Jim Boyling (HN14) provides evidence on his recruitment into the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), the psychological attraction of living a 'different version' of himself, and the institutional knowledge and management of sexual relationships between undercover officers and activists.
00:31:32 Good morning everybody. Um, today and for the next four days, we're going to hear the evidence of one witness, Jim Boiling, uh, HN14. Uh almost all of the evidence will be uh
00:31:45 Uh almost all of the evidence will be uh heard and broadcast uh live but with a 10-minute delay.
00:31:55 Those with recording devices may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 10 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used
00:32:06 they're reporting. They may not be used for photography or recording. Uh it is very likely that uh there will be one or more passages of private evidence uh for
00:32:18 more passages of private evidence uh for the purpose of protecting the interests of others. If and when that arises, I will say something separately about it. Yes.
00:32:28 Yes. And
00:32:29 And I do solemnly I do solemnly sincerely and truly sincerely and truly declare and affirm declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth shall be the truth
00:32:40 shall be the truth the whole truth the whole truth and nothing and nothing but the truth
00:32:48 could you give us your full name please James Boing are the contents of your witness statement dated the 13th of December mber 2023 true and correct to the best
00:33:00 mber 2023 true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief. Yes, they are. [snorts] You say in that statement in relation to your recruitment
00:33:11 your recruitment to [snorts] the SDS, I joined the SDS because I was attracted to the opportunity of undertaking a role being a different version of yourself. I
00:33:23 a different version of yourself. I considered this would be a challenging and different role within the police and there was an existential attraction to what would happen if you followed a
00:33:36 what would happen if you followed a different path. Can you explain to us what you meant by that?
00:33:45 that? I think um people are selected for roles within the SDS that they're particularly suited for. And I think for quite a few
00:33:56 suited for. And I think for quite a few of us, you sort of regarded it as an opportunity to live your life as it might have been if you'd gone down a different path, I think.
00:34:07 think. And what did that mean for you in practice when you deployed into ultimately reclaim the streets? Um
00:34:19 Um well this was what used to be described as a lifestyle field field. So it's sort of um about 90% lifestyle and 10% politics. I think you can't you can't
00:34:31 politics. I think you can't you can't just just do the politics. So for me I lived that life all the time um for about 5 years. And what was the attraction of doing so?
00:34:42 And what was the attraction of doing so? Um
00:34:45 Um I think the opportunity to to be another version of yourself. And is that what you meant by existential? Yes.
00:34:56 Was it to some extent living a fantasy? No, I don't think so. I I I think um
00:35:06 I I think a lot of people contemplate what how their life might have been if they'd followed a different a different path.
00:35:13 path. And I just saw this as an opportunity to do that. I didn't think it was a fantasy. I I was still only being myself, but I was being myself in different different circumstances. I think
00:35:22 think Were you attracted to the lifestyle?
00:35:28 I I found it very comfortable
00:35:35 by which I mean I it it suited me quite easily. I could easily have seen a situation in which I was that person.
00:35:45 During the course before you were recruited, did you speak to the officer we call HN9?
00:35:55 Um,
00:35:58 I don't know whereabouts in this paper that is. So, I don't know who that is. Oh, hang on. Yes, I did. In broad terms, what did HN9 say to you
00:36:10 In broad terms, what did HN9 say to you about life in the SDS? Um
00:36:18 he explained to me that it was a a full-time commitment for a number of years that um it wasn't a case of going in and playing a scenario and then going home again. It
00:36:29 a scenario and then going home again. It was a a sort of full-time commitment um
00:36:34 um and that it changed people who did it. Did he say anything to you um about the level of immersion into the lifestyle
00:36:45 level of immersion into the lifestyle involving having sexual relations with activists?
00:36:54 I I think it might have been HN9. I mean, this is a long time ago. So, but I think it might have been him who who said to me first that there were sort of three principal
00:37:06 that there were sort of three principal areas that that long-term UC's tended to have problems with and that they were relationships, um, drug use and involvement in crime.
00:37:19 um, drug use and involvement in crime. and that it was very unusual to meet anybody who'd gone through a long-term deployment without having problems of some sort with at least two, if not all of those.
00:37:30 of those. I might be attributing that to him wrongly. It might have been somebody else, but I think it was him. And what did HN9 say to you about problems with relationships? Um,
00:37:41 Um, just that it was an area fought with difficulty.
00:37:46 Did you explore that with HN9? No.
00:37:52 Were you not curious? Um,
00:37:56 Um, well, I was already aware that long-term undercover officers had relationships before I had anything to do with undercover undercover policing myself. It wasn't a secret that that was often the case with long-term deployments.
00:38:10 the case with long-term deployments. Without giving without uttering any names, how did you know that? Um well to begin with I think it was in public domain. I even I think before I
00:38:21 public domain. I even I think before I was involved in the police I remember reading newspaper stories where um I think there was a very well-known drugs job years ago where you know it was alleged that the the reason police had good intelligence was because one of
00:38:33 had good intelligence was because one of the officers was in a relationship with one of the suspects. Um you [clears throat] wasn't I mean it wasn't a big news story at the time. I think it just said oh the officer denied it and you sort of thought well he he
00:38:44 it and you sort of thought well he he probably would. Um, but I was certainly aware of it. I wasn't I didn't think it was um
00:38:51 was um I didn't think it was a secret particularly that that long-term UC's sometimes had relationships. Had anybody said anything to you um about SDS officers having sexual
00:39:03 about SDS officers having sexual relationships undercover?
00:39:10 I I can't remember. I I I think I was I mean I was certainly aware that some had, but I'm not sure some of the ones that gone before me are quite well known to have done so, but um
00:39:24 to have done so, but um I I can't remember who if somebody said that to me or before I started off. It's something I've become aware of after I started
00:39:31 started specific to specific officers. I appreciate it a long time ago, but can I take it from your evidence that your recollection is that within special
00:39:42 recollection is that within special branch circles, it was known before you joined the SDS that sometimes SDS officers got involved sexually with activists? Yes.
00:39:56 How widespread was that knowledge?
00:40:03 Well, when I might be easiest to say that when I started and I you did about six months preparation in the back office, um
00:40:13 um there were some cases documented in the files there that had been referred up to sort of senior management level. Um,
00:40:24 Um, and I was aware that the then the then head of special branch uh I think he he since said in in public anyway that they were regarded as
00:40:35 anyway that they were regarded as inevitable in some long-term deployments and certainly in the files in the office there were two or three cases where that had come up and they had been sympathetically dealt with. I'll come to I'll come to the files in a
00:40:47 I'll come to I'll come to the files in a moment. But in what you'd gathered before you joined the SDS, can you help us with how widespread knowledge was within special
00:40:59 widespread knowledge was within special branch that this was happening? I I I can't particularly. It wasn't um this unit was considered a secret unit, so it wasn't sort of openly discussed,
00:41:10 so it wasn't sort of openly discussed, but I was certainly aware not just on SDS, but other police police units that that that wasn't um so unusual. I'm sorry if I can't remember a precise
00:41:22 I'm sorry if I can't remember a precise moment when I've sort of become aware aware of it. When you say so unusual, you've referred to one case that was in the media. Were there other cases?
00:41:34 there other cases? Um,
00:41:36 Um, I mean there were certainly two or three within SDS that that uh that I was aware of either before I was being recruited or around that time and that were well documented in in the back office files
00:41:48 documented in in the back office files and quite candidly documented. Right. I'm going to come back to those in a little moment. Before we do that, uh, was there a time when DI Lambert visited you and your then wife? Was that
00:42:02 visited you and your then wife? Was that at your home? Yes. When he visited, was there any suggestion or understanding that the deployment would or might involve your
00:42:15 deployment would or might involve your having sex with someone other than your then wife? No.
00:42:22 Given what you already knew, did it cross your mind that there might be
00:42:32 I remember it was sort of suggested to me that in lifestyle groups, particularly sort of animal rights and anarchist groups, it's very common because it tends to be more common in some
00:42:43 tends to be more common in some lifestyle areas than other other deployments. Um, but I I genuinely didn't think it would be a problem for me because I I it's not something
00:42:54 it's not something it's not something that I anticipated getting involved in. Um,
00:42:59 Um, why not?
00:43:07 Well, to begin with, at the time when I was being recruited, I was still married.
00:43:11 married. Um,
00:43:14 Um, but also I I thought it would be easy to avoid and I thought that when people didn't avoid it, there was probably an
00:43:25 didn't avoid it, there was probably an element of of them not um maybe embracing the life voluntarily or whatever. Um I I just didn't think it would be that difficult to avoid. And then I was aware
00:43:37 difficult to avoid. And then I was aware having been deployed that it's very different to how it appears from the outside.
00:43:45 Did you discuss the risk of or the possibility of having sex with someone in your undercover identity with your then wife? No. No.
00:43:55 No. No. Why not?
00:43:57 Why not? As I've just said, I didn't think it was a very likely scenario. How stable was your relationship at that time? Well, I thought it was pretty good, but I was obviously mistaken.
00:44:11 good, but I was obviously mistaken. And so, would it be fair to say that Detective Inspector Lambert came away with the impression that you were in a stable?
00:44:18 stable? Yeah, that that was that was very much their expectation for people who were recruited onto the onto the team. Yeah. Can I move on now to some of the discussions that you had um whilst you
00:44:32 discussions that you had um whilst you were in the SDS but before you [clears throat] had deployed? Uh you've said in your witness statement that you spoke to Andy Kohl's and he
00:44:44 that you spoke to Andy Kohl's and he said something to the effect that sexual relationship was going to happen. Is that right? I think so. I'm asked to remember precise conversations from 30 years ago.
00:44:57 precise conversations from 30 years ago. So I'm I'm not sure that I remember accurately what somebody said. Did he give you the accepting it's a long time ago and verbatim recollection
00:45:08 long time ago and verbatim recollection is asking perhaps too much. Did he give you the impression in conversation that sexual relationships were going to happen?
00:45:21 I I can't be specific. I I really would like to be, but it's you're asking me exactly what the nuance of a conversation was from 30 years ago, and if he remembers it or doesn't
00:45:32 and if he remembers it or doesn't remember it at all, then I you know, I I can't contradict. What is your recollection? I I think there were a few officers who had
00:45:43 officers who had who were deployed ahead of me. so senior of people that I because when you when you're deployed you speak to um
00:45:50 um officers who already in the field who've been there for a while and there were certainly uh some officers who were reasonably candid about aspects of it that are now very openly controversial
00:46:04 that are now very openly controversial um
00:46:06 um involvement in crime, drugs and relationships being being the classic three I suppose. Um, and I was certainly aware that some of the officers
00:46:17 aware that some of the officers who were already deployed appeared to me that they they were in some sort of relationship. But, uh, it's quite difficult cuz I can't remember a specific point at which which I thought
00:46:28 specific point at which which I thought that for any particular officer. I think sometimes you just become aware that [clears throat] somebody somebody is. Did Andrew Cole say anything to you
00:46:39 Did Andrew Cole say anything to you about his sexual conduct undercover? No.
00:46:44 No. Well, not that I remember. According to your witness statement, the conversation arose because Mr. Coohl's had written the relevant section in the
00:46:55 had written the relevant section in the tradecraftraft manual. I I I think he wrote it.
00:47:03 Did you speak to Mr. cold because you had read that section. No, I don't think I spoke to him specifically about that at all. Did you engage anybody in conversation
00:47:15 Did you engage anybody in conversation about the topic of sexual relationships?
00:47:24 I I don't I don't remember doing so, but I would be surprised if I didn't.
00:47:32 Did the impression that it was going to happen
00:47:38 happen influence your attitude to sex in your undercover identity? No. No. I I thought I'd be able to avoid it.
00:47:48 What advice did the officer we are calling HN1 and who used the cover name Matt Raina uh give you
00:48:00 Matt Raina uh give you on this issue specifically? Yes. Um
00:48:07 I I can't remember having a particular conversation about this issue particularly with with him. Um I mean I I think probably similar that um it
00:48:20 I think probably similar that um it would be difficult to avoid but this would have been in about 19 96 95
00:48:29 96 95 before or after you deployed. Uh but he was my uh appointed field mentor. So he was the person I was to go to for advice on anything difficult. Um
00:48:40 to for advice on anything difficult. Um so I I would have discussed these areas with him. I know it seems odd now sat in this inquiry that the issue of relationships was not seen as going to be the thing that's going to bring SDS into dispute in front of an inquiry. It
00:48:52 into dispute in front of an inquiry. It was just one more aspect of a very complicated um to complicated job. So I would have been discussing all sorts of aspects of it with with that officer. Um, not
00:49:05 it with with that officer. Um, not specifically. We wouldn't have focused in on
00:49:07 in on No, that's understood. But what I'm driving out is what what did he say to you on that topic? I I don't remember specifically what he would have said to me on the topic. Sorry.
00:49:19 What advice did DCI Edmonson give you? I don't remember ever discussing this with DCI Edmonson. Did you get any impression as to DCI Edmonson's approach to sexual
00:49:31 Edmonson's approach to sexual relationships? No.
00:49:35 No. Di Lambert.
00:49:38 Um I I can't remember discussing it with with the Lambert in this period. We'll come to later in due course.
00:49:53 We'll come to later in due course. Did you know at that time that Di Lambert had himself got involved sexually with people whilst undercover? No, no.
00:50:07 Sergeant Macintosh. Uh, no. He he was the sort of admin man who dealt with the finances. I wouldn't have discussed operational matters with him.
00:50:16 him. Sergeant Web. Um, don't remember discussing it with him, but I'm I I mean, we wouldn't have I don't remember any conversation where we sat down and discussed this specifically as
00:50:27 down and discussed this specifically as an isolated topic. I I'm interested in any conversation at all, however it arose.
00:50:33 arose. I mean, look, I I don't remember a specific convers or I don't remember, you know, words used in a conversation all that time ago. I I think um
00:50:44 all that time ago. I I think um gists or impressions will do. Yeah, it I mean I remember Pete Frances being quite open about it for instance, which is ironic. Um, and I remember Pete Francis talking
00:50:56 and I remember Pete Francis talking about other other officers as well. Going to come to him in a moment, but just with Sergeant Web. Um, I I don't recall having a specific conversation with him about this.
00:51:07 conversation with him about this. Peter Francis, but you say he was open. Could you explain how open? Um, sometimes we would have meetings where all the the officers would come in
00:51:19 where all the the officers would come in together and occasionally we'd go for a drink afterwards if there was a quiet pub to go to and I was certainly aware that Pete Frances um
00:51:30 that Pete Frances um had had one or two relationships when he was in the field. But I don't Yeah, I can't remember if you can ask me how did he tell me. I don't I don't recall him bringing it up specifically. I think I was just aware of it. Um, and I was
00:51:41 was just aware of it. Um, and I was aware of him um, commenting that that other officers did.
00:51:50 Did he say well was what he was communicating to you that he was in relationships or that he was having one night stands? Oh, I wouldn't have known the
00:52:01 Oh, I wouldn't have known the difference.
00:52:04 And what was the reaction of your colleagues to Mr. Francis bringing up this topic of conversation? I I don't recall any any reaction particularly.
00:52:17 And did he speak openly about um his sexual activity undercover in front of managers?
00:52:24 managers? Uh I very much doubt it. I think in if it helps you at all um the attitude of the office was largely I would have described as an
00:52:36 I would have described as an understanding that particularly for people in lifestyle fields there are areas of it that they didn't wish to openly discuss um that officers would be invited to resolve themselves or by speaking to
00:52:48 resolve themselves or by speaking to their field mentor um so maybe uh [clears throat] I guess if I was being cynical I'd sort of a don't ask don't tell sort of policy probably best
00:52:59 tell sort of policy probably best represents it. Let's just examine that a little bit. How much asking was there? None at all. That's I don't recall ever being asked. And there there were cases
00:53:12 being asked. And there there were cases when I was in the field where [snorts] the question was very pointedly not asked.
00:53:17 asked. For instance, for example, being careful about names. Um,
00:53:24 Um, I mean, occasionally, for instance, you would get surveillance photographs or or photographs from a demo that had been sent out for known organizers to be
00:53:35 been sent out for known organizers to be identified. Um, and I remember once one of the photographs um showed me with uh I think it was Monica and we were obviously a couple in the
00:53:47 and we were obviously a couple in the photograph. Um but there was nobody asked um nobody asked about that. Being careful about ciphers, which
00:53:58 Being careful about ciphers, which managers saw those photographs? Um
00:54:05 I think that was HN52. Do you mean HN53? No, I mean HN52. 52.
00:54:18 A DI or a DCI? A DS.
00:54:21 A DS. A DS.
00:54:24 A DS. Did a DI or a DCI see it? Probably. But uh it was it was you know from from that officer that I was given the photographs. I think for instance
00:54:35 the photographs. I think for instance I mean possibly he hadn't he hadn't looked through them very closely but there weren't very many there. So there would be instances like that where you were aware that someone steering clear of it.
00:54:46 of it. Can you recall which demonstration that was?
00:54:50 was? Um, no. But it was a very small action. I think there weren't many people in the photos. It wasn't a big event. Can you recall approximately when it was?
00:54:59 was? Well, the the relationship was quite short. So, um,
00:55:05 uh, 97 maybe.
00:55:08 maybe. Can you remember when in 97? No, not even sure. I've got the right year. I think I think 97.
00:55:17 [snorts]
00:55:20 In terms of acknowledgment that it was happening, what signs were there that managers knew it was
00:55:31 there that managers knew it was happening even if they were not inviting discussion about it? Uh, yes.
00:55:40 Uh, yes. Can you help us what the signs were? Um, not not not really. Um,
00:55:47 not really. I remember sort of No, not what's the basis for saying yes. Yeah. Um
00:55:57 I mean I I do remember for instance that I went to um an animal liberation front uh gathering and there was some suggestion that another unit might have been trying to
00:56:09 another unit might have been trying to um
00:56:11 um provide some sort of coverage of of my vehicle which was a van which I was sleeping and in the back of and living in the back of. Um, and I think there was some sort of
00:56:23 and I think there was some sort of comment about that's that's going to be sort of an invasion of privacy. Um,
00:56:31 and yeah, with the sort of the implication that that's not an area they want to be looking too closely at, I think. So, was that at a time when you were in a sexual relationship?
00:56:43 sexual relationship? Um, yes. Although, although not at that gathering.
00:56:50 Can you help us locate that in time? Which which of the women uh were you in a relationship with at that time? Being careful about ciphers. Um,
00:57:02 careful about ciphers. Um, [snorts]
00:57:05 not sure. I've got
00:57:13 I think it was probably Ruth, but she wasn't at that gathering. And
00:57:22 And did you are you able to help us with whether the sensitivity was because you might be having a sexual relationship or because it was known that you were? Um, probably might be.
00:57:38 Can we now move to the topic we touched on earlier? F the reading of files. Mhm.
00:57:45 Mhm. Starting first of all, what files were you reading uh that gave you to understand there had previously been sexual relationships involving SDS officers undercover?
00:58:00 Um
00:58:28 I can't find him in the cipher list here. Actually, if you can't find a name in the cipher list, could you write it down, please?
00:59:12 Thank you. But names that have been published. Yeah.
00:59:20 Mike Kitty and John D. Yes.
00:59:23 Yes. Sorry, I wasn't aware that they had been published. Better safe than sorry.
00:59:31 The question I was asking was aimed at understanding how how which files were you reading and why were you reading them?
00:59:43 them? Um when you prepared for deployment you worked in the back office which is sort of the the clerical area very small office. It was a very secure room and it also contained um
00:59:55 also contained um the operational files. Um
00:59:59 Um one has a tendency when you're in a room with a lot of files to look then not much to do to look through them and see what's what's of interest there. Um there was a file there on
01:00:10 there was a file there on Mike Chitty and what happened with him after he had finished his deployment um that Bob Lambert had written. That was a very compelling read. Um, and
01:00:23 was a very compelling read. Um, and there was some material there about about John Dyn as well. I can't remember what stage that was at then, but but those two particularly, for instance, were quite well documented in the files.
01:00:34 were quite well documented in the files. And from reading those files, what impression did you gain about the attitude of management to sexual relationships undercover?
01:00:45 relationships undercover? that it was that it was something um which might be which might inevitably arise and should be managed. I think in both cases it was very sympathetically
01:00:57 both cases it was very sympathetically dealt with me.
01:01:01 I I think there was at least one other as well that that that I read. Um it wasn't Yeah, it wasn't just those two. There were others. Can you without uttering the name? Can
01:01:12 Can you without uttering the name? Can you remember? I can't remember the name. It was it was going back further in time. It was someone who'd um who had had a long deployment and then gone missing in their long deployment
01:01:23 gone missing in their long deployment and not returned to to policing at all.
01:01:32 When you you say in your witness statement that you became aware that short-term relationships had often occurred, can you help us um with a little more a little more detail about
01:01:45 little more a little more detail about how you came across that knowledge. Um,
01:01:52 Um, you can ask me to be specific again about something an awfully long time ago. I looked through the files. You'd listen to people what people were discussing in the office. Um, you'd
01:02:03 discussing in the office. Um, you'd listen to field officers discussing it. Are you going to ask me again for a specific example? And I I I can't confidently come up with one for that long ago. I'm
01:02:15 come up with one for that long ago. I'm sorry. In conversations you were having um with
01:02:22 um with then current UCOs u the sort of conversation you've described in which Mr. Francis was talking about his sexual activity undercover. Did anybody else speak about
01:02:34 undercover. Did anybody else speak about theirs?
01:02:36 theirs? Um,
01:02:41 and I'm sure they did, but I I can't I can't be accurate about about what they might have said, which is what you're going to ask me.
01:02:53 you're going to ask me. Are you confident that the topic did arise?
01:02:57 arise? Oh, yes, but probably not with the uh import which um you would now you would now expect
01:03:08 you would now expect because it was just one of many issues. Yes.
01:03:11 Yes. And not regarded as anything particularly problematic. Um potentially problematic because it had been problematic in the case of John Dimes and Mike Chitty for instance.
01:03:23 Dimes and Mike Chitty for instance. I mean did you come away from reading those two files thinking um I shouldn't do that?
01:03:30 do that? I think I came away from reading those two files thinking this is a potentially problematic area which will hopefully not affect me at all. Ironically,
01:03:42 uh you build a cover legend. Yes.
01:03:47 Yes. Did you build anything into your legend to deter sexual relationships? Yes. um
01:03:55 Yes. um uh a girlfriend, my ex-wife, one that Bob Lemit had met, had previously lived and worked in in Copenhagen in the early years of her marriage. So I used to go
01:04:07 years of her marriage. So I used to go there a great deal, spent a lot of time there. Um so I built into my legend the idea that I had a girlfriend living in in Copenhagen. Um, and I I was sort of advised to do
01:04:19 Um, and I I was sort of advised to do this as a way of um avoiding
01:04:24 avoiding getting into a relationship in the field. Uh, being careful of ciphers. Who advised you to do that? I think I don't think I need a cipher. I think that was Bob Lambert.
01:04:39 When you deployed, did you ever use that part of of your backtory? Yes. Yes. Yes. very much until it Yeah, very much.
01:04:54 You describe in your witness statement trying to create the background of someone who had been adopted to ensure that the name would not be found in a search of the birth register.
01:05:06 search of the birth register. Yes.
01:05:08 Yes. [snorts] and that you've written therefore the name I selected needed to be broadly consistent with the number of entries.
01:05:16 entries. Yes.
01:05:17 Yes. Can I take it from that that you did inspect the register of birth and death? Yes.
01:05:23 Yes. And when you did so, um, looking to make your cover ID broadly consistent, did you use any detail
01:05:36 did you use any detail or fact from any birth certificate in the construction of your cover identity? No, I that wasn't I didn't need to. That wasn't the way mine was mine was done.
01:05:48 wasn't the way mine was mine was done. So mine
01:05:51 So mine they were trying to avoid the scenario where someone can be confronted with proof of their own death. Um and obviously the the method of inventing a a background by using a someone who died
01:06:02 a background by using a someone who died in childhood is so well known and so heavily used in all sorts of uh areas that that was to be avoided. So, my background was that I'd been adopted at
01:06:13 background was that I'd been adopted at a young age. Um, but
01:06:18 but I didn't need to choose a specific adoption because one of the aspects I I I based it on a friend of mine in real life and one of the aspects of adoption is that the surname isn't necessarily going to be the one at birth or the one on the adoption certificate. So, my
01:06:31 on the adoption certificate. So, my background was um that the name I was using, which was Sutton,
01:06:37 Sutton, had been
01:06:39 had been uh changed later after my adoptive parents had split up and I'd reverted to my adoptive mother's name. So that meant there should be no specific certificate for any of those identities and that someone trying to research into that
01:06:51 someone trying to research into that identity would would sort of lose themselves in a in a sea of possibles. Am I understanding you correctly that you went to inspect the certificate to ensure that there wasn't one in your
01:07:03 ensure that there wasn't one in your fictitious name? Well, I was trying to make sure there wasn't one that was an exact match for that name and my date of birth.
01:07:10 And did you were you looking for anything else? Um,
01:07:17 no. I was looking for someone who one of their first names would be would be James because that's my name I use. I don't I don't think I was
01:07:28 I don't I don't think I was specifically. So to be clear, were you looking for a certificate that had the name James? No, no, no. There shouldn't there should
01:07:39 No, no, no. There shouldn't there should be no specific certificate relating to me. I was looking for a name which could present you with several possibilities so that somebody doing a hostile inquiry
01:07:51 so that somebody doing a hostile inquiry into that background could not categorically disprove it.
01:07:59 So were you hoping to set a trail such that someone looking would find a birth certificate
01:08:09 which might set them thinking but would go nowhere. Well, this is what actually happened because my ex-wife um
01:08:21 ex-wife um Rosa
01:08:23 Rosa did do such a hostile inquiry and I think um she showed me I think she had about five birth certificates that she had pulled out of the system trying to identify if I was any of those people
01:08:35 identify if I was any of those people and had realized that none of them matched me. They they were all different. So she couldn't find a certificate which matched me in the details that she knew of my cover identity.
01:08:45 identity. And am I understanding it correctly? You had specifically gone to set that out. Yes. To set that up. And you'd looked at the birth certificates. Yes.
01:08:58 Who instructed you to do that? I think uh that was in um discussions with Di Lambert and DCI Edmonson.
01:09:15 going to move now to your early reporting. One of the first reports we've got is that it's an MPS number 301013
01:09:30 to tap C2.
01:09:33 Uh this is a report which is attributed uh to you
01:09:39 uh to you um about uh an RTS street party dated the 21st of April 1995.
01:09:48 1995. I'll give you a moment to look at the text on that page.
01:10:05 [clears throat] Okay. So, it appears to be preparation reporting on preparations for the 6th of June 1995.
01:10:17 Can you recall did you attend that RTS event?
01:10:25 I was one I'm not sure if this is the same
01:10:29 same the same one that I was involved with. The the year seems to be seems to be wrong.
01:10:39 wrong. Um
01:10:45 no if it's I'm not sure the year is different to my recollection but must be correct on the report I guess. um in which case yes I did.
01:10:57 which case yes I did. And in what circumstances did you come to be involved with RTS so early in your SDS career? I I this is what the problem I'm having with the date of this report because I I
01:11:08 with the date of this report because I I think this event took place but I'm not sure that's the right year. Okay.
01:11:11 Okay. I'm sorry about that. But there was if it helps you at all at one stage RTS did a South London and a North London event. I was involved in organizing the South London event and I
01:11:23 organizing the South London event and I drove the sound system truck. That was quite a large event and I don't recall it being this early in my deployment. It would have been a couple of years in so I'm confused by Yeah, we will be coming to that and it was further down the line.
01:11:35 was further down the line. Okay.
01:11:36 Okay. Do you have any recollection now of attending an RTS street party in the summer of 1995?
01:11:48 No, I think that's too early.
01:11:52 Could we take that down now, please? Uh, could we have up 245307
01:11:59 tab C4? Sir,
01:12:04 this is when it's up a report about East London animal rights and a meeting on the 13th of July 1995.
01:12:16 and just wait for it to come up.
01:12:21 Okay. Could we have it expanded so we can see the from the date time down to the signature block uh slightly bigger, please?
01:12:33 block uh slightly bigger, please? Thank you. [sighs] Give you a moment to refresh your memory about that report.
01:12:41 No, I already have done that's fine. Uh, East London Animal Rights. Was this um your first involvement with that
01:12:53 um your first involvement with that group?
01:12:54 group? That looks likely from the date. Yes. Can you help us with uh how you came to be at that meeting?
01:13:05 be at that meeting? Uh, I approached them at a at a stall they were they've been doing [clears throat] in East London. And were you specifically seeking to get access to East London animal rights or
01:13:17 access to East London animal rights or or was this opportunistic? No, I was specifically looking to gain access to East London animal rights and the um East London and Essex Hunts as
01:13:28 the um East London and Essex Hunts as part of my initial tasking. And why were those groups um groups that you wish to get involved with? It was in relation to uh operation Gant.
01:13:42 relation to uh operation Gant. Um do you want me to tell you what that is or are you familiar with it? I will just one moment please. I will want you to tell me. But before we do that, can we take the
01:13:53 that, can we take the YouTube feed down please?
01:28:20 Thank you. Uh this is a report dated the 24th of July uh 1995 about um an event um relating to the M11 campaign.
01:28:34 um relating to the M11 campaign. Mhm. Um
01:28:37 Mhm. Um but in the first sentence it says despite fairly extensive publicity this planned occupation of the M11 work site was very poorly attended possibly being
01:28:48 was very poorly attended possibly being adversely affected by the previous days reclaim the streets fra in Islington which resulted in violent confrontation with the police. Were you at
01:29:01 Were you at the 23rd of July 1995 RTS party
01:29:09 RTS party in street party in Islington? No, I was actually out on a hunt.
01:29:18 If we can zoom back out again, please. Um you are reporting here on the Wstead environmental
01:29:30 environmental uh center and the no M11 link road campaign.
01:29:35 campaign. In what circumstances did you come to report about them? Uh I think I was given a tasking to to look into it. I think specifically
01:29:47 specifically um
01:29:51 I was certainly sent along sent along there. It might well have been the the reclaim the streets in Islington was something of a sort of game changer
01:30:02 was something of a sort of game changer for police because it was a much bigger event than they had had previously and the disorder was much more serious and I think they they drove a tank into the middle of uh middle of Islington and blockaded roads with scaffolding.
01:30:15 blockaded roads with scaffolding. The police had had no idea about the event at all and so special branch were given a tasking immediately on that group. This might have been the first sort of this is very early in my deployment literally right at the
01:30:26 deployment literally right at the beginning. So I think they might have thought at the time we'll perhaps go along to this and see if it's if that's any of any interest. Let's I'll accept that digression. Let's let's d follow that theme.
01:30:39 let's d follow that theme. Was the street party in Islington and the disorder which followed it the catalyst for your being directed to take interest in RTS?
01:30:50 take interest in RTS? Yes.
01:30:52 Yes. Uh, and was it that you should move exclusive exclusively to RTS or try and ride two horses, animal rights and RTS at the same time?
01:31:03 at the same time? The latter. Coming back now to the Wstead Environmental Center. My question was, were you specifically tasked to get involved with the Wstead Environmental Center and the no M11 link road
01:31:16 Center and the no M11 link road campaign?
01:31:17 campaign? No. I think my task was probably to go along and see if it looked like it might be a a doorway into reclaiming the streets
01:31:26 so soon after the event. Um
01:31:31 Um well the publicity for the event or especially once you knew about the event in in advance but didn't know where it was going to be. I don't think I had a specific operational tasking into
01:31:43 specific operational tasking into into those two groups but I could be I could be wrong. How involved did you get with the Wstead Environmental Center? I don't recall ever going there again. How involved did you get with the no M11 link road campaign?
01:31:55 link road campaign? I don't recall ever doing any of their events other than this one. It was very small scale and and didn't seem to be of of interest to us. Did you witness any criminal activity uh
01:32:08 Did you witness any criminal activity uh by either the Onstead environmental center or the no M11 link road campaign in your fleeting acquaintance with them? Uh not that I can recall. Can we take that down now please? Can we
01:32:20 Can we take that down now please? Can we go to 746027? That's volume three tab C9. Sir, I go over the page.
01:32:33 I go over the page. This is a report dated the 10th of September 1995 about the uh East [clears throat] London and Essex Hunt Saboturs
01:32:44 and Essex Hunt Saboturs Association who were holding a meeting about the forthcoming
01:48:32 detectives
01:48:44 who he says were hired by McDonald's to infiltrate London Greenpeace meetings in order to positively identify Helen Steel, Dave Morris, and the three other
01:48:56 Steel, Dave Morris, and the three other would-be defendants as authors of the relevant leaflet. Was one of the three others John Dyn in his undercover
01:49:07 others John Dyn in his undercover identity John Barker? I don't know.
01:49:14 That was before my time. I'm afraid
01:49:19 even if it was before your time, did anyone ever say that one of the proposed the then proposed defendants was John Dy?
01:49:30 John Dy? Not that I remember, but it wasn't a particular area of interest for me. Can we take that down now, please? And have up 245749 tab C21.
01:49:57 This is a report dated the 3rd of December 1995 um about
01:50:04 um about a a hunt sabotur association uh meeting the Essex regional meeting. Could we have the third paragraph down, please?
01:50:18 Give you a moment to refresh your memory, but it's the passage uh about uh the huntsman being pulled from his horse and the person believed to be
01:50:29 and the person believed to be responsible that I'm interested in.
01:50:38 Okay. Uh you've written Ben Lei believed to be the person responsible for the attack was not present at the meeting and could not defend the action.
01:50:49 not defend the action. Were you an eyewitness to the huntsman being pulled off his horse?
01:50:56 horse? I I don't remember this at all. Um,
01:51:00 Um, did anybody possibly possibly I was I was present at a lot of SAS, but well, it says believe to be. If you'd been an eyewitness, presumably would
01:51:11 been an eyewitness, presumably would have been put much more. Well, if I if I'd seen seen the attack, I might have been present at the at the event, but not seen this incident is what I meant. Did anyone tell you that they had
01:51:24 Did anyone tell you that they had personally witnessed Mr. Ley doing that? I I I don't remember. Sorry.
01:51:33 Could we take that down, please? Can we have uh from tab C57246340?
01:51:48 Uh if we could expand the text of this June 96 report. Mhm. Give you a moment to uh look at it.
01:52:15 Okay. So, this is about um a private uh email conference news group called Amanzi.
01:52:24 Amanzi. Yeah.
01:52:25 Yeah. Uh and you're reporting about Ben Lemi's connections with that group. Yeah.
01:52:34 Yeah. Were you ever a member of the Amanzi uh email conference news group? I I I think I was. Um, I I was uh I had a computer when I
01:52:45 Um, I I was uh I had a computer when I first started in the field, so I I might might well have been on it. Certainly probably because I had a computer that I would have been aware of it. So quite possibly.
01:52:56 possibly. And did you report its communications? I if if there was anything of interest, I would have done. Were the group's communications used for
01:53:07 Were the group's communications used for any criminal purpose? I I don't remember any specific communications and presumably if it had been that a would have stuck in your mind.
01:53:20 would have stuck in your mind. Um I became aware quite early that there was a security risk for me in relation to that group. Um I'm not sure you're going to want me
01:53:31 Um I'm not sure you're going to want me to go into that particular I I could talk about it in a general term if that helps. My my question is if they'd been doing anything specifically
01:53:42 they'd been doing anything specifically criminal you would have remembered. No, not necessarily. This is what year is this?
01:53:47 is this? 96.
01:53:48 96. 96. 30 years ago. So, no, not specifically. And would have been specifically reported.
01:53:54 reported. Uh, if if it was relevant. How did you get into this private group? Uh, I think Ben invited me on. If if I was part of it, I'm not even sure I was part of it.
01:54:06 part of it. [snorts]
01:54:07 [snorts] Did you get any advice and guidance about joining uh email groups and becoming involved in private electronic communications
01:54:18 communications from who?
01:54:19 from who? From your managers. No, but this was the very early days of internet. Very early days. Did um anyone mention the legislation
01:54:32 Did um anyone mention the legislation controlling access? No. to computers. No.
01:54:41 Can we take that down now, please? So, would this be a convenient moment to take the morning break? Certainly. Um, as you probably know already, um, we have breaks of about 15
01:54:53 already, um, we have breaks of about 15 minutes in the middle of sessions so that the shorthand writers can uh rest and so that you can. Thank you. Um, we'll resume in quarter an hour.
02:13:43 going to return now to the Matt Libel support campaign. When you were preparing to deploy, did you become aware of the existence of the Macdonald support?
02:13:53 support? Yes.
02:13:53 Yes. Matt Liel support campaign and its connection with Helen Steel and Dave Morris. Yes.
02:14:00 Yes. and the connection between the SDS through John Dyn to reporting on Helen Steel and Dave Morris. I I was aware there was a connection.
02:14:12 I was aware there was a connection. Yeah.
02:14:12 Yeah. What was the extent of your awareness? Uh just that there was a connection. What was the connection to your understanding? That he was involved with that group per
02:14:23 That he was involved with that group per um yeah just that he was involved with that group. Uh, and that uh did you become aware that Miss Steel was trying to trace?
02:14:37 that Miss Steel was trying to trace? Yes.
02:14:37 Yes. Mr. Dimes, can you recall when you became aware of that?
02:14:43 that? Uh, when I was a field officer on SDS, I remember it was uh it was discussed then. [snorts] Um, were you were aware that
02:14:54 [snorts] Um, were you were aware that there was an issue um about liaison between the Metropolitan Police Service and
02:15:01 and McDonald's in relation to the litigation? Uh, I was aware of that because it was publicly reported in the in the media. [snorts]
02:15:11 [snorts] Can we and in relation to that, was there any discussion of that within the SDS?
02:15:18 SDS? No, I don't remember any. Were you can you recall any conversations with you asking you to keep an eye out for anything? I I don't remember a conversation about
02:15:30 I I don't remember a conversation about it, but I think because of the John Dyn's Helen Steel connection, I would have reported anything that I became aware of that was relevant. Can we have uh from volume 3 tab
02:15:41 Can we have uh from volume 3 tab C1245591?
02:15:47 This is a report dated the 20th of October 1995. If we could have the text um expanded. Thank you. Give you a moment to look at
02:16:00 Thank you. Give you a moment to look at that.
02:16:08 Okay. It's about a a man in Vermont who is moderating a sub an email subscribers list and has
02:16:19 a sub an email subscribers list and has issued a bulletin relating to the MLE support campaign and an action in Deneden New Zealand.
02:16:30 New Zealand. Yeah. Is this the kind of information that you reported because of your background knowledge of Matt Clyel related issues?
02:16:42 related issues? I I don't remember this report. It looks like something I would have done. Yes, it looks like a sort of routine thing that I've submitted or certainly.
02:16:53 thing that I've submitted or certainly. Other than the fact it relates to the M Libel support campaign, is there any particular reason why you would report about these events
02:17:05 about these events occurring in the United States of America and New Zealand? I mean, I would just pass on anything to the office that was potentially interesting to them. Um,
02:17:17 interesting to them. Um, I wouldn't sort of be limited geographically by that. What is the relevance of this to public order on the streets of London? I I didn't say there was.
02:17:29 I I didn't say there was. What is the relevance o of it to crime in the Metropolitan Police District? Uh I'm not sure that I said there was that either. I just said it would be something which would I would pass on as
02:17:40 something which would I would pass on as being potentially of interest. I mean, I'm asking these questions because the point appears to be this seems to have no connection to either crime or disorder in the United Kingdom. Um, I I couldn't say why I've been asked
02:17:52 Um, I I couldn't say why I've been asked to put it in. So, if you were reporting it because you thought it would be of interest to the office, why would this be of interest to the office? I think probably because of the Helen
02:18:03 I think probably because of the Helen Steel New Zealand aspect.
02:18:09 If we could take that down now, please, and have C2245766.
02:18:20 And if we again it's 8th of December 1995 again if we could have the text expanded.
02:18:30 expanded. Thank you. I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory.
02:18:41 Okay. So, this seems to be um about a press release um relating to the uh Matt Libel trial.
02:18:52 trial. Again, could you help us with why you reported this? It looks to me like it's a press release and I've just given it to the office. And again, does this have any connection with criminality or public order or is
02:19:05 with criminality or public order or is it being reported for a different reason?
02:19:09 reason? Um, I I don't know if I I think any any flyer that looked vaguely related to any of the groups where there was an interest, I would have just handed them to the office and
02:19:21 have just handed them to the office and if they thought it was in if it [clears throat] they thought it was worth recording or submitting, they would have called it or submitted it. And so would it be fair to say because this refers to the M Liel trial and the
02:19:32 this refers to the M Liel trial and the um Miel support campaign, it gets reported
02:19:38 reported Um,
02:19:40 Um, you'd have to ask the office that I think really I I I don't edit. Um, you you
02:19:47 you you I I just report you report it to the office. Yeah. For that reason, isn't it? Whether they think I would report to them anything that came across in front of me um that is even of potential
02:19:58 of me um that is even of potential interest to them. Um I mean certainly Helen was a well-known very well-known activist. um she was obviously of interest to the office because of what was going on with her
02:20:09 because of what was going on with her going to New Zealand at the time. So I think if something relating to Helen came up I would have made the office aware of it. Whether they would have thought it was worth reporting or not is for them.
02:20:18 for them. Given the interest in Helen Steel at that time presumably no surprise to you that it was written up. Yeah, no surprise. Yeah, if we could take that down please. Uh
02:20:30 if we could take that down please. Uh could we have up from tab C14245679?
02:20:36 This is moving on to a different topic. This is Earth's first WPley quarry action um on the 4th of December 1995. This is a report made in advance of that
02:20:48 This is a report made in advance of that action dated the 15th of November 1995. Um, if we could just look at the paragraph one, please
02:21:00 just look at the paragraph one, please have that expanded.
02:21:28 Okay, thank you. Um, how did you get this intelligence? Uh, I was involved with Earth First. I I can't remember this specific. Uh, this looks like it might have come off a
02:21:40 this looks like it might have come off a flyer.
02:21:42 flyer. When you say you were involved in Earth first at around this period, what was your level of involvement? Um
02:21:50 Um what's the date again? What year? It's uh this is report is November 1995. Oh, in that case I was I was still within my first few months. It would have been very low level I think.
02:22:04 have been very low level I think. Did you play any role in preparations for this action? I'm actually not quite sure which action it was because there was a few atquaries.
02:22:15 atquaries. So, possibly Captain Mallet in Yeah, I know. I um I think I was on it on the action. I don't think I was an organizer of it. It would have been too
02:22:26 organizer of it. It would have been too early. Assuming that date is correct. Um I I can't actually I can't actually picture being there, but I think I almost certainly was.
02:22:37 almost certainly was. But I wouldn't have been an organizer that early. That's too early. Can you recall what happened? No.
02:22:44 No. If we could take that down and have up at 245779
02:22:48 at 245779 tab C23.
02:23:01 Um is this subsequent to that? Yes.
02:23:06 Yes. Yeah. Um if we have the it's a weekly meeting of reclaim the streets Tuesday the 12th of December 1995. So this is um about a week after the action. If we
02:23:19 about a week after the action. If we have the text uh of the first two paragraphs.
02:23:29 Okay. So the Watley Cory action is regarded universally as a huge success with substantial damage having been inflicted on quarrying equipment at the site. Okay.
02:23:40 Okay. Earth first. The organizers are convinced that local police were taken completely by surprise by the action. Does that do anything to jog your memory?
02:23:48 memory? I I think I know which one this is. I mean, I ironically to confirm that, I'd probably need to have a chat to the activists that were on it, but I I I think I there was more than one quarry
02:23:59 think I there was more than one quarry action
02:24:01 action that that that I was involved in. So, I I I think I And does it follow were there more than one at which machinery was damaged? Oh, yeah. Yeah.
02:24:12 Oh, yeah. Yeah. Well, yes. It goes on to say, "The organizers were convinced that local police were taken completely by surprise by the action.
02:24:23 completely by surprise by the action. Yet, we've seen that you put in a report in
02:24:25 in Mhm.
02:24:26 Mhm. November ahead of the action." Can you help us with whether or not your intelligence was used or not? No.
02:24:36 No. If we could take that down, could we have up from C17245714?
02:24:49 Uh this is a reclaim the streets meeting uh dated the 21st of November 1995. So a little bit before the one we were just looking at. It's weekly meeting
02:25:01 looking at. It's weekly meeting records 26 people were present. Mhm.
02:25:05 Mhm. This is your first report on an RTS meeting in time that we have recovered. That sounds about right. I was going to say, can you help us uh with um
02:25:20 say, can you help us uh with um how quickly you were able to get access to reclaim the streets meetings? Yes, I was on um a hunt SAB um
02:25:31 Yes, I was on um a hunt SAB um and I recognized somebody on the SAB as being somebody that was involved in the reclaim the streets event at Islington. Um so I got talking to that person over
02:25:46 Um so I got talking to that person over the course of the day and uh eventually got the subject round to something that was related to RTS um and she invited me to their weekly
02:25:59 um and she invited me to their weekly meeting.
02:26:02 meeting. And was that meeting an open meeting? No, I don't think it was. Can you help us with why it's your understanding that it wasn't an open meeting? I don't think it was advertised.
02:26:17 Depends what you mean by open meeting. Well, can you can you help us with that nuance?
02:26:21 nuance? I I I don't think it was advertised, but people would have gone along who knew the other activists who were going. Does that help? So, not strictly by invitation only. Uh,
02:26:33 Uh, no, possibly not. [snorts]
02:26:37 [snorts] Throughout your deployment, did it remain the case that the meetings were not advertised or did that change? Um,
02:26:47 Um, well, some meetings were advertised. It depended what the meeting was. If it was the RTS weekly meeting, I don't was it advertised? I I I can't remember. They got much much bigger. So, I think
02:26:59 They got much much bigger. So, I think they probably must have been because they at one stage there were sort of 70 or 80 people every week. And I think that must have been advertised to get those numbers.
02:27:09 Were there also closed meetings? Yes.
02:27:12 Yes. And what was the Could you help us with the distinction between the open and close meetings with reference to the business that was transacted? Um well there might be closed meetings for specific events but in terms of
02:27:25 for specific events but in terms of reclaim the streets. So when the when the meetings became much bigger it was very difficult to conduct any business. some people at meetings would be very disruptive. Um, and what happened was that the what
02:27:38 Um, and what happened was that the what I would describe as the core organizers group started meeting separately to the main meeting in order to actually get planning done and would then uh prime
02:27:50 planning done and would then uh prime the main meeting in advance in order to get what they wanted through the the through the main meeting which was the only way you could conduct business when you're trying to run by consensus. A and were when that development occurred and
02:28:04 were when that development occurred and the core group started meeting, were you a member of that core group from the outset?
02:28:11 outset? Um, pretty close to the outset, if not at the outset. Yeah.
02:28:18 In the what I'm going to call the open meetings, I appreciate the nuance in your evidence. Uh, but in the open meetings, how security conscious were RTS? It would depend who it was. Some
02:28:31 RTS? It would depend who it was. Some people were very switched on and others not at all. Switched on to what? Um to the possibility of infiltrators at their meetings. Uh what kind of infiltrators?
02:28:43 Uh what kind of infiltrators? Uh police informants. Were people ever asked to leave? Um yes. Yes, I think so.
02:28:53 in the core organizers meetings, how security conscious were they?
02:29:01 they? Um, I think everybody knew everybody else very well at those meetings, so it wasn't so much of an issue. And in terms of the issues that were ventilated, what was it that was
02:29:13 ventilated, what was it that was restricted to the core organizers group? I mean in terms of the business they were discussing it was the long-term planning of the major events that the
02:29:24 planning of the major events that the group did and also more general sort of ideological discussion of the direction that the group should take. Can I take it that your managers were aware that you had uh
02:29:38 your managers were aware that you had uh commenced attending RTS meetings in the autumn of 1995? Yes.
02:29:44 Yes. I don't want you to utter any names, but were you tasked to target any particular individuals? By
02:29:55 to target any particular individuals? By which I mean, was there anybody you were particularly being asked to keep an eye on, report on, anything like that? Um
02:30:05 Um I think there were some people who were regarded as being uh uh more active organizers that you were sort of um asked to report anything of interest around some of those people.
02:30:16 around some of those people. Can you help us with whether what you're describing is a general briefing? This is what we know about RTS. We want you to find out more or was it
02:30:27 or was it you're infiltrating RTS now. These are the people we specifically more the former.
02:30:40 Can we take that document down now and have up C25245794?
02:30:51 This is a uh report from the 22nd of December 1995. Mhm.
02:30:59 Mhm. And if we could have Thank you. give you a moment to scan it, but paragraph two is what I'm most interested in. Mhm.
02:31:10 Mhm. Okay.
02:31:12 Okay. Uh
02:31:15 it talks in the penultimate line of paragraph two of systemic attempts to cause serious traffic obstruction
02:31:27 cause serious traffic obstruction in a given area. Can you help us with whether did RTS organizers speak in these terms or are you
02:31:38 speak in these terms or are you paraphrasing?
02:31:47 I'm probably paraphrasing. Did the language that they used approximate more closely to
02:31:58 approximate more closely to taking control of a section of the high of the road to demonstrate an alternative way of using that space. They they talk particularly in terms of the um concept of a temporary autonomous
02:32:11 the um concept of a temporary autonomous zone which is created by blockading an area and excluding the state and the police from that area. But there were also
02:32:18 also actions. I remember one down in Cordon for instance where it was did seem to me just blocking for its own sake. Um and I was on the action where they attempted to block the the M25 for instance. So
02:32:29 to block the the M25 for instance. So both would be the answer. Can we take that down now please? Can we have from uh tab B44748
02:32:40 100 the first page. And if we could have that expanded.
02:32:50 This document is dated the 27th of August 1996 and bears Bob Lambert's initials.
02:33:00 initials. Um, it's about you. I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory.
02:33:16 [cough] Okay.
02:33:22 This is about a meeting that you are said to have had with DCI Edmonson and DI Lambert. Yeah.
02:33:28 Yeah. On the 14th of August in which you explained to them that your wife had left you in January. Yeah.
02:33:39 Yeah. Do you recall the meeting? Yeah.
02:33:44 Yeah. Is it right that your wife uh your now ex-wife uh left you in January 1996? Around that time we decided to split. Yeah.
02:33:55 Yeah. Does that mean you separated? Is this really relevant? I'm afraid it is. Okay. Can you help us with
02:34:05 with [cough]
02:34:06 [cough] Did you cease cohabiting in January 96? Yeah.
02:34:13 Did your activities undercover have anything to do with that separation?
02:34:22 Um, you'd have to ask her. Sorry. From your point of view, I I I don't think it helps when you're doing a job that means you're never at
02:34:33 doing a job that means you're never at home anymore. Um, but I don't think SDS was the reason that we split up. It's sometimes the reasons on the other side. They're not all about me.
02:34:46 Pause a moment. Please in the public gallery, keep quiet. This is evidence which is not necessarily easy to give and it's important it's heard respectfully and in
02:34:59 important it's heard respectfully and in silence.
02:35:04 What advice were you given by DCI Edmonson Di Lambert when you told them of your separation? I wasn't given any advice at all.
02:35:18 I wasn't given any advice at all. Did they say that this affected your deployment in any way? Um, not that I remember.
02:35:28 Did they give you any advice at all about sexual activity in your undercover identity now that you were effectively a single man? No.
02:35:41 Why didn't you tell your managers about this development until August? Um,
02:35:51 possibly because it wasn't clear that we had irrevocably separated. Perhaps I don't think I would give my managers a running commentary on my private life as
02:36:03 running commentary on my private life as it was going on.
02:36:07 Did your ex-wife's departure affect how often you stayed in your cover accommodation? Yeah. Yeah, unquestionably. And can you describe the difference that it made?
02:36:19 describe the difference that it made? Um,
02:36:21 Um, well,
02:36:22 well, from that time I've got nobody to go home to and no children. Um, so after a while you there's no point in driving halfway across London just to visit an
02:36:33 halfway across London just to visit an empty house. So I think I got into the habit of living full-time at my cover address and then just going home occasionally to sort of check the post or whatever. So I I pretty much lived
02:36:44 or whatever. So I I pretty much lived full-time
02:36:45 full-time under my cover address um for what's that four four and a half five years. So the existential experiment has become completely immersive. Yeah, I guess it's sort of invaded all
02:36:57 Yeah, I guess it's sort of invaded all aspects. Yeah.
02:37:02 What was your understanding of why the SDS was interested at the recruitment stage in your home life? Um I think they had decided at some
02:37:15 Um I think they had decided at some point that um they wanted to recruit officers who had a a stable relationship or were married and I think the reason they done that was to do with problems
02:37:26 they done that was to do with problems in the past in relation to relationships. What gave you that understanding? Um I don't remember. I don't remember. I don't think anybody would have there was no sort of secret about that. I think
02:37:37 no sort of secret about that. I think that they thought they were better off and I know there were other people who thought that was exactly the the wrong way of doing it because it was dreadful for breaking up marriages. Although not this one.
02:37:48 Although not this one. We've heard some evidence that at least one purpose uh was so that the officer remained grounded and had a secure anchor
02:37:58 anchor in their life. Uh
02:38:03 Uh after August, your managers knew that you did not. Did they do anything uh to support you through what must have been a difficult period?
02:38:14 a difficult period? No, but nor did I ask them to.
02:38:22 Could we take that down now, please? going to move uh on to the good Easter hunt sabotage on the 10th of February 1996. Could we have up from tab
02:38:34 1996. Could we have up from tab C3245940?
02:38:42 [snorts] Uh this is a document dated the 13th of February. It's a report on the events three days previously. If we could have the text expanded, please.
02:38:54 could have the text expanded, please. [snorts]
02:38:57 give you a moment to um refresh your memory particularly from paragraph two. Mhm.
02:39:26 [cough] [clears throat] Okay.
02:39:30 Okay. I'm primarily interested in the arrests of Mr. Taylor, Mr. Ley, and Mr. Delaney. Okay.
02:39:36 Okay. That occurred in a car park, didn't it? Yes.
02:39:39 Yes. And uh you were present. Yes. Uh,
02:39:45 Yes. Uh, and there was an incident with police which led to all three of them being arrested.
02:39:50 arrested. Yes.
02:39:51 Yes. And you were a direct eyewitness to that?
02:39:53 that? Yes.
02:39:54 Yes. And you were involved in communications with the police that took place leading up to those arrests? Uh, yeah. I was part of the group that was there.
02:40:05 was there. Did those uniform police officers know that you were an undercover officer? No.
02:40:10 No. Uh there's reference in paragraph two to the recovery of a number of wooden staves
02:40:18 staves from the van. Could you describe these? No, I couldn't cuz I don't remember them.
02:40:27 them. [snorts]
02:40:27 [snorts] It says in this report that they were intended as weapons. Did you report to your managers that those pieces of wood were intended as weapons? I I don't remember.
02:40:42 I I'm not sure why the van would have been full of wooden staves otherwise, but I I don't I don't remember what that part of it. Mr. Lemiey's evidence is that it was firewood.
02:40:52 firewood. Is it okay? Might that be right? If he says so, um your demeanor suggests um I certain amount of cynicism. I'm I'm slightly skeptical that we were
02:41:03 I'm I'm slightly skeptical that we were driving a sad van round that was full of firewood, but um I fine. Did you ever see uh hunt saboturs use wooden staves as weapons?
02:41:14 wooden staves as weapons? Um
02:41:16 Um I think I remember seeing hunt sabs carrying them
02:41:23 possibly. I don't remember. I can't be precise though. Presumably if one carries anything that might be um taken to be a weapon, one is at considerable risk of of a risk arrest
02:41:36 at considerable risk of of a risk arrest to hunt sabotage. Um,
02:41:41 Um, it would depend on which SAB, but the police in some areas such as Essex will arrest the Sabs for anything. And mass
02:41:49 And mass in other areas less so. A mass hit on a hunt in Essex. The Essex police were particularly hostile to the Sabs. There's a reference here as well to
02:42:01 There's a reference here as well to fireworks. Yes. Uh
02:42:06 Yes. Uh what did you know about their presence in the van? Um I was aware that there was uh a quantity of what they used to call bird scarers which are small fireworks.
02:42:17 scarers which are small fireworks. Um they were manufactured by a company called Archer and that's the same component used in the um operation Gant incenduries.
02:42:30 Had you seen these fireworks used in the course of hunt sabotage? But they were sometimes you could uh
02:42:41 But they were sometimes you could uh yeah just light an individual one to disrupt the hunt or the or or the hounds.
02:42:46 hounds. Did you ever have any knowledge of their use for any other purpose by the people you were mixing with? Um, well, I was aware that they were a component in the interenduries for Operation Gent. Yes.
02:42:58 interenduries for Operation Gent. Yes. The same the same manufacturer and the same pieces. That's not my question. No, but it's relevant. My question is, do you have any actual knowledge of them being used um for any other purpose?
02:43:11 being used um for any other purpose? Other purpose than using them oa as you've described occasionally to disrupt a hunt. Uh, no.
02:43:20 Uh, no. I can be more direct. Do you have any direct knowledge of them being used to construct improvised incendry devices by the people that you were mixing with? No, I was aware that it was um exactly
02:43:34 No, I was aware that it was um exactly the same component and the same manufacturer, which given that the the targets were related to the Essex Hunt was very suggestive, and even more so given that the person
02:43:45 and even more so given that the person who purchased them, which seems to be excluded here, uh fitted the description for someone who'd been seen leaving the scene of one of the intendies. And where did you I mean, I don't want
02:43:57 And where did you I mean, I don't want the source of it. Sure. about where did you get that knowledge from? Uh that it fitted the description. Yeah.
02:44:04 Yeah. From the operation gent briefings. [snorts]
02:44:09 [snorts] Did you discuss the arrest of these three men with your managers? Um I well I I've reported it it looks like here. Yeah, you've certainly reported it. Did you discuss
02:44:21 you discuss um arrests? What? Beyond the report? Yes.
02:44:25 Yes. Um possibly, but I don't recall that specifically. Was there any discussion uh about uh what the arrest of these three men in the presence of an undercover police officer meant?
02:44:38 undercover police officer meant? Um
02:44:40 Um no.
02:44:43 Can we take that document down? I wasn't actually present when Brendan was arrested. I was a few hundred yards away and then I came over to the point where he was arrested. Just to be clear,
02:44:54 where he was arrested. Just to be clear, if we could uh take that document down now, please. Could we um have up 38277?
02:45:04 Going to [snorts] move now to the criminal proceedings which followed these arrests. Okay.
02:45:15 [clears throat] This is a letter from a slister Michael Schwarz addressed to you in your cover name dated the 3rd of June 1996.
02:45:26 cover name dated the 3rd of June 1996. So approximately 4 months after the arrests.
02:45:30 arrests. Yeah.
02:45:30 Yeah. Uh I'll give you a moment to look at the text.
02:45:33 text. No, I've already read it. That's okay. Yeah. And is it right you receive this? Uh it must be cuz I must have handed it into the office. I don't see how we would have got it otherwise. Is this from the police file or from Mr.
02:45:44 from the police file or from Mr. Schwarz? Ah. Uh in that case, I may not have been living at that address anymore. So I may not have received it. Well, let's let's try let's go a little bit further. Can we have a look at 38278?
02:46:00 Uh this is a if we yes if we can have a look
02:46:06 look at the top it's got your cover details and if we go over the page
02:46:19 says at the bottom I'm willing to attend court and give evidence. This is a draft unsigned witness statement um about the
02:46:30 unsigned witness statement um about the incident.
02:46:32 incident. Uh is it right uh that uh you uh in fact must have had a conversation with Mr. Schwarz, provided uh a witness
02:46:43 with Mr. Schwarz, provided uh a witness statement and been sent to draft? No.
02:46:47 No. Can you help us with why you're saying no?
02:46:49 no? I've never provided any statement to Mr. Schwarz on this matter. I' I've never sat down with him or any of his staff or attended his office. What about over the telephone?
02:47:00 What about over the telephone? No, I had a phone call. Well, there's there's two things. Firstly, when they were arrested, I was the one who phoned Mike Schwarz to tell him they'd been arrested. So, that was a very brief phone call where I literally said,
02:47:11 phone call where I literally said, "These people have been arrested. They want you to represent them." So, that would be at at the time. Um, I remember getting a phone call. I didn't think it was from Mike Shorts. I think it might
02:47:22 was from Mike Shorts. I think it might have been from one of his staff asking me if I'd be willing to give a statement. Um I think it was when I was I'd actually I was in a different address. So not in not in Leighton. So it's
02:47:33 So not in not in Leighton. So it's possible that letter went to an address I didn't live at anymore. Um but I remember getting a phone call when I was going out the door by someone saying would I be willing to give a statement on their behalf. Activists obviously
02:47:44 on their behalf. Activists obviously always give statements in support of other activists to refuse is would be would be deeply suspicious to put it mildly. Um, so I said yes, I I'll give a statement if I have to, but I never gave
02:47:56 statement if I have to, but I never gave any statement. I've never sat down with him or anybody else to give a statement. This would have been written in my absence
02:48:03 absence um presumably with the intention of asking me to sign it. I would also say it was it was not uncommon for activists to be given statements to sign almost sight unseen um in support of other activists. And I think that's what this
02:48:15 activists. And I think that's what this is. I' I've never seen this statement before. Well, I've not seen it before now actually. Um, but I knew it existed, but I I wasn't present when it was drafted, nor was it drafted by reference
02:48:26 drafted, nor was it drafted by reference to me over the phone. I had a brief conversation with them beforehand saying that I was willing to give a statement. How certain are you that you did not give an account of
02:48:39 that you did not give an account of events
02:48:41 events to Mr. Schwarz or anybody at his firm? I'm I'm pretty sure I Yeah, I I I remember having a phone call from them when they asked if I would be
02:48:53 from them when they asked if I would be give a witness statement in support of Ben. Um and I said yes, I would. Um
02:49:00 Um I I don't think I had any contact with them again after that. I think I avoided it.
02:49:05 it. Um,
02:49:07 Um, I wasn't even aware there was a statement till it was on News Night about 10 years ago that I I'm supposed to have given this statement and I haven't read it before. You have made clear to me a number of
02:49:20 You have made clear to me a number of occasions that we're talking about event 30 years ago and your memory is hazy, but you seem to be quite categoric about this. Is that fair? It it is. I'm I'm aware that if there might
02:49:31 it is. I'm I'm aware that if there might be something now that I've totally forgotten about, but I don't recall any conversation with them other than that one on the phone where I said I would give a statement and I certainly wasn't present when this was written and none of it looks familiar to me in any way.
02:49:43 of it looks familiar to me in any way. Did you ever receive this draft? No, I wasn't even aware there was a statement.
02:49:58 Can we have 38278? Well, we've got I think 378. Okay. Can we have three
02:50:07 38278, please?
02:50:21 Yeah, this looks like a note from the phone call that I just told you. Yeah, but this is the 10th. This is the 10th of June. Would be delighted to act as a witness. Just call back. Is that is that
02:50:34 witness. Just call back. Is that is that that's what it says? And is that do you have any any reason to doubt the factual accuracy of that? No, because if they had called me to give a statement, I couldn't have said I
02:50:45 give a statement, I couldn't have said I think they would have called and said everybody on the sav van is giving a statement in support of Ben. Would you give a statement? And I would have had to say yes, of course. Did you ever call back on the mobile
02:50:56 Did you ever call back on the mobile number?
02:50:57 number? No.
02:50:59 No. Are you sure of that? Well, if you're about to produce something saying that I did, then I don't remember that at all because I don't recall having any further contact with them after after this point. But, you know, this is 30 years ago. So,
02:51:11 you know, this is 30 years ago. So, apologies if I've totally forgotten about another phone call. On the day of the trial, were you in a cafe nearby? Yeah.
02:51:22 Yeah. And was that because uh there was a possibility you might be needed as a witness?
02:51:27 witness? No, the whole uh SA van turned up in support of Ben, which wasn't unusual when someone from the Sabban was have been called. Um [snorts] do you
02:51:37 do you I remember the we were met on the steps by somebody I don't think it was Mike Schwarz. I think it was somebody else who thought that the whole lot of the setting court looked intimidating and
02:51:48 setting court looked intimidating and wouldn't assist the defense. So several of us who were judged to look the most intimidating were asked to go and wait in a cafe down the street. So about three or four of us went and sat in a cafe down the street. Was anything said
02:52:01 cafe down the street. Was anything said uh about uh the possibility that any of you might need to might need to be called back to give evidence. No.
02:52:11 No. Or that in fact a decision had been taken that you weren't going to be needed to take evidence to give evidence. Not that I remember.
02:52:23 Can we take that down now, please? Uh, there were also civil proceedings arising from these arrests, weren't there?
02:52:31 there? Uh, if you say so. Quite possibly. Did you have any discussions with your managers about them? I don't think so. Was [snorts] there ever any discussion that you can
02:52:44 there ever any discussion that you can recall uh about whether or not your identity as a UCO should be disclosed to either the criminal or the civil courts? No.
02:52:55 No. Or to uh the prosecutors or the civil defense team? Um don't think so. Were you given any asurances that your identity would be
02:53:06 asurances that your identity would be protected
02:53:07 protected in relation to this specifically or generally? Uh well, let's start with this specifically. Um don't remember that being the case. So this is all going through the courts.
02:53:21 So this is all going through the courts. What do your managers say to you about events?
02:53:25 events? Well, I've already said I wasn't I don't even remember Ben Ben suing actually. So um
02:53:31 um both crim but did your managers know that you were going to support the defendants at the criminal trial? Yeah. Yeah. I would have told them that on question. And did they say anything at all about
02:53:44 And did they say anything at all about the the advice accepting you? Oh um
02:53:47 Oh um no
02:53:51 more widely is that because there'd been broader asurances? Yes. you you were given a very concrete assurance that your identity would be protected under all circumstances. In
02:54:03 protected under all circumstances. In fact, that was quite a formal formal undertaking. And did that include court proceedings? Uh,
02:54:13 Uh, it would have included everything I think.
02:54:15 think. By which I mean, was there express reference to court proceedings or was it just implicit to your mind? I think it was probably implicit. Could
02:54:26 Could we have up 246537 please? Tap C69.
02:54:40 [clears throat]
02:54:51 And if that could be expanded please. This is a subsequent report dated the 6th of August 1996 and it has more information about the fireworks.
02:55:03 information about the fireworks. Give you a moment to look at that. No, I've read it. That's okay. It says in the third line, "Were intended for general
02:55:15 intended for general sabbing use and had been carried in Delane's van for several weeks before his arrest." Yeah.
02:55:21 Yeah. I appreciate that this may not have been written up by you, but that is based on the intelligence you provided, isn't it? Yes. Yes. I think that's Yeah.
02:55:32 Yes. Yes. I think that's Yeah. No mention there to it it being the same manufacturer uh and the same type of firework as it was believed had been used in this
02:55:45 was believed had been used in this specific report but that was made very clear.
02:55:49 clear. I think I think this report is specifically detailing the stuff that was in Brendan's van. That the stuff that's in Brendan's van was intended for sabbing use.
02:56:01 And this information, did this come from your personal knowledge? Uh, looks like it. Yeah. I can't see who else that could have come from.
02:56:13 [snorts] Uh, purchased over the counter from a specialist shop. Do you know whether or not a license was required to purchase this type of firework?
02:56:24 this type of firework? No, that's not really my area.
02:56:33 Can you recall why it is that this information isn't in a report until August 1996 when the arrest took
02:56:44 until August 1996 when the arrest took place in February? Um,
02:56:52 I mean, I'm I'm guessing because I didn't put the report in, but it's possibly that I hadn't ascertained the name of the person who was responsible for purchasing the material, or perhaps
02:57:03 for purchasing the material, or perhaps I wasn't certain until that point. But presumably, you will have known about their the their intended use all along.
02:57:11 along. Um, I mean, I knew those things were used in sabbing. But you've said intended for general sabbing youth. So that's something you knew throughout.
02:57:22 knew throughout. Uh yeah.
02:57:27 And the potential use of these fireworks. Was that an issue between the police and activists in the discussions in the car park?
02:57:38 in the car park? I I don't know what the police said to Brendan when he was arrested, but I think the arrest related to um specifically to to that material.
02:57:49 um specifically to to that material. Uh and so the position is that a police officer, namely you, uh knew something about their intended use, but your uh
02:58:00 about their intended use, but your uh evidence
02:58:02 evidence or evidence you could have given about their intended use was not anything that a prosecutor ever knew about. Well, I'm not sure it was relevant. I don't think Brendon was prosecuted. I
02:58:14 don't think Brendon was prosecuted. I think it was Ben who was prosecuted. And Ben was prosecuted for nothing to do with this.
02:58:22 Can we take that down now please? Can we have from C36246028?
02:58:33 [cough]
02:58:54 This is a report dated the 5th of March 1996.
02:58:59 1996. Um but it
02:59:01 Um but it covers an event in paragraph two um from the 12th of February. If we could look at that please.
02:59:35 Okay. So, there's a reference there to an attack on the Blue Arrow officers in Newbury on the 12th of February during which extensive damage is said to have
02:59:47 which extensive damage is said to have been caused. Were you present during the course of that attack? No, I don't think so. Can you help us with um where this
02:59:58 Can you help us with um where this information has come from?
03:00:03 Um
03:00:09 not not this far removed from the date. No.
03:00:15 Thank you. If we could take that down, please.
03:00:19 please. going to go back to Operation Gant. You've told us a little bit about the relevant offending that you were seeking intelligence about.
03:00:30 intelligence about. Was there any discussion at any point with your managers about whether you would ever be involved in an evidential chain?
03:00:39 chain? Oh,
03:00:41 Oh, the expectation for SDS was that it it wouldn't be. It was an intelligence long-term operation, not a short-term evidential one.
03:00:50 one. And was that did you did was that topic discussed uh with your managers in relation to Gant? Um well, no, that topic was discussed in relation to everything.
03:01:02 relation to everything. So just the general background is you would you were never expecting to give evidence in a court? No. No.
03:01:13 Uh I asked you questions about relevant intelligence you obtained through East London animal rights. I want to move now to whether you got any relevant
03:01:24 to whether you got any relevant intelligence through the uh Essex and East London Hunt saboturs. Can we start with your witness statement? It's 36294
03:01:38 with your witness statement? It's 36294 page 61 please.
03:01:43 [sighs]
03:01:45 Paragraph 105.2.
03:02:01 Mhm. Now, I don't want you to name the person uh under the privacy redaction. Uh, but can you tell us how
03:02:12 Uh, but can you tell us how you identified that person as most likely to be responsible? Because that was the person who had purchased the Archer fireworks.
03:02:25 purchased the Archer fireworks. Um, that person fitted the description of someone who was seen leaving the scene of one of the incenduries.
03:02:36 any more than that.
03:02:40 I mean, that would be enough. I think that's not the the issue just at the moment.
03:02:45 moment. Okay. I can't remember anything else on top of that, but I certainly would have thought that was enough to identify that person as most likely to pick up that thread though.
03:02:57 to pick up that thread though. Was that person prosecuted? No. Um,
03:03:03 No. Um, this comes back to what was discussed earlier. I think that there was then an IRA incident and resources immediately moved and Gant went uh well down the priority list
03:03:14 priority list presumably if it had been enough something would have been done. Um I'm afraid that doesn't necessarily follow its resources rather than evidence.
03:03:24 evidence. Is it also because you couldn't give evidence as an undercover police officer? Um oh I see. Um
03:03:34 I I I couldn't say really. I don't know. At the time I think it was mostly to do with resources and it seems odd but within police departments priorities change and resources move immediately
03:03:45 change and resources move immediately and something can just sit there and never be resolved for a while and this tasking came back ages later. I need a yes no answer to this question
03:03:57 I need a yes no answer to this question just for the complete avoidance of doubt.
03:04:02 doubt. This person is the person suspected of being the arsonist is not Mr. Lei. No.
03:04:12 You go on to say that you've identified Ben Lei as someone who had researched members of the Essex Hunt and identified their home addresses which had been
03:04:23 their home addresses which had been targeted
03:04:25 targeted for in centuries. Yes.
03:04:27 Yes. You've already given some evidence. about addresses, but that was in relation to terrier men as opposed to members of the Essex Hunt.
03:04:39 members of the Essex Hunt. Is there a distinction? Well, one is obviously a broader term. How did you identify Mr. Lei as someone who had researched members of the Essex
03:04:52 who had researched members of the Essex Hunt more widely than the Terrier Men? Um
03:04:58 Um don't know the answer to that specific question. How did you know that Mr. Lei had been researching members of the Essex Hunt?
03:05:11 researching members of the Essex Hunt? Because he discussed it in the pub as you already asked me that. Yes. Any more than that? Um
03:05:21 not that I can remember now, but I might have.
03:05:24 have. It's worth adding that the other person in the pub was related to the person whose name is redacted in here. You told me earlier that you didn't actually see the home addresses.
03:05:38 actually see the home addresses. No. [snorts] So follow it would follow, wouldn't it, that you would not be able to tell me whether those addresses were limited uh to those who had been the subject of incendry attacks,
03:05:52 subject of incendry attacks, correct? or indeed whether those addresses were of the people who were the subject of incendry attacks. Yes.
03:06:02 Yes. Yes. You couldn't what you said was correct. Yeah.
03:06:06 Yeah. Yeah.
03:06:09 So why does this why does this say identified their home addresses which had been targeted for incenduries? If you hadn't seen the addresses, you could
03:06:20 you hadn't seen the addresses, you could not know. Well, because it might well be I think he named a couple of people who were there, but I didn't know the names. I'd need to be back at this is I'd need
03:06:31 I'd need to be back at this is I'd need to be back there to remember exactly how specific this conversation was because you're you're asking was the conversation just about Terry from the hunt? Was it about other people from the I mean this is 30 years ago. I don't
03:06:43 I mean this is 30 years ago. I don't remember the word he used. I'm certainly dimly remembering the conversation to be honest. So can I take it in those circumstances that you are not able to stand by the factual
03:06:54 not able to stand by the factual accuracy at full factual accuracy of that sentence? Not after 30 years. No.
03:07:01 Why isn't there any intelligence reporting
03:07:05 reporting on these matters? I didn't know that there wasn't. There isn't. Well, then that should be a question for the uh the handlers and the controller then.
03:07:15 then. Did you have any conversation uh with managers about whether or not what you were learning was going to be put on record or not?
03:07:28 put on record or not? Um,
03:07:29 Um, no. I would have just assumed that it was. That's the handler's role. Did anybody say that this would be kept oral and not committed to writing? No.
03:07:43 Are are you sure that all the reporting for this still exists? I'm afraid it's my job to ask the questions. It's yours to answer them.
03:07:56 Did anybody say anything to you to the effect that a that written intelligence reports might cause a problem in the event of a prosecution? No.
03:08:10 There's a reference, as you'll see, slightly higher on the page, to John Curtain. Did your contact with John Curtain come later uh than uh your early
03:08:21 Curtain come later uh than uh your early contact with the Essex Hunt Saboters? Yes.
03:08:26 Yes. [snorts]
03:08:26 [snorts] Uh what relevance, if any, did John Curtain have to operation Gant? I don't think he had any relevance to Gant.
03:08:37 Gant. Mr. Ley strongly denies any involvement with the use of improvised incendary devices.
03:08:46 devices. Are you in a position to give any direct evidence gain saying that denial? No.
03:08:55 No. Can we take the document down now, please?
03:08:59 please? We're moving to an event which you've referred to a couple of times in your evidence already. Uh it's a matter of public knowledge
03:09:10 Uh it's a matter of public knowledge that on the 9th of February 1996 the provisional IRA resumed its bombing campaign in London with a bomb at South Key in Canary Warf.
03:09:22 with a bomb at South Key in Canary Warf. Uh with that in mind, can we have from B38245949?
03:09:32 [snorts]
03:09:36 [sighs] This is a an internal file note 16th of February uh 1996 with Bob Lambert's initials. If we could
03:09:47 with Bob Lambert's initials. If we could have the text expanded and you'll see it's under the heading operation gant. I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory.
03:10:19 Okay. So, it appears that you have discussed the position with Mr. Lambert. Do you recall that? Well, I I would have discussed it with him. I can't remember that specific conversation. And it appears
03:10:33 conversation. And it appears from the
03:10:35 from the graphic description at the end of that paragraph uh that SO13 thought that the bombing
03:10:42 bombing in South Key was a much more significant criminal investigation and we're turning to that instead of Operation Gant. Yes,
03:10:53 DI Lambert appears to have been liazing with SO13 and uh seeking to avoid any searches or
03:11:05 and uh seeking to avoid any searches or arrests. Was that to avoid any risk of compromise to you? I I would imagine so, but I wasn't obviously privy to that. Did he tell you?
03:11:17 Did he tell you? Um might have done. I would have expect he probably did.
03:11:29 And then we see that there's an intelligence case has been put together by detective constable and that you had met him on
03:11:40 constable and that you had met him on Monday the 12th of February to discuss it. Is that right? If it says so then I think that would be correct. Yeah. says this was very productive and reassuring for the officer.
03:11:52 officer. Can you help us with whether or not it was actually very productive? No, because I don't remember that specific meeting. Sorry. And presumably if it had been very
03:12:04 And presumably if it had been very productive um in inquiries might have continued
03:12:09 continued possibly.
03:12:12 [laughter] Can we now take that document down and could we have up from B38 245 sorry
03:12:24 could we have up from B38 245 sorry could we same document could we have paragraph 2 sorry
03:12:37 there's mention there to the possibility of resuming the in the investigation to your knowledge Was it ever resumed? Um the only thing I remember after the
03:12:48 Um the only thing I remember after the end of my involvement with it was that I became aware that the same tasking had come out again um and been given to another one of my colleagues because I remember seeing it and saying we've already done this.
03:12:59 and saying we've already done this. Um the tasking was can you investigate incend and and identify the person and it was the same pattern and so I remember seeing it saying we've already done it. we've already done it. And one of my other colleagues had identified
03:13:11 of my other colleagues had identified the same suspect independently as well. And was that in relation to what were then events in the past? And no, no
03:13:22 then events in the past? And no, no further incendiary attacks. I I don't I don't know, but I wasn't seeing the briefing notes then because I've been switched full-time to the other field.
03:13:34 What was that? may answer my next question. Was the consequence of Operation Gant being at least paused
03:13:46 Operation Gant being at least paused in practice for you that your attention from then on focused on RTS? I think the that would have been part of it, but I think the main thing was the scale of the reclaim the streets event
03:13:59 scale of the reclaim the streets event on um
03:14:01 on um the M41, I think it was in West London. that was a much bigger event than their previous ones and so we got a a stronger tasking in relation to that group in future and so I was asked to switch
03:14:12 future and so I was asked to switch across and do that all time as a priority
03:14:15 priority mean that was some months after this can you help us and that that event was on the 13th of July 1996 we're now in February 96
03:14:27 February 96 what did you spend your time doing in the five months between February and July 96 we would have been both both still. So even though Gant had been shelved,
03:14:38 So even though Gant had been shelved, yeah, you would still you would still be working generally in the in the animal rights activist field. You you can't sort of leave it and just come to it when when there's something of interest. It it's activism was a continuous
03:14:49 It it's activism was a continuous involvement. Were you doing were you did you continue to attend sabotages etc and to mix with hunt saboturs purely to maintain your
03:15:00 hunt saboturs purely to maintain your cover or did you probably if if Yeah, probably. I think so.
03:15:07 so. I'm not sure at what point I I sort of attended my last SAB, I'm afraid. But in terms of pursuing operation Gant, was this the end of it from your for
03:15:19 was this the end of it from your for you?
03:15:19 you? Yeah. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. And can you recall when your colleague uh was asked to resume investigations? Um it
03:15:31 Um it quite a bit later, years later. Um
03:15:37 Um might have been a year or or two. I I mean might have been a year or two. I I can't be precise. I'm sure there'll be a document of the tasking for that somewhere. Can we take uh that document down now,
03:15:48 Can we take uh that document down now, please? Could we have from B40 728967?
03:15:59 Page nine, please. This is the SDS annual report for 1995 to 1996. Did you play any part at all in the
03:16:10 Did you play any part at all in the compilation of this document? No.
03:16:14 No. If we can look on this page from the on the third paragraph down.
03:16:25 Give you a moment to read that.
03:16:34 Mhm.
03:16:37 [snorts] says at the end this lead is being investigated under the opices of operation gant these reports for the financial year so it's financial year ending in the spring of 1996
03:16:51 ending in the spring of 1996 we've just looked at a document from February
03:16:55 February 1996
03:16:57 1996 you've told me that was the end of your involvement uh contributing to investigations and we've seen that SO13 shelves the
03:17:08 and we've seen that SO13 shelves the investigation.
03:17:11 Am I right to think that this should have read this lead was being investigated? You'd have to ask for vote the report 30
03:17:22 You'd have to ask for vote the report 30 years ago. That's not my choice of word. Do you have uh anything to gain say the proposition that operation Gant was put on hold? I I I don't know
03:17:34 Gant was put on hold? I I I don't know if it was still being investigated as Operation Gant at the time this report was written. That would not have been my my role.
03:17:41 my role. That's something for the handlers and the controllers.
03:17:47 Could we take that down now, please? And can we go in tab B 36 to 527 328 page two.
03:18:02 [snorts] This is a briefing note for a visit by ACSO
03:18:09 ACSO Vanesse.
03:18:10 Vanesse. Okay.
03:18:12 Okay. To the SDS which is going to take place on the 15th of February 196.
03:18:23 If we go to page four please.
03:18:29 [clears throat and cough] And if we expand that text, give you a moment to to read that.
03:18:45 [snorts]
03:18:58 Can you recall? Um, ACSO Vanessa's 1996 visit to the SDS. Um, I remember him visiting us more than once.
03:19:10 once. Uh, I'm asking about this particular event.
03:19:13 event. Yeah, they probably both blend into the same visit in my head. Well, we can deal with it alto together. Okay.
03:19:20 Okay. Visit by ACSO Veness.
03:19:25 Veness. Did you speak to ACSO Veness? Yeah.
03:19:29 Yeah. uh in the presence of others. Yes.
03:19:32 Yes. Can [snorts] you help us uh with the sorts of questions that ACSO Deness asked? Um the conversation that I remember clearly having with him was to do with
03:19:45 clearly having with him was to do with um large public order events in the anti- capitalist uh field and the intelligence requirement around that. Was there discussion about how deeply
03:19:56 Was there discussion about how deeply immersed in the activist field you were? Not not that I remember. Was there any uh anything said that
03:20:07 Was there any uh anything said that would have put ACO a AC acess on notice uh that uh people might be having sexual relationships with
03:20:19 having sexual relationships with activists undercover? No. Was anything said that might have alerted the ACSO uh to the fact that there were officers deployed, not you, but officers deployed
03:20:32 deployed, not you, but officers deployed who had used the identities of deceased children
03:20:37 children uh to help them construct their cover legends?
03:20:40 legends? No.
03:20:42 No. Was there anything said that would have alerted ACSO Vaness to the fact uh that criminal and civil proceedings were taking place in which the presence of
03:20:54 taking place in which the presence of undercover police officers was undisclosed? I doubt it.
03:21:01 So would that be a convenient moment to break for lunch? I'm about to move to another topic. Certainly. Uh we'll resume a minute or two before 2:00.