence gleaned by Common Wheel has allowed the Counter Terrorism Command SO15 to fully
01:40:23 Counter Terrorism Command SO15 to fully identify the main activists within this group,
01:40:26 group, allowing CTC to accurately assess the capabilities of this group to cause disorder.
01:40:33 disorder. And we can see we'll have a look at some of your reporting, but in terms of the capabilities of that group to cause disorder, was that seen as something significant a significant part of your reporting was
01:40:45 a significant part of your reporting was the disorder that was going to be potentially caused by State of Emergency. Well, certainly any kind of public disorder would have been something that I would have considered during the course of my reporting, yes. And the action that activists would
01:40:57 And the action that activists would obviously undertake.
01:41:00 Um
01:41:11 We can see from MPS 0076342,
01:41:24 this is behind tab C208 in bundle five,
01:41:35 that um the SOE collective have met.
01:41:48 And they set out a statement of purpose. Sorry, I've just
01:41:56 So, it may be an appropriate time to actually take a break. I've been told that we we need to break for the afternoon and I will uh get my head into this report and find out exactly what I want to put to the witness.
01:42:07 want to put to the witness. so that
01:42:08 so that everyone knows where we're going, I have referred to private session. Is that going to take place today or tomorrow? No, that'll be tomorrow. Yeah, very well.
01:42:17 Would it be sensible to fix that for tomorrow morning when we start so that we don't have people coming in and uh then having to leave and then coming back?
01:42:28 back? Time in your hands, but We can discuss that and think about the best way to to manage that. Um I can 10 minutes? 10 minutes.
01:45:29 Mhm.
01:47:24 Mhm.
01:49:19 Mhm.
01:51:14 Mhm.
01:55:04 Mhm.
01:57:59 Is that my line?
01:58:03 Can have a phone screen, please? MPS0076342
01:58:13 It's going back to this report that we were looking at just before the break. Um
01:58:19 This is looking at a a draft statement of purpose by the new state of emergency collective. And you note in paragraph two what that
01:58:32 And you note in paragraph two what that was agreed to read at the time. And you can see that it says state of emergency seeks to highlight and take direct action against the causes and effects of the war on terror. We stand
01:58:44 effects of the war on terror. We stand in solidarity against military and economic oppression by defending ourselves against the ever-increasing domination of the state. And we recognize that the state in which we live will continue for as long as our
01:58:57 we live will continue for as long as our obedience enables them to control us. And that was something that was going to then be emailed around. We can see on the next page
01:59:19 uh that the agreement of the statement may now allow the group to concentrate on identifying and undertaking specific actions.
01:59:30 Um what was your understanding looking at that source comment about the capabilities of public disorder
01:59:42 of public disorder arising from direct action from members of State of Emergency at that time? It wouldn't have been known to me. That would have been in the future. So, what you very much have here clearly is a nascent group with
01:59:54 clearly is a nascent group with individuals with a yet to be determined what specific forms of action they would undertake. And the fact that this group included individuals who had been involved in direct action before, did that
02:00:07 direct action before, did that make you consider that this was a potentially uh high-risk group? No, what it would have meant is that the this was something these were individuals in this group it was necessary that I would
02:00:18 group it was necessary that I would report on them because of that being the fact that those individuals were involved. Okay. Um and the type of activities that they were going to be involved in um we'd
02:00:30 were going to be involved in um we'd looked at already in that uh general public meeting that they'd had back in the LSE previously. Sorry, could you repeat that, please? So, the the Lebanese Assembly meeting that they'd had in the LSE It's no
02:00:41 that they'd had in the LSE It's no longer So, the Lebanese Assembly, as far as I can see, that's gone. Yeah. You now have State of Emergency, the group of individuals who have come together out of that particular meeting and elsewhere. Okay. And the types of
02:00:52 elsewhere. Okay. And the types of actions that they would be looking to take part in would be the sorts that were that were discussed at that earlier meeting at the LSE. Not necessarily. It's under the banner of Lebanese Assembly. Not necessarily, no.
02:01:04 Lebanese Assembly. Not necessarily, no. There could always be a difference. You've got the public meeting, open to members of the public, and then you've got the cells that would come together, and then you've now got a group that has come together of a
02:01:15 group that has come together of a people with experience in activism. Different thing altogether. Did they
02:01:21 Did they turn themselves cells, or is that something you've attributed to the different
02:01:25 different That would be how I would describe them. And that seems to have connotations of like terrorist cells. Would you accept that or not? I see it more as if you think of
02:01:36 I see it more as if you think of if you think of a complex movement, you've got individual units that would move around. So, that would be how I'd think of it or conceptualize it.
02:01:45 We can see that one of the events that comes a little later um
02:01:53 No, sorry. This is a report that was written by you about a year before, actually,
02:02:01 actually, is in relation to the Smash EDO mass march
02:02:05 march uh against complicity in the war in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan. Can we go to MPS 0069716, please? It's behind tab C93
02:02:18 please? It's behind tab C93 of bundle five.
02:02:38 So, we can see Sorry, the dates don't seem to add up. You We were talking about a nascent campaign setting out their statement of purpose
02:02:49 purpose in 2007, yet in 2006 we've got State of Emergency being involved in a Smash EDO mass march in Brighton.
02:03:02 State of Emergency, I can say with absolute certainty State of Emergency did exist until after the meeting at the LSE.
02:03:09 LSE. So, I don't know why there's a discrepancy in the date.
02:03:14 Right, but that would be 2006. Um
02:03:19 Um So, this this was a a a a a mass march and um we're looking at people who were part of the protest. Smash EDO were planning some direct direct action,
02:03:30 planning some direct direct action, details not known, and that was something that you became aware of during this mass march in Brighton. Is that Is that right? I've reported this, yes. Okay.
02:03:41 yes. Okay. Can we go back to the the report just to check the date? MPS0076342
02:03:58 So, can can can can you help us with why it appears that the statement of purpose of State of Emergency is being drawn up a year after events that they had taken part in as
02:04:10 events that they had taken part in as part of a group such as the Smash EDO march? No, this this clearly doesn't accord. There's an error here somewhere. Um you understood this as being
02:04:21 Um you understood this as being something that was done at the at the outset of them setting up the group. Is that right? I believe so, yes. Okay.
02:04:31 Okay, well, we'll move on from that anyway.
02:04:34 anyway. Um MPS0069
02:04:38 898, please.
02:04:47 Sorry, that's something I can look at um overnight and clarify if we need to tomorrow.
02:04:58 So, the next report MPS 0069898,
02:05:03 please. Behind tab C96.
02:05:21 And this is a report again from uh 2006, September, about state of the emergency holding a protest at the London Soldier Chelsea Barracks.
02:05:34 Um you note that some people were not going to support the Stop the War demo in Manchester on Saturday the 23rd, but instead they were to hand out leaflets and unfurl a banner at the Army
02:05:48 leaflets and unfurl a banner at the Army recruitment drive. Um
02:05:52 Um no
02:05:53 no likely violence occurring there,
02:05:56 there, uh I take it. I would at that time of the reporting it, I don't I wouldn't be able to say whether they they would have been violence, yes or no. This is reporting giving notification of intention.
02:06:07 giving notification of intention. And this was people handing out uh leaflets to those attending a recruitment drive asking them to reconsider their choices. Potentially, yes. The members of um State of Emergency, as you can imagine,
02:06:20 State of Emergency, as you can imagine, um
02:06:21 um were not great fans of the British Army. Uh can we have a look at page two, please?
02:06:32 And we can see that your comment was that protesters are likely to comply with any firm request to leave the venue, no pre-planned intention to be arrested.
02:06:42 arrested. The last protest organized by State of Emergency attracted the support of seven activists. With better organization this time, activists hope to attract a few more participants, but this was not
02:06:53 more participants, but this was not something that essentially was going to need public order policing. Is that fair to say? No, but if I can recall correctly, the forward intelligence team or members of
02:07:04 forward intelligence team or members of the forward intelligence team were present.
02:07:07 present. Okay, so that forward intelligence team were going to be present. Is that because you submitted this report or is that because police anticipated that people would be protesting such a drive
02:07:19 people would be protesting such a drive anyway?
02:07:20 anyway? I can't I wouldn't be able to comment on that.
02:07:25 MPS 007 0070,
02:07:29 0070, please.
02:07:37 It's behind tab C100 of bundle five, and this is efforts to publicize the blockade of Parliament event. And this was
02:07:47 was in the shadow of the SOCPA legislation coming into force. Is that right? The Serious Organized Crime and Police Act 2005.
02:07:57 2005. I don't believe so. Or does it say this in the report? Um
02:08:03 Um It's just that when you mentioned that SOCPA
02:08:07 SOCPA I don't imagine SOCPA would have been a specific an area of interest for members of State of Emergency. That was legislation that was brought in around this time and it it prevented
02:08:18 around this time and it it prevented people from demonstrating and protesting in Parliament Square. Is that right? In which case, forgive me then I I misunderstood what the legislation was that you were referring to. If you did refer to that kind of activity, then yes, it would have been of interest to
02:08:30 yes, it would have been of interest to to individuals. Okay. And um knowing that, it made a demonstration like this outside Parliament an illegal form of protest, didn't it?
02:08:41 an illegal form of protest, didn't it? And that was what was of such concern to protesters at the time. I can only put what I've actually put on include on my report. you don't have any independent recollection of that at No, just what's
02:08:52 recollection of that at No, just what's on the report here. Yeah. Um this event and we can see that your report is about efforts to publicize uh the demonstration, but it was a
02:09:03 uh the demonstration, but it was a well-publicized demo, wasn't it, at the time?
02:09:06 time? It Sorry, it was a it wasn't a well-publicized demo. They certainly made efforts to to publicize it, yes. And did that include handing out leaflets and other forms of
02:09:17 leaflets and other forms of publication? I believe so. publicized publicizing. Including a map that had been put together that was to be handed out that suggested points of
02:09:27 points of where points where people could meet up and then decide if they wanted to take part in an action of some kind. But despite the level of uh publication or advertising, you were expecting low
02:09:38 or advertising, you were expecting low numbers to attend. Is that fair? At this time, reading through this, there is no I can't see specific mention of of any particular numbers or an estimate of potential numbers.
02:09:52 Can we have a look at um it's the witness statement of a second witness statement of Ben Leamy. It's UCPI 38002.
02:10:03 Page 55, please.
02:10:15 And looking in particular at paragraphs 291
02:10:19 291 to 297.
02:10:31 And what this sets out is a thread in relation to this event of Sack Parliament
02:10:43 that you were engaged with on the Urban 75
02:10:47 75 um
02:10:48 um a a a forum.
02:10:58 Okay.
02:11:01 So, looking at that, um the the issue is that knowing that protest was illegal under the new SOCPA reg- uh
02:11:11 reg- uh legislation, you did try to get help to organize and fund it and promote it. And as we can see in paragraph 292,
02:11:22 see in paragraph 292, you encouraged people to turn up to the event. Is that fair to say? I think it's fair that within the within the context of my legend on that environment, it would have been strange if I hadn't
02:11:34 would have been strange if I hadn't commented on the Sack Parliament event.
02:11:39 And is it is it right to say that you were encouraging people to attend, come along, join in, even though there had been some criticism about this event from other uh uh
02:11:50 from other uh uh activists? Well, the key point there in 291 is genuine activists. I mean, my question there for Leemi would be how would you define what a genuine activist is or is not.
02:12:01 genuine activist is or is not. And clearly within the context of Urban 75, you have a you have people there with a range of difficult uh a range of different political opinions and persuasions.
02:12:12 And knowing what we you about um not being an agent provocateur. Um
02:12:19 Um did you have any concerns about your posting on this site about encouraging people to turn up and be involved in something that is actually deemed a criminal act under the new
02:12:31 deemed a criminal act under the new legislation. No.
02:12:34 No. Did you give it any thought at all about your involvement in that? So, forgive me. I would have seen this as more as being about advertising the fact of the event taking place, not encouraging people to take part in a
02:12:45 not encouraging people to take part in a in a illegal um undertaking.
02:12:56 Um so, at paragraph 293, where you respond come along and find out, would you accept that that is encouraging people to come along and partake? It's encouraging people to come along.
02:13:08 encouraging people to come along. It's interesting that Lee Meehan says he knew the protest would be illegal. Clearly, you had then obviously knew what was going on inside my mind. Did you Did you recognize that it would be illegal, though? Was that part of the
02:13:20 be illegal, though? Was that part of the the issue as to why that demo was being criticized? Possibly from outside, but the issue for me was to try and publicize this and to get people involved. It would have looked strange if I hadn't put this out there as part of my
02:13:31 put this out there as part of my involvement within the group. It would have raised questions if I hadn't been part of the effort to publicize this. And why was that specifically a part of your role? Is that something that you put yourself forward for for to
02:13:43 put yourself forward for for to publicize uh the events like this and to encourage people to I think that would be how most activists would see their would see their
02:13:54 their their responsibility for some things that they could put out there in the public domain. Other things they would not.
02:14:01 We know that uh about 150 protesters turned up to the event, but there were about 800 officers deployed to police it. It's a
02:14:13 officers deployed to police it. It's a significant ratio there between officers and
02:14:17 and demonstrators. Do you get the sense that any of your reporting affected what the police did on the day in in terms of their policing of the event? I mean, that's possible.
02:14:30 of the event? I mean, that's possible. But, I certainly would have been been involved in any of the discussions that took place in terms of the numbers of police that might be required to resource in that kind of thing. Um
02:14:40 Um It's understood that many people, if not all people, were detained and questioned and had to give their details to the police. Is that something that you were aware of at the time? No. Did you attend the the event yourself?
02:14:51 the the event yourself? yes. And were you detained and questioned by police? When I say detained, I don't mean taken to the custody
02:14:57 custody that area, but uh stopped in the street. No. What had happened is various activists from SOE had spread themselves out throughout throughout the square.
02:15:08 throughout the square. And a FIT team identified me. And they then followed me round. And I then spent most of the time then moving around being followed around by a FIT team and trying to draw them away
02:15:19 FIT team and trying to draw them away from
02:15:20 from the Parliament Square. And in terms of the effect a FIT team had on protesters' experiences of demonstrations, was it a very invasive
02:15:31 demonstrations, was it a very invasive um
02:15:32 um form of policing to follow somebody around with with cameras and videos, as I understand it? I I think the view would be the MPSV would be that the Forward Intelligence Team was a very useful
02:15:43 useful um
02:15:44 um team that was available to them, that they knew protesters were aware of. And they likely knew that the FIT team would cause the the presence just by being present,
02:15:55 presence just by being present, they would make the protesters feel uncomfortable, potentially. So, they were there to dissuade by their very presence. Dissuade
02:16:05 Dissuade what? Possibly from protesters undertaking direct action. Were they also by their presence dissuading people from participating in just political
02:16:17 participating in just political demonstrations? Well, I think the FIT team, the awareness of the FIT team of the general public, is likely very different from the awareness of the FIT team
02:16:26 team as understood by activists. It's far more likely, let me clarify that, an activist is far more likely to be dissuaded by the presence of a FIT team potentially than a member of the
02:16:38 team potentially than a member of the public who, when they see the FIT team, might not actually understand who they are, what they are, what their function is.
02:16:46 Um we can see at paragraph 297 of Ben Leamy's statement that the Sack Parliament debacle had a major chilling event
02:16:58 major chilling event and was perceived as a significant blow for democratic freedoms. And with hindsight, the new understanding of the role of secret police, it's probably even worse than initially
02:17:09 it's probably even worse than initially thought.
02:17:11 thought. Did you have that sense at the time that the Sack Parliament event wasn't a success from the activists' point of view?
02:17:21 view? My recollection is it was viewed differently by different protesters. Some had viewed it as being a success by the fact that people attended, others perhaps less so.
02:17:32 people attended, others perhaps less so. What about the fact that it was so heavily policed? Did that have a chilling effect on uh the rights of demonstrators? I can't comment on that. Uh
02:17:43 Uh you weren't arrested. Did you know any of the people that were arrested that day? I can't recall, no.
02:17:50 Was part of the role of SDS undercover officers to try and diminish the impact of protest?
02:18:01 of protest? Was that seen as a a goal of SDS policing?
02:18:06 policing? To report on it, yes. But to try it, that's going to be difficult in the context of what are the actions that the officer is undertaking whilst they're undercover. By their very presence, they take part
02:18:17 By their very presence, they take part and contribute to an action. Or do they not? And that obviously can then have an impact potentially on the effectiveness of an action. Can we have up, please, MPS 0526935?
02:18:33 And again, this is one of the composites of your Ripper authorizations, which I recognize you haven't seen. Page 114, please.
02:18:44 haven't seen. Page 114, please. This is behind tab B54 in bundle three.
02:18:49 And we can see this is in relation to to you,
02:18:53 you, your reporting, customer comments from C-Desk.
02:19:05 See halfway down um paragraph two, it's related it's it's related to the Sack Parliament uh uh demonstration on the 9th of October.
02:19:18 It talks about people deliberately intending to flout the new SOCPA legislation in respect of protests within the designated area. And this led to confrontation with the
02:19:30 And this led to confrontation with the police and a significant number of events at arrests, sorry. However, the effect was blunted through good intelligence, much of it from CW,
02:19:41 good intelligence, much of it from CW, Common Wheel, which allowed Gold to have a good picture of activists' intentions, capabilities, et cetera. So,
02:19:52 So, from this, can it be inferred that your reporting was fed into gold command and what part of it or or do you accept that? It's It seems from the Again, I
02:20:05 that? It's It seems from the Again, I didn't write this, but it seems fairly clear that the reporting that I provided was obviously utilized and fed through and disseminated to what to other parts of the organization, the MPS. And what's your
02:20:16 organization, the MPS. And what's your impression then of um how that may have impacted the level of policing in terms of when you turned up to Parliament Square, there were 800 police officers policing the the event.
02:20:29 police officers policing the the event. Was that a surprise to you? I think on the day I That wasn't something I considered. I had a fit team that were that were chasing me around. So, you were distracted. You weren't considering the amount of policing. I had a I had a fit team that followed me
02:20:41 had a I had a fit team that followed me around for for a considerable time. You weren't considering at the time the amount of money your reporting may have saved the Met in terms of policing that event.
02:20:52 event. No, that would not I would have had far too much to consider other than that fact at the time. In terms of there being 800 officers deployed to police 150 protesters
02:21:05 deployed to police 150 protesters um
02:21:06 um making 38 arrests do you think that there was a money-saving uh
02:21:12 uh value to to that event? I wouldn't comment on that.
02:21:21 Is there any sense that you have now of what would have happened if no such undercover intelligence had been fed through to gold command? Can you tell us whether there would have
02:21:32 Can you tell us whether there would have been a difference or not? I don't know. Potentially. Can we have a look at MPS0070264,
02:21:41 please?
02:21:46 This is behind tab C105 in bundle five. A report of the 9th of October 2006 and it relates to state of emergency
02:21:58 and it relates to state of emergency training sessions for Sack Parliament. So, this is in the run-up to that event.
02:22:10 We can see in paragraph one, you're talking
02:22:15 talking or you're reporting about great disappointment of the SEC activists that nobody attended the training other
02:22:26 that nobody attended the training other than the activists themselves. Do you recall reporting that? I don't recall reporting it, but I can clearly see that's that piece that you would have written. Do you recall whether you were one of the people that was at the training session?
02:22:38 was at the training session? Possibly. The reporting would suggest that I was there.
02:22:44 And the second paragraph says that there is a
02:22:46 is a equal disappointment as to the
02:22:50 as to the a general feeling of disappointment as to the two non-activists attending the Sack Parliament gig which was held on Friday the 6th of October 2006 at the Rampart Center. Is that a a gig
02:23:02 at the Rampart Center. Is that a a gig that at which you would DJing? I don't recall. Um would it have been your disappointment that actually you weren't able to encourage more people to come along to a training event or to the
02:23:16 along to a training event or to the uh social fundraising event? No, that wouldn't have been a concern.
02:23:23 Uh
02:23:25 Can we have a look, please, at Asa Winstanley's exhibit UCPI 38560
02:23:36 page 54.
02:24:04 Um um um
02:24:08 what I'm going to ask you about is reading up from the bottom to the top. We've got a a report Oh, sorry, an email from you
02:24:19 about an event in Brixton that you were trying to organize
02:24:29 that had a capacity for about 550 people
02:24:34 the marquee outside another 200 people and the cost of such an event.
02:24:48 Okay. And you talk about involving Zaytoun, which we know is the company of or the organization of that Atif Choudhry was involved with, and the PSC.
02:25:01 Choudhry was involved with, and the PSC. Palestine Solidarity Campaign. And you're looking for them to be involved to support and share the cost. it looks as if yes. To share the cost of the event.
02:25:13 To share the cost of the event. Um
02:25:14 Um scrolling up then
02:25:19 we can see that you say another email
02:25:24 you say further to this such and such called today and wanted to know what the situation was regarding this event. I is it going to take place or are we interested or does anyone give a [ __ ]
02:25:35 interested or does anyone give a [ __ ] Any feedback peeps would be good. And what you're trying to gauge there is interest in having a big event like this. No, what I'm trying to gauge there is the likelihood of people attending.
02:25:48 Okay. Some Somebody does reply back to you and say, you know, I I I I would be interested, but actually I've got other things on. And then at the top of the page
02:26:05 we can see your email that says, "I appreciate the feedback." "Especially as I believe it's important that we as a group begin to organize such events on a regular basis, if only
02:26:17 such events on a regular basis, if only to explore the fundraising possibilities and expansion of our support base."
02:26:25 Um incidentally, paragraph three, "I would like to propose that the group explores the possibility of taking the design from a recent flyer." Um which shows
02:26:36 Um which shows a very clear and easily understandable way the impact of Israel continue continuing to annex and more Palestinian territory and transferring this to a t-shirt. What peeps think.
02:26:48 t-shirt. What peeps think. And so you're looking to organize and and uh
02:26:53 and uh involve people in campaigning and that sort of thing. Is that fair to say? I think what I'm doing there is I'm just looking to think about the activities that I would be undertaking as an activist.
02:27:04 be undertaking as an activist. According to my legend, being involved within the these groups. Can we have a look at page 152, please?
02:27:23 And this is you forwarding a um
02:27:27 um a an email from the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign regarding a national day of action. And that's and and boycotting Israeli goods. And this is an email from the 22nd of the
02:27:39 this is an email from the 22nd of the 6th, 2006. And what you say at the very top there is, "So, are we going to get involved, or are we going to sit on our butts?" And the inference being that
02:27:51 And the inference being that the first is positive, the second is option is negative. You You're wanting to encourage people to become involved in this national day of action. Is that fair enough?
02:28:02 fair enough? opening it up as a question for discussion within the group.
02:28:07 Page 173, please.
02:28:23 About a month and a half later, we have the second Sorry, I'm on still on page 168, I believe.
02:28:28 believe. Oh.
02:28:31 I've got 168 on the bottom of this document here.
02:28:39 Is Is that 2nd of August 2006?
02:28:46 I know. I've got 100 and Oh, I'm sorry. It might be a internal page. 157, please.
02:28:58 Yes, internal page 173.
02:29:17 Again, it's about organizing and at the bottom of paragraph two,
02:29:23 you can see you suggest that I think it would be great if we could take part in some capacity, whether that's with a banner or something else.
02:29:36 But again, opening this up as a question. As would be expected of an activist within that environment. And that's if the last sentence is if if peeps are interested in arranging
02:29:48 peeps are interested in arranging something, let me know. Did you take it upon yourself within the group to be a bit of a coordinator? I I was certainly coordinator in terms of
02:29:59 of um
02:30:00 um fundraising event, yes. What about um involvement in campaigns and other actions? Well specific Who was this addressed to? Was it IS- ISMers or
02:30:13 it IS- ISMers or This is within the ISM group. So, the issue here then it would have been put up as a just a general question. It would have been entirely their choice whether they chose to get involved or not.
02:30:22 not. In terms of this going up on Indymedia, is that
02:30:26 is that is that a a public website and that publicized events. This is something that
02:30:33 that uh
02:30:34 uh if anybody needed to know about it, somebody could have a look at that. Well, just with the public access I recall at the time that it was a public-facing website. Most of it was public-facing. Um and it was used utilized by some
02:30:45 Um and it was used utilized by some activists, some groups to put up details of of um of events. But obviously, because it was public-facing, not all the information pertaining to those events would necessarily be made public within that within that space.
02:30:57 within that within that space. Can we have a look at page 174, please? Sorry, 158.
02:31:09 And again, you're flagging things. Two fundraising events or benefit nights over at the Rampart this weekend. People might be interested in attending.
02:31:24 And noting that you're going to be playing there, too. Encouraging people to come along. Open up the question for people to consider.
02:31:32 Um can we have a look at page 161, please?
02:31:37 And this is a an email from 16th of
02:31:42 16th of February, 2007.
02:31:47 And this addresses something a bit more about the overall strategic direction of ISM London. Encouraging moving focus away
02:31:59 moving focus away from facilitating activists going to Palestine.
02:32:07 And towards potentially arrestable direct actions in the UK. Sorry, I'm just going to read through the Yes, sir. page.
02:32:57 Okay. So, it's really just the third paragraph in that top email from you. Um starting perhaps the underlying issue here is what ISM is for. And how it
02:33:08 here is what ISM is for. And how it expects to operate here in the UK. Are people interested in engaging in accountable actions here?
02:33:16 My own view is that we could and should be doing much more here in the UK. There are enough targets worthy of our attention. And quite frankly, they are
02:33:27 attention. And quite frankly, they are left to
02:33:28 left to they are left being left alone to continue without being directly challenged. Agrexco is a great example of this and that was the import food importing company,
02:33:40 the import food importing company, wasn't it? That Which had been identified by a member Somebody had identified it for us. Okay. It's been involved in the importation business from Israel. Okay. And Agrexco was the subject of
02:33:53 Okay. And Agrexco was the subject of direct actions and protests. Yes.
02:33:56 Yes. Quite significantly over the years that we're looking at during the course of your deployment. Is that fair? It had been identified by someone associated very closely to ISM. Yes.
02:34:07 very closely to ISM. Yes. Um
02:34:07 Um is it fair to say that the the owners of Agrexco or the people that were managing it, I understand it was based out in Middlesex. Yes. In Hayes, Middlesex.
02:34:18 Middlesex. Yes. In Hayes, Middlesex. Um and they didn't want to press charges. People would go, demonstrate, do lock-ons as part direct direct action,
02:34:28 action, but nothing seriously no serious offenses in relation to those demos. Is that fair to say? Well, I can certainly recall attending on one
02:34:39 certainly recall attending on one particular um
02:34:42 um protest
02:34:43 protest and the activists walked in onto the state of Agrexco uh whereby a member of the security staff walked up uh and grabbed hold of me by the neck and then marched me backwards off of the
02:34:56 and then marched me backwards off of the the premises. That was you went through the gates, did you onto the premises? And the security guards have come up, grabbed One of them came up, grabbed hold of me around the neck, squeezed, and I put my hands up
02:35:07 neck, squeezed, and I put my hands up and said, "I'm not not protesting, not protesting." Walked backwards. Other activists had gone round and they would then starting to do whatever they wanted to do once they were on on the estate. That was down to them individual choices
02:35:18 That was down to them individual choices as to what they might then choose to do. Um but no uh serious public order or criminal offenses arising out of those actions, at least in your reporting of
02:35:29 actions, at least in your reporting of those Well, this isn't an actual report about it. This is a discussion around this issue. And it I would imagine looking at this, I suspect that this is to do with ISM and an individual within ISM
02:35:40 and an individual within ISM other than me who'd identified was originally responsible for the identification of Carmel Agrexco as the importer as importing goods from Israel into the UK. But in in February 2007, you are
02:35:53 But in in February 2007, you are encouraging people to become more involved in these sorts of actions rather than just the I was opening up as a question of potential collaboration with the ISO and also other groups. There was crossover between them,
02:36:05 There was crossover between them, obviously. Do you recognize that that could be seen as encouraging people to become involved in potentially criminal activity? I think this is largely going out to activists. This is This is from looking
02:36:16 activists. This is This is from looking at this, this is not going out beyond an an activist group. No. But
02:36:21 But the question remains, were you encouraging activists then No, I was opening up as a question as part of maintaining my legend within within the activism world. These are questions that would be considered that
02:36:33 questions that would be considered that would be normal for activists operating in in that realm. And you're raising this as an issue that could be discussed at the next meeting. As a as something could be discussed at
02:36:44 As a as something could be discussed at a meeting.
02:36:47 Can we have a look, please, at um
02:36:52 Moving on to an entirely different topic, MPS 0717373.
02:37:10 This is just about um private information in relation to some of the people that you reported on. This is a report from the 8th of October
02:37:22 This is a report from the 8th of October 2006.
02:37:26 It's a report about an address where females live and we can have we've got the names of those people identified under the privacy reduction if you need. But it relates to the fact that you've
02:37:38 But it relates to the fact that you've been round to an address. It's an upper floor flat. To enter the flat you say an individual enters from the street and you describe the internal layout of that flat.
02:37:54 And then immediately facing the entrance door is a narrow staircase and you note where the bedrooms are in relation to the flat.
02:38:07 It's number 38 if you need, it's on the cipher list.
02:38:24 Yeah. Um and you note also that the ground floor floor flat is occupied by nurses and it appears from the last paragraph that you entered that flat as
02:38:36 paragraph that you entered that flat as part of a a party. You've been invited round and entered that private residential premises uh as one of approximately 20 to 25 people being at a house party. Yes.
02:38:49 people being at a house party. Yes. And why was it that you reported on the internal layout of a house that was lived in by two women and noting where their bedrooms were and
02:39:01 and noting where their bedrooms were and that going into a report for Special Branch? Because as you can see from that it's not about the bedrooms, it's about the general layout of the property, where these individuals who are involved in state of emergency were living.
02:39:14 in state of emergency were living. That's why that was reported in. But why why was that of interest, do you think?
02:39:21 So that the officers back at the yard could understand where these individuals were living and the conditions in which they were living.
02:39:30 living. Can we have a look at the comment section, please, of this report?
02:39:43 In terms of the the threat, the level of threat posed by those involved in state of emergency, we can see that you It's a It's a joke, obviously, about
02:39:54 obviously, about um
02:39:55 um you know, a test to determine if a single Pringle uh would fit into a toaster. You know, that's the the level of threat and and and there was laughter in relation to that.
02:40:06 there was laughter in relation to that. Were you putting that into this report as a
02:40:09 as a a a a joke in itself? No, it's just reporting on what happened. Was the inference that actually these people who are you you are reporting on are of no threat to public order or
02:40:22 are of no threat to public order or public safety uh
02:40:25 uh in reality? I'm just reporting on what had happened at in the event. Or at the event, sorry. But in in terms of what you report in the main body of the report,
02:40:36 the main body of the report, would you accept that this appears to be more of a threat to the safety of young women, a report like this going into a special branch report? How?
02:40:49 special branch report? How? Because it's determining where these young women live,
02:40:53 live, how to access the building, where their bedrooms are, and it just seems a bit Would you accept it seems creepy? No, I don't accept that at all.
02:41:04 don't accept that at all. What was the policing benefit of having this report? As I've already explained on SS books. As I've already explained, they would have had an understanding of where those members of state emergency lived and also their living conditions.
02:41:19 Can we have a look at MPS 007 1 1249?
02:41:26 1 1249? 0071249
02:41:35 This is behind tab C 1 110. It's a report from the 17th of November 2006 in relation to a Justice for Cleaners
02:41:48 in relation to a Justice for Cleaners um Transport and General Workers Union uh Justice for Cleaners campaign. It's right, isn't it, that this was a long-running campaign in support of migrant workers?
02:42:01 I I don't recall. If we run through the report, we can see that it lists all the planned protests outside companies that use the contractor ISS. And the reason for that
02:42:14 contractor ISS. And the reason for that is because ISS as a cleaning company was using migrant workers as employees.
02:42:26 So, it's quite a a long report.
02:42:35 We can see from page 5 paragraph 3
02:42:41 that all these events, all these protests outside these big companies are advertised at a No Borders meeting.
02:42:52 at a No Borders meeting. And that was Was that an open meeting? Or would that have been an open meeting? I'm not certain you would regard it as an open meeting because I think you put someone
02:43:01 someone had come there who was not part of no borders. There might have been some suspicions. Anybody from the the union or migrant workers themselves cuz they have
02:43:12 workers themselves cuz they have attended that meeting? I recall there may have been an individual there in who may have had some form of link to the unions because of the use of the building. Is it the sort of meeting that a a
02:43:23 Is it the sort of meeting that a a plain-clothes uh detective could have attended?
02:43:31 Plain-clothes detective and they arrive and they announce that they are a detective or they go there and don't announce they're a detective and I I would suggest don't announce and actually just pick up the information that they're able to gather from the
02:43:42 that they're able to gather from the meeting.
02:43:44 meeting. I think with my experience of this that they would likely be If they were not known, they would probably be regarded with some suspicion.
02:43:53 And these protests though, would they be advertised around the localities where they were going to be held? I I can't comment on that. Um
02:44:03 Um the purpose of the campaign was to raise awareness, wasn't it? So, can it be reasonably inferred that there would be some publication around the events? And so, what sort of information were
02:44:14 And so, what sort of information were you providing that wouldn't otherwise be available publicly? I I I'm reporting the fact of there possibly being protests and I can't say that you would not have had protests and activists may not have wished to attend those events.
02:44:26 those events. And no reasonable expectation of disorder or crime arising out of these events. I wouldn't have been able to say. I was just reporting on the fact of the the actual fact of
02:44:37 on the fact of the the actual fact of these prote- of these points taking place in the future. Can we have a look at MPS 007 1366, please?
02:44:57 This is one of the blockades of Agrexco Carmel, the importing company based in Middlesex.
02:45:07 Reports from the 27th of well, 27th of November 2006.
02:45:19 And this is a post-event report. Is that right? So, the events happened and you're reporting on it. Yeah, it would have it would appear to be so, yes. And is there is there a page two to this
02:45:31 And is there is there a page two to this report?
02:45:37 We can see at paragraphs four and five
02:45:42 of page two.
02:45:48 It's effectively all passed off without much disorder, all concluded by 11:00 in the morning. Local police Local police attended.
02:46:00 Local police attended. But protesters had been able to make their voices heard and seen. And then the event moves off. People go home or go to a local pub. I mean, that that would
02:46:12 local pub. I mean, that that would certainly be the case, but I think the important thing to note here would also be the fact that you've got activists from different parts from Brighton and London coming together. Have a shared interest principally around the issue of
02:46:23 principally around the issue of Israel-Palestine, the occupied territories. And it's bringing them together.
02:46:31 Was that generally the scenario in in these sorts of direct actions and protests, would that be the sort of thing you would expect to happen at these sorts of events? What do you mean by the sort of thing? That
02:46:43 you mean by the sort of thing? That there would be some form of action, fairly low level in terms of any public disorder or uh civil
02:46:53 civil offense, criminal offense, if at all, and then
02:46:58 and then that would be uh the event over with and and people go home. Not necessarily because you would often have a you would have other occasions when activists would agree as to who would be arrested and who wouldn't be arrested. So, it
02:47:10 and who wouldn't be arrested. So, it would depend on the activists themselves. And again, there's also the fact of once an act once an activity takes place, it's a fluid
02:47:17 fluid it remains fluid and choices can be made that may not have been made that at that moment in time, not previously.
02:47:26 Um given that this was such an event where nothing seems to have been occurred that would have been of interest to Special Branch, what was the
02:47:37 interest to Special Branch, what was the point of reporting this? As I As I mentioned earlier, I think that the important thing here is the fact just reporting the fact of there being an action and the fact that you had these individuals with the shared interest
02:47:48 individuals with the shared interest coming together. That would be of interest to Special Branch because we would want to consider whether these there was any trace of these activists having been previously having previously associated and whether this would this was indicative of any future actions or
02:47:59 was indicative of any future actions or potential actions arising out of such a relationship. Was it understood that actually some of the actions uh involved activists who wanted to be
02:48:10 uh involved activists who wanted to be arrested so that they could have a a day in court and raise awareness of about the activities of the company? That's quite possible. part of the objective, actually, to to be arrested. For some it would it's for
02:48:22 be arrested. For some it would it's for some occasion that could be the case.
02:48:26 Um but certainly not engaging in any um
02:48:32 um terrorist means to to to do that. Well, this would fall under public order.
02:48:40 Can we have a look, please, at MPS 0071721?
02:49:04 And this looks at ISM London plans for 2007.
02:49:13 And you note in the first uh second paragraph on page one
02:49:24 that the group has reduced consisting of Charlotte Carson and a number of other individuals including MCD. And unsurprisingly, this extremely small activist base limits significantly the
02:49:37 activist base limits significantly the impact of ISM in London.
02:49:43 Uh page two, please.
02:49:56 You say that it's somewhat mysterious that it's still financially viable and has still been able to financially support Asa Winstanley uh to the tune of uh several hundred
02:50:07 uh to the tune of uh several hundred pounds. Um is it also somewhat mysterious as to why you are still reporting on ISM by this stage,
02:50:18 still reporting on ISM by this stage, 2006,
02:50:20 2006, 2 years into your deployment? I think as we previously discussed, there was a decision made that my reporting would widen. So, again, I'm not certain of the dates, but it's quite clear that this may have been part of a watching brief
02:50:31 may have been part of a watching brief whilst I was also reporting on other groups.
02:50:34 groups. I think that's right. In In of the chronology, from about um, spring summer 2006, you start to look at No Borders. and then state of emergency. of emergency. But, we're now looking at
02:50:45 of emergency. But, we're now looking at uh uh uh
02:50:47 uh uh uh December 2006. So, I'm I'm maintaining the watching brief.
02:50:52 brief. Okay. And And part of that is talking about the the capabilities of ISM London, is it? Well, that according to this report would suggest that it's a watching brief and what I'm doing is I'm
02:51:03 watching brief and what I'm doing is I'm providing an update as I'm able to report on the position of the group with regard to the fact of people traveling to Palestine.
02:51:12 Um, and and a watching brief wouldn't then, in your view, necessarily just mean only if there's something of particular interest should you then report on them. No, it would be to maintain it and to report on
02:51:24 would be to maintain it and to report on inaction as much as action.
02:51:29 Can we have a look, please, at MPS 007 2007.
02:51:41 And this is in relation to No Borders Harmondsworth demo. And it's a planning meeting.
02:51:53 On page two of the report, a paragraphs five to six,
02:52:00 reference is made to the involvement of John McDonnell, um, an MP. And at least the fact that he might be
02:52:11 And at least the fact that he might be invited to come and speak at the demonstration, um,
02:52:15 um, and and whether there should be an opportunity for people within the group to engage with him. Um,
02:52:22 Um, uh uh uh and and a discussion around the appropriateness of his involvement.
02:52:35 Again, whilst it's not reporting directly on McDonald, it's not reporting on his activity, the fact that he was involved in such demonstration like this, did you feel that that was important to put it into a report?
02:52:47 important to put it into a report? I would have done, yes. And why wasn't that excluded, do you say, on the basis that you shouldn't be reporting on members of Parliament? I would report it. As you've seen previously, I've actually included details on Jeremy Corbyn.
02:52:59 details on Jeremy Corbyn. And this is about the potential of something happening.
02:53:07 On page four of the report, paragraph two,
02:53:20 at paragraph two, you make reference, sorry, it's the paragraph just above, in terms of reference to legal representation, and who would be contacted on the day if it was if it was
02:53:31 contacted on the day if it was if it was needed.
02:53:33 needed. That reference to legal representation going into Special Branch report, why did you include that? Because it would have been part That's clearly part
02:53:44 would have been part That's clearly part of the discussions that were taking place with relating to this event. So, I would report it on it. And did you not consider that that shouldn't really be part of the report because it could touch on legally privileged sorts of
02:53:56 touch on legally privileged sorts of information? This is touching on the fact of the particular the particular group that may have been utilized. It's not speaking of or disclosing legally privileged
02:54:08 or disclosing legally privileged information. Did you have any sense that Special Branch, certain desks within Special Branch, were interested in
02:54:16 in legal representation, certain firms or solicitors? Not as a specific issue, no. This would have been reported in terms of a possible event that was coming up, likely to go back to C Squad.
02:54:29 And at paragraph three, um publicity
02:54:35 many groups are going to be uh contacted prior to the demonstration with a view to participating and publicizing the event. Again, would this sort of event be a widely publicized
02:54:47 be a widely publicized protest and demo? It seems to be indicating that might be the case. So again, local police would be aware of it. Potentially. They would be aware I think it's worth noting there's a there
02:54:59 think it's worth noting there's a there is a difference between being aware of a demonstration taking place potentially if it's been publicized in open in open fora and the fact that you may have activists attending
02:55:09 attending who might not announce in open fora or on open fora what their intentions may or may not be on the day.
02:55:19 Um And furthermore, if I can just add this, forgive me. The fact that you've got I mean that to my memory would that doesn't look correct, that particular company.
02:55:30 company. Um but the very fact that that's being raised in advance of the event taking place
02:55:35 place could be taken as being indicative of the fact that there may well have been an intention by some activists to undertake activities that might have resulted in their arrest, whereby they may then have required uh representation.
02:55:47 representation. And
02:55:48 And particularly noting the uh name of the solicitors firm, they felt that that was important. Just because I I I believe I know the firm that actually that's referring to and
02:55:59 that actually that's referring to and that's obviously an incorrect spelling.
02:56:04 MPS 0071839
02:56:09 behind tab C119
02:56:13 think you've referred to earlier in your evidence yesterday.
02:56:22 It's MPS 0071839.
02:56:32 Where you were asked to have a look at some
02:56:35 some photographs, public order photographs of people who attended that demonstration at Harmondsworth. And how did that work in practice? Were you asked to come in to Scotland Yard
02:56:47 you asked to come in to Scotland Yard and and look at these or I imagine that it could have worked a number of ways. I It certainly It certainly would be the case that I would not go into NSY. Okay. Um so, it would have been quite possible
02:56:58 Um so, it would have been quite possible that a meeting would have been arranged either at possibly a hotel where I would then meet desk officers and they would then present me with material and then ask me questions. Or, the other way would be
02:57:09 questions. Or, the other way would be they would send it through to the back office by way of the reporting sergeants who would then be able to And they would travel, of course, between NSY and other locations. And in terms of who you were
02:57:22 And in terms of who you were identifying as being present at these events, the demonstrations outside of Harmondsworth arose out of legitimate concerns of members of the
02:57:34 legitimate concerns of members of the public about the conditions of detention and the fact of detention centers. Is that Is that right?
02:57:41 right? I I I assume so, yes. And nothing unlawful in relation to Well, again, the issue The issue here comes down to the fact that you've got members of No Borders.
02:57:50 Borders. Mhm.
02:57:52 Mhm. Or wishing to attend per the previous reporting and the fact that they are discussing whether or not they should have legal representation contacted before a demonstration
02:58:03 demonstration at this location.
02:58:10 Can we have a look, please, at MPS 0072398?
02:58:15 Report behind tab C, 121.
02:58:20 Dated 2nd of February 2007. State of emergency March 19th day of action, the M19 meeting.
02:58:33 So, this is a an open meeting held at the London Action Resource Centre
02:58:39 Centre to discuss the next stage in arranging and developing activities for the proposed M19 day of action. Um
02:58:54 and paragraph
02:59:01 Sorry.
02:59:09 Sorry, page three. If you can have a look at that.
02:59:13 Paragraph one on page three talks about the failure of state of emergency to build effect an effective activist network around the concept of
02:59:25 activist network around the concept of M19 at that stage.
02:59:41 Okay. So, um
02:59:44 So, um communication around this organization around this not coming to very much at this stage. It would appear not from this reporting. Okay. Yeah, we've got a fairly full
02:59:56 we've got a fairly full report from you in relation to that. Um
03:00:02 likely to be a very small affinity group that's involved in M19 activity. Is this a an example of um negative reporting? This isn't going to be a big event. This isn't going to
03:00:13 to be a big event. This isn't going to be something massive that uh public order police really need to know about in the city. This is going to be low level.
03:00:19 level. as I was able to at the time.
03:00:24 Did you raise any concern at this stage with SDS management about reporting on this group given the low level of of of
03:00:35 this group given the low level of of of any potential threat that they posed? I don't believe so. If there was a problem with my reporting, I would have expected it would have been communicated to me by SDS management.
03:00:47 Um any it Can we have a look then at MPS 007 uh 2399?
03:01:05 Again, another state of an emergency meeting
03:01:08 meeting on page two, the comment
03:01:21 is that uh SOE has chosen to concentrate on small-scale actions with the emphasis placed on involving only trusted fellow activists.
03:01:34 It is also a tacit admission that an attempt to organize a large-scale event such as Sack Parliament is not within the current capabilities of the collective.
03:01:45 collective. And in light of that, would that indicate that this sort of organization was not something that should have been a target of SDS reporting?
03:01:56 a target of SDS reporting? No, I would take the view here that you have a group of individuals who are clearly looking to There's clearly concern. I put in a report of concern in regards to group security.
03:02:06 security. That means as that becomes smaller, the chances are that you're dealing with a another more dedicated group of individuals who are sticking around to take part in those activities who are trusted.
03:02:18 Um MPS 0072503
03:02:23 is a report
03:02:29 again on the Harmondsworth IRC demo.
03:02:40 Small number of Sorry, page two, paragraph three.
03:02:50 Uh C127 is the the tab number.
03:03:01 So, a low level of uniform police officers present at the site of the demonstration.
03:03:16 And a small cordoned area for people to demonstrate in, but not really enforced.
03:03:25 Paragraph four indicates that the demonstration nevertheless proceeded with little incident. And in paragraph five, once the demo was over, the protesters marched back to
03:03:37 over, the protesters marched back to coaches.
03:03:39 coaches. I can see
03:03:40 I can see um Sorry, excuse me. I can see that might have been quite hard for you to read um given each of the um paragraphs were highlighted at different stages, but if you were able to to Which particular part would you
03:03:51 to to Which particular part would you wish me to concentrate on? Page page two, please. Three, four and paragraphs three, four, and five. So, after after an uneventful journey onwards from that point. Yeah.
03:04:22 Okay. In your experience, was it sometimes the case that it was over-policing that led to the disorder? And this is an example of a small-scale
03:04:34 a small-scale uh police presence protest uh is conducted as it would expect to have been from the activists involved, and then people go home.
03:04:45 then people go home. I I wouldn't comment on that. In your experience as been involved as with activist groups, have you seen that happen where heavy-handed, large-scale policing does lead to disorder?
03:04:59 policing does lead to disorder? Where in other circumstances have there not been so many police there, there may not have been the disorder. I don't recall being um personally involved in that, no. Okay.
03:05:12 So, I note the time. That may be an appropriate place to stop. Certainly. Um
03:05:18 Um so that
03:05:18 so that uh
03:05:19 uh witness in particular those, how how much longer approximately you're going to take the best part of tomorrow, are you not? Yes. Yes. Then you've got another day to go, but uh by then
03:05:30 uh by then it should be over. No, that's fine. I'm here to obviously help.
03:05:39 Very well. Until 10:00 tomorrow.
03:06:09 Mhm.