The witness, an undercover officer known as 'Jim Sutton', describes his infiltration of the 'Reclaim the Streets' (RTS) movement in 1996, detailing his role in providing intelligence on the M41 motorway party and subsequent actions. The session covers the ethics of his reporting, the use of stolen equipment for protests, and the police's internal reaction to his arrest during a disruption of London Underground headquarters.
00:29:16 Good afternoon everybody. Uh this afternoon's uh evidence will be um broadcast on the live link but only after a 10-minute uh delay. Those with
00:29:27 after a 10-minute uh delay. 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. The devices may not be used for recording or
00:29:39 devices may not be used for recording or photography. Mr. Bar, I don't understand. We're going to have a a private hearing this afternoon, are we? Uh, no, sir. No.
00:29:50 No. Mr. Mr. Bing, can we turn now please to the RTS summer street party of 1996 which in the event took place on the M41
00:30:01 which in the event took place on the M41 motorway on the 13th of July 1996. Uh we have recovered a number of reports
00:30:13 Uh we have recovered a number of reports attributed to you in the months running up to that event reporting on uh developing arrangements for that event.
00:30:24 developing arrangements for that event. Can you help us with how involved you were with RTS by this stage? Um the main organizing group, the main organizing group was about um 8 to 10 people. I
00:30:37 group was about um 8 to 10 people. I wasn't part of that group, but I drove one of the sound system trucks. And in terms of the intelligence you got from the planning um about the planning,
00:30:48 from the planning um about the planning, where did you get that from if you were not a part of the core organizing group? Do you want me to name the main activist?
00:30:54 activist? No, no. I'm asking you how did you get the intellig but not who got who I got it from?
00:30:59 it from? Yeah.
00:30:59 Yeah. Yeah. Okay. um because I got invited to be a driver uh you get quite a lot of information anyway. But in fact what happened was that the person I would have been
00:31:10 that the person I would have been considered to be the main organizer uh sat me down with somebody else and went through the whole plan and he borrowed my A to Z to do it. Went through the relevant pages of the map and drew in where all the roadblocks
00:31:22 and drew in where all the roadblocks were going to be where the vehicles were going to come in from on my A to Z in some detail and then I think I left that meeting and drove to the special branch office and repeated the whole briefing using the same map. So everything was
00:31:34 using the same map. So everything was was on it. Could
00:31:37 Could we have up uh tab C64246450
00:31:51 this is um a report dated the 9th of July so 4 days before the event. And if we look at the text please particularly.
00:32:06 we look at the text please particularly. Thank you. Starting first of all with the first paragraph.
00:32:19 Okay. RTS wants widespread favorable publicity and therefore does not want a repetition of the violence and confrontation which followed a similar
00:32:30 confrontation which followed a similar event in Islington last year. Uh
00:32:35 Uh does that accurately record the sentiments that you picked up? It it I don't remember it specifically but that seems very likely to be accurate.
00:32:46 accurate. And how did RTS take steps to avoid a repetition of the previous year's violence? I'm not sure they necessarily took steps
00:32:57 I'm not sure they necessarily took steps to avoid it, but I don't think it was something that they actively tried to provoke.
00:33:06 Did they decide upon a cut off time to end the party? um
00:33:14 um that that was quite usual to do that. So I don't remember if they did that for this specific event and I wasn't on the organizing group for this. So um I possibly wouldn't have been party to that.
00:33:25 that. Were you there on the ground on the day? Yes, I was. My but my vehicle got impounded by the police and I I spent some time trying to get it back out again.
00:33:34 again. Were you present at the end of events at the end of the day? Uh yeah. Was there a cut off time? I it's the same answer. I don't remember if there was a specific other events had
00:33:46 if there was a specific other events had one. So I think it's very likely. Towards the end of the second paragraph of this document, it says to this end, consideration is being given to laying on some kind of impromptu sound system
00:33:57 on some kind of impromptu sound system in an undetermined open space to attract the crusties and ravers during the evening after the main street party starts to disperse. If the party just tails off, it is likely that the crowd
00:34:08 tails off, it is likely that the crowd will become restless and confrontational, especially towards the police. Was that your view of the likely outcome in the event of a tailing off?
00:34:21 in the event of a tailing off? Yes. Well, I'm pointing out somebody else wrote this because there's words here that I wouldn't have used. But what wouldn't you have used? Well, I wouldn't have used the word crusties, for instance. I think that's not a good term.
00:34:32 not a good term. What terms would you have used? I don't mean it's derogatory. It's just not not a term that I think I would have used. So somebody else has that. What what term would would you have used?
00:34:41 used? Um I would have just taken that out or left ravers. Yeah.
00:34:48 Yeah. In the same vein, if the party is seen to have been sabotaged by the establishment, for example, by the seizing of props, sound systems, and so on,
00:34:57 on, before the event gets underway, the anarchctic element in the crowd will become angry and disorderly. confrontation is likely. It appears reading this that you are
00:35:09 It appears reading this that you are reporting that on the one hand RTS don't want trouble and on the other you are passing on advice
00:35:20 advice to your managers as to how the police might avoid trouble. Is that fair? Yes.
00:35:29 Yes. And so on this occasion, both sides working in their own ways towards avoiding a repeat of the previous year.
00:35:41 avoiding a repeat of the previous year. Yes. Our goal is to see that the event is poled effectively. Um if we can prompt it towards a policing plan that allows it to be um to end as a peaceful event, then
00:35:53 um to end as a peaceful event, then that's in everybody's interest, I think.
00:35:58 Are you the treasurer by this stage? Um, not at this stage. Did you have any involvement in hiring, putting the lorry aside, hiring any of
00:36:09 putting the lorry aside, hiring any of the equipment for this one? Just the lorry that I was driving the jackhammer. No, no, no, no involvement in that at all.
00:36:21 all. Do you know whether RTS and the police and the uniform police liazed? They didn't before this event. They not to my knowledge, but they they usually would avoid any sort of um pre
00:36:34 usually would avoid any sort of um pre meetings or liaison with police
00:36:38 and obviously wouldn't even disclose to police the the location obviously
00:36:45 obviously especially the location. Yeah. Could we have uh take that document down? Pause a moment, please. You anticipate in the back what I'm going to say. It is necessary that the evidence is listened
00:36:58 necessary that the evidence is listened to in silence. Please be silent. Otherwise, I may eventually have to take steps to ensure that those who are making a noise are not in the public gallery. And I really do not want to do
00:37:10 gallery. And I really do not want to do that. Please be quiet. Thank you. Tab C65246485.
00:37:21 This is a report from the 17th of July, 4 days after the event about the event itself.
00:37:31 itself. Um, it says that about 5,000 people were there. There were minor incidents of disorder. The mood was jubilant and it had been widely advertised. Could we
00:37:42 had been widely advertised. Could we look at paragraph one, please?
00:37:47 Give you a moment to read that.
00:37:56 Yeah. Uh there's a reference there to essential or stolen equipment. Uh, can I take it from that that you are reporting
00:38:07 take it from that that you are reporting that not all of the um material used at that protest had been paid for or hired? Yes.
00:38:16 Yes. And what sort of things had been stolen? All all sorts of um all sorts of material. Um some of the seating um
00:38:28 some of the seating um I mean I was involved in getting some of it but all sorts of material for it. Um, when you say you're involved in getting some of it, you with others stole it.
00:38:39 some of it, you with others stole it. Yeah. Scaffolding.
00:38:46 Can I take it that none of the thieves were brought to justice? Correct.
00:38:51 Correct. And was any of the stolen property returned?
00:38:54 returned? No.
00:38:55 No. And was that because it was not your purpose to provide evidence for prosecutions? Correct. And there would have been obvious problems with prosecuting somebody when
00:39:06 problems with prosecuting somebody when you'd done some of the stealing. Yes. And I mean the these are quite small thefts individually. Can we have paragraph two, please?
00:39:19 [snorts] Give you a moment to read that.
00:39:33 [snorts]
00:39:37 Okay. So, can I take it from that that you hired one of the lorries and drove one of the lorries? Yes.
00:39:43 Yes. Can you help us with uh exactly what happened on the day with the lorry with when I was driving? Yeah. Um,
00:39:53 it had a lot of gear in it for bands and a sound system for bands to play, but we were unable to access the M41 from the route I'd been given.
00:40:05 the M41 from the route I'd been given. And I think we drove around pursued by the police at very low speed for a while trying to find a way onto the M41, but couldn't and got blocked. And there was then a standoff between us and various
00:40:16 then a standoff between us and various activists sat on the vehicle whilst the police tried to decide what to do and then eventually uh the police decided to come and clear the activists off the vehicle and take possession of it and
00:40:27 vehicle and take possession of it and they drove it off to local police station and impounded it. Other than the fact that you'd reported on plans in advance, did you play any role in the police decision to impound
00:40:38 role in the police decision to impound the vehicle? No.
00:40:40 No. Did your intelligence, to the best of your knowledge, No. No. It was coincidental. Did you witness any damage to the road surface?
00:40:49 surface? No.
00:40:52 The report said there had been minor incidents of disorder. Yeah.
00:40:58 Yeah. What did you witness? Um
00:41:03 Um I remember there being missiles thrown at police as they tried to clear it at the end of the day. Uh in fact there was there was some quite full-on confrontation with the police and some
00:41:14 confrontation with the police and some of the demonstrators towards the end of the day. People get very drunk during the day for an event like that. Um so there was certainly yeah stuff was being thrown. There was there was clashes with the police and there were efforts by
00:41:26 the police and there were efforts by some of the uh the organizers to get people to leave to go to a a squat party that had been arranged. I think did the organizers do [clears throat] anything to try and calm or prevent the
00:41:39 anything to try and calm or prevent the violence?
00:41:40 violence? Well, they they kept telling people to go back to the to the afterparty, which was a sort of squat party that had been arranged for the evening, I think. Would they do things like tell people to stop throwing things at the police?
00:41:51 stop throwing things at the police? Um
00:41:56 um not really.
00:42:00 And the people who were throwing things at the police, were any of them core organizers?
00:42:10 Not usually. You you'd usually get a particular element um often sort of from class war or some of the other groups that would come and piggy back onto RTS events that
00:42:21 come and piggy back onto RTS events that tended then to look to look to provoke the confrontation. But that the structure of the temporary autonomous zone is quite um immunable to that because it it by definition it sets up a
00:42:33 because it it by definition it sets up a barrier and a roadblock which is defendable. So it tends to be a clash point. As soon as the police want to clear the street there's a barrier ready made which is why these events tended to
00:42:44 made which is why these events tended to always kick off. Um it wasn't particularly the intention of the RTS organizers for it to kick off but they were not unhappy. We we were not unhappy if that happened.
00:42:58 when you say we have just read a report which said that they wanted to avoid violence
00:43:03 violence on this one. Yeah. So is it really right that they weren't unhappy when it happened? Um yeah. Yeah. I'm afraid it is. In most cases that was the case. I I wasn't on the organizing group for this. Um so I'm
00:43:15 the organizing group for this. Um so I'm reporting this from slightly outside the main group. Were you passing back any intelligence in real time during the course of the day?
00:43:24 day? No.
00:43:27 No. Do you are you able to assist us with how the advanced intelligence that you provided was used on this occasion? Uh not specifically because that's somebody else's responsibility, but my
00:43:39 somebody else's responsibility, but my understanding was that the policing plan would be based upon a briefing provided by special branch which would be based on this reporting. Can we take that document down now please and have C72246569
00:43:56 this is um 16th of August uh 96 so about a month afterwards okay
00:44:06 okay uh it's about the aftermath and if we could have paragraph one uh expanded please
00:44:13 please give you a moment to read That
00:44:32 okay. Um, this has been written up as a result of your intelligence probably.
00:44:41 What was your state of understanding of the doctrine of legal professional privilege at this time? Um, in relation to what?
00:44:54 Um, in relation to what? Well, in general,
00:44:59 did you understand what legal professional privilege is? I would have hoped so. Um, I don't know what's been redacted. Well, we've had to redact it because it is privileged legally professionally
00:45:11 is privileged legally professionally privileged information. Well, then I I would have Yeah, I've obviously got a general understanding of what what that means. I wasn't present at any meeting he'd had with his solicitor. Um possibly he told me something that I've repeated in which I
00:45:24 something that I've repeated in which I don't remember doing that, but I can't see where else it would have come from to get into the report, but it certainly wouldn't have been the intention to um to breach it. So I suspect what's been redacted is not something that that was
00:45:35 redacted is not something that that was sort of particularly pertinent. [snorts] I could be one because I don't know what if I'm understanding you correctly. You're saying you weren't at the meeting between the solicister and the client. Well, no, of course not. But you did probably get this from the
00:45:47 But you did probably get this from the client and report it because I presume I can use his name because it's in the report. Yeah, because he told you. Um, I I think Paul would have said something or possibly somebody else would have
00:45:59 or possibly somebody else would have said something about what was going on with this case and I've just mentioned it to the office and somebody's written it up. I I don't know how pertinent the bit that's been redacted is.
00:46:12 bit that's been redacted is. Was there any reaction from the office to you reporting uh what you had been told a solicitor had advised Mr. from Morazzo. Well, I don't remember this, so I I
00:46:24 Well, I don't remember this, so I I can't say. Now, your witness statement says uh that you never reported legal professional privileged and the subject was not discussed. Does seeing an example of you
00:46:37 discussed. Does seeing an example of you doing so jog your memory? Not really, because I I think I I've not sat down with the office here and said I think this is what he his legal strategy is. He's probably being advised by his
00:46:49 is. He's probably being advised by his solicitor to say nothing or to to steer clear of police or to not get involved in anything criminal in the interim. It probably wouldn't have occurred to me that that was uh if I've passed that on,
00:47:01 that that was uh if I've passed that on, which I I can't see how that wouldn't be wouldn't be for me. I don't think it would have occurred to me that that was um sensitive legal information. I probably just thought that was general general background to explain why he was
00:47:13 general background to explain why he was no longer active or whatever. Could we go to page two, paragraph five?
00:47:27 Give you a moment to to read that.
00:47:36 Okay. Uh I'm interested in the phrase of various groups regarding RTS as the shock troops of the green movement. Yeah.
00:47:45 Yeah. Undeterred by police or security staff. Yeah.
00:47:49 Yeah. Um what was the basis uh for that belief? Um during the time I was involved with them, I had some dealings with other other groups from the sort of
00:48:00 with other other groups from the sort of green anarchist movement and uh reclaim the streets were very much seen as the most um full-on and committed group on that part of the spectrum. Did any of them use the phrase shop
00:48:11 Did any of them use the phrase shop troops?
00:48:12 troops? I don't know. I mean I I can't remember what phrase anybody had used. I don't think that's very likely to be an activist phrase. That's probably something that the handles put in. I mean they were certainly innovative,
00:48:23 I mean they were certainly innovative, weren't they? Yeah, but given what we've just looked at, which was to the effect they were trying to avoid their street parties
00:48:34 to avoid their street parties degenerating into violence. [snorts] Is it unfair to describe them as shock troops?
00:48:42 troops? I mean, I I'm not sitting here today to try to condemn try to condemn RTS, but RTS were quite happy if it kicked off at their events. That's not the same as saying that um
00:48:54 That's not the same as saying that um that they were looking to manufacture that and I think that comes through in this reporting. I think this reporting is reasonably reasonably fair. So in your words if shot troops has come
00:49:05 So in your words if shot troops has come from the office. Well I I yeah I would think so. I don't think that's likely to be I mean I don't know it's 30 years ago. Did I use that phrase or did they? I don't know. How would you describe them?
00:49:16 How would you describe them? Um I think I just did. They're the most full-on group on that part of the spectrum. And fullon meaning what? Well, full-on would be a term they would have used, meaning the most um
00:49:28 have used, meaning the most um committed, the most um proactive. Does that help? But not necessarily or but not
00:49:40 or but not violent.
00:49:43 violent. No, there as I think I've already said that their events attracted violent elements, but I don't think that the RTS organizers were violent um in their approach.
00:49:52 approach. Could we go to paragraph six, please?
00:50:06 Okay. What sort of media coverage were RTS getting at the time? quite a lot. Most of these events that you've talked about were were front page news. Um
00:50:19 there was features on them as well. Quite a lot of press coverage. It was it was a quieter time. Yeah. Quieter time for the papers than it is now. And this was considered very
00:50:30 it is now. And this was considered very newsworthy. Why wasn't RTS engaging with the press? Uh well, you might want to ask them that.
00:50:40 that. Well, you were mixing with them. You're reporting there was a lack of willing spokespeople. Okay. I think the main organizers didn't want to be identified as the main organizers in the
00:50:52 identified as the main organizers in the national press. That's not in their interests. They're going to risk arrest and and consequence. You get other people like Mr. Roger Geffen here who who were less involved as organizers
00:51:04 who who were less involved as organizers but were very happy to speak to the press and raise their own profile, but the main organizers tended not to want to draw attention on themselves.
00:51:16 to draw attention on themselves. And I appreciate this may seem like a silly question, but I would like you to spell it out. Why?
00:51:24 Why? Why would they not want to draw attention to themselves? because they don't want to be arrested and prosecuted for
00:51:30 for for organizing widescale disorder or for digging up the M41. I mean
00:51:40 Roger Geffen,
00:51:45 what did he talk to you about why he was using a pseudonym? I don't think I knew Roger Geffin very well at all. I knew um Paul much better,
00:51:56 well at all. I knew um Paul much better, but I I think Roger Geffin was more involved as a sort of cycling um activist and I I I didn't consider that he was and no disrespect but I didn't
00:52:07 he was and no disrespect but I didn't consider he was a significant organizer within reclaim the streets. So I I I don't remember having much contact with Was he a man who needed to fear arrest? No, that was why he was quite happy to
00:52:20 No, that was why he was quite happy to speak to the press because he wasn't apart from he was on the organizing group for the M41. I think that was the only one.
00:52:26 only one. So, if he's not at risk of arrest, why is he using a pseudonym? Well, that's a question for him, surely. Well, you're mixing with the group. What was your understanding of why he was
00:52:37 was your understanding of why he was doing this? I have no idea why he felt it was necessary to use a pseudonym. Perhaps he feared arrest. Could we take that down now please? I want to move to
00:52:49 that down now please? I want to move to events on the 5th of August 1996 which
00:52:54 which Forgive me for interrupting but before you do I do have a question arising out of the M41 incident and perhaps now is the time to ask it. Um, in the report that you put in before uh the uh M41 uh
00:53:08 that you put in before uh the uh M41 uh event on the 13th of July, you said uh that um the only the organizers knew where the actual venue was. Yes.
00:53:17 Yes. You then said that um an individual sat you down and with an A to Z showed you exactly where it was. Yes. So that you knew where to drive. Yes.
00:53:28 So that you knew where to drive. Yes. the lorry that you' hired. When was that? Um about two days beforehand. So that individual was Paul Mozo who's on the report here.
00:53:39 report here. Um so you've had an organizing group. I think it was about eight people for this.
00:53:44 this. The public documents told them to meet at Liverpool Street and then they would move to the venue. But obviously close to the the date you would need to tell other people what venue was and that would need to include the drivers.
00:53:55 would need to include the drivers. That was about two days beforehand. And you were shown precisely where it was on an Az.
00:54:00 an Az. Yeah. And then I briefed special points with where it was. Thank you. That's
00:54:08 geographically. We're going to Seron and also to the Pinkerton's office. Uh if you could have up please C68246520.
00:54:21 uh dated the 5th of August and sorry it's dated the 2nd of August about a forthcoming event on the 5th. Uh if we
00:54:32 forthcoming event on the 5th. Uh if we could have uh the text expanded.
00:54:38 I'll give you a moment to read that.
00:54:54 Okay. Uh can you help us first of all with how did you get this intelligence? Um I I was involved with it. Could
00:55:07 Um I I was involved with it. Could you describe the level of your involvement? Um,
00:55:14 I don't think I was involved in organizing it. I think I was just asked to come along.
00:55:22 But enough to 3 days beforehand report all of this. Yeah.
00:55:27 Yeah. Why do you comment definitely a B team effort? because within um reclaim the streets the the original founding group Paul Morazzo's group were considered to
00:55:38 Paul Morazzo's group were considered to be
00:55:40 be the main organizing team and then those of us that were coming through sort of behind them um gradually came to the four and took more and more precedence. So it didn't involve any of those
00:55:52 So it didn't involve any of those well-known activists who had organized the M41. It was well it was people like me who were coming through the group later
00:55:59 later and Monica and Monica. Yeah. Yeah.
00:56:04 Do you know whether any of this intelligence was shared with uh either the coach company or the security company before the fifth?
00:56:16 company before the fifth? Um no, but I doubt it. And why do you doubt it? Um
00:56:23 Um because it's a very small action, which means that if it's compromised, the chances of people working out the source of the intelligence is very high. And it's not worth taking that risk for such a low-key action as this.
00:56:34 a low-key action as this. Did this action actually go ahead? Uh
00:56:40 I I think it did. Yeah. Did you participate in it? No, I don't think I did. [snorts] But I was down. No, I don't think I was. No, I don't
00:56:53 No, I don't think I was. No, I don't remember ever doing an action at Serbon.
00:56:59 I I might be wrong about that. Um because we did a lot of actions then. I might have I don't I don't remember ever doing one at Servton, but I
00:57:09 at that stage uh how long had you known Monica?
00:57:14 Monica? Um
00:57:23 maybe I mean I'm guessing between maybe 6 months
00:57:28 6 months that that could be wrong as well. And you knew her as an RTS activist. Yes.
00:57:37 The bottom of this report uh refers to a focus on Pinkerton security. Yeah.
00:57:46 Yeah. What was the basis for reporting that?
00:57:52 Well, it's obviously a security interest. If they're they're planning an action against a particular target, I would put that in.
00:58:00 Did you attend a planning meeting for an action
00:58:05 action uh against Pinkerton security?
00:58:10 I'm not sure because there was another series of actions against Pinkerton's later where I definitely was on the at the meeting, but I think this is a different one. So, um I I don't remember
00:58:21 different one. So, um I I don't remember attending it. If other people say I was there, they're probably right and I'm I probably just don't remember it. Monica recalls you being there and
00:58:32 recalls you being there and becoming angry that there wasn't a plan and then leaving. Might that be right? Um, no. That doesn't sound very likely, but I I since I don't call being there. Um, so was this Sorry, am I allowed to
00:58:45 Um, so was this Sorry, am I allowed to ask? Was this in serv the servitan action?
00:58:47 action? This is against the the Pinkerton's office in southwest London. And so it may have been that I was looking for an excuse to leave because I think I lived in that area in my own life at the time. So I wouldn't have wanted to be hanging
00:58:59 So I wouldn't have wanted to be hanging around an area where I might be seen by people who knew me. So I might have been looking for a reason to um withdraw from any involvement in the action. That does sound vaguely familiar actually. I think
00:59:10 sound vaguely familiar actually. I think I I wouldn't want to be involved in an action very close to my real home address.
00:59:14 address. Could
00:59:16 Could we take that document down and have up tab C71246565?
00:59:27 Uh this is a nominal performer dated the 16th of August 1996 about Monica. And if we expand the text,
00:59:38 about Monica. And if we expand the text, please,
00:59:44 I'll give you a moment to read that.
00:59:52 Okay. Is it right that you were not present when Monica was arrested on the 5th of August at Pinkerton security office?
01:00:03 August at Pinkerton security office? Yes.
01:00:05 Yes. Did you report to your managers on preparations for that action? I don't know.
01:00:14 Do you know whether or not SDS intelligence was used uh to forewarn Pinkertons? Um I don't know.
01:00:28 Um I don't know. The dissemination of intelligence after I've passed it across isn't isn't something I'm going to be overly familiar with. I'm afraid that's the duty of the handler and the controller.
01:00:40 Had you been to Monica's flat? Um I I don't know when I first This is the This is the squat in um in Hackne. It's a squat near London Fields.
01:00:53 It's a squat near London Fields. I certainly went there, but at what point I went there, I I couldn't say. This reads, "Monica is now residing at the above address, which is that case obviously had been there." Yeah. even more squalid than the usual squat near London [clears throat]
01:01:04 squat near London [clears throat] Fields. I beg you pardon. So this is a different squat to London. I I certainly went to Monica's squat. At what point I first went there, I don't know, but it looks like I've obviously just been there because I've
01:01:15 obviously just been there because I've commented on it. What did you mean by squalid? Uh it was a the squat that I went to was a particularly in particularly bad shape. Um
01:01:26 shape. Um the toilet had been smashed by the landlord so that people wouldn't be able to squat it. I think there was no running water. Um, the floorboards were up in some places. Some of the windows I think weren't there.
01:01:39 weren't there. Were those squatting the address making efforts to do their best to keep it habitable
01:01:49 habitable um to the extent that people can do when a place is in very poor condition when they when they squat it. Yeah. I mean, in my experience, squatters generally try to look after where they're living because they're because
01:02:00 they're living because they're because they're living there, but um often in order to deter them, people would smash the bathroom and and make the premises as unpleasant as possible so it's not really habitable.
01:02:16 Was this intended as a slight uh to those who were living there? Well, no.
01:02:25 It's probably more of a comment on the nature of the squat. Johnny, can we take that down now? I want to move now to your arrest on the 7th of August, 1996
01:02:37 August, 1996 within London Transport Headquarters. To what extent were you involved in preparations for that action?
01:02:48 preparations for that action? Um, there were several actions on the same day. I think it was a day of a a railway and railway and tube strike and there were several actions intended to
01:02:59 there were several actions intended to um ensure that the strike action was as effective as possible. So for instance, there was a cycle group that was having a separate demo aiming to slow down any
01:03:10 a separate demo aiming to slow down any traffic that was still moving. Um our action was intended to disrupt the headquarters of of London Underground. There were maybe dozen of us on it. So I think everybody
01:03:22 dozen of us on it. So I think everybody planned it together. And what was the act? What was the plan? Plan is going to be quite fluid. The
01:03:33 Plan is going to be quite fluid. The plan was to target the headquarters of um London Underground at St. James's Park. I think the original plan was to get in I think there was a control room there. The original plan was to get into
01:03:44 there. The original plan was to get into the control room to disrupt any um trains that were being run. The managers were still running some trains. So I think the intention was to get into the control room to disrupt that for any trains that were still running. But in
01:03:56 trains that were still running. But in the event we weren't able to do that, so we ran up the stairs pursued by the police and then ran along the 10th floor where we came across the chairman's office fortuitously. So we went in there instead.
01:04:08 instead. Did you report in advance on the plan to get into the building and cause disruption? I reported in advance on the plan as it was beforehand.
01:04:19 was beforehand. The plan wasn't that specific. So I I reported that that building was being targeted. Yeah. And how soon before the 7th of August were you able to report the plan? When it was decided, which was probably
01:04:30 When it was decided, which was probably only a couple of days.
01:04:34 Was there any prior cooperation between RTS and the police on this about this action?
01:04:40 action? No.
01:04:42 No. On the day itself, uh you've described that you went into the chairman's room with others and you were arrested there.
01:04:53 were arrested there. Yes.
01:04:54 Yes. And you were taken to a police station course
01:04:57 course with others. Yes.
01:05:00 Yes. Did you receive legal advice? No.
01:05:04 No. None at all in the police station. No, I did request it actually because when I was waiting on the bench to be booked in, um, one of the other defendants called to me that Mr. Schwarz was the
01:05:17 to me that Mr. Schwarz was the solicitor. So, we should ask to see Mr. Schwarz as the form was being filled in. So, I think I said what she said, put it on the form, but I I was never I was basically put in a cell, held there for
01:05:29 basically put in a cell, held there for I think eight or 10 hours, and then just released. And at no stage was I offered any legal counsel or invited out of the room. That was
01:05:40 room. That was Can we have up B43526753?
01:05:52 Um, can we have this is a minute sheet. Can we have I think that's the bit I want. In fact, the first the under two under the word number two uh Mr. Docker, Superintendent
01:06:06 number two uh Mr. Docker, Superintendent Docker's top comment, please. Sorry, the bit below the paragraph below.
01:06:14 below. Thank you. Uh this is from minute from Superintendent Eric Docker to Superintendent HN 337. if you wish to
01:06:26 Superintendent HN 337. if you wish to check your cipher. Um, [sighs] don't think it matters. Superintendent, I'll give you a moment to do that.
01:06:45 I think there's there's too many names on this side. I can't I can't see it.
01:06:53 No, I don't think it matters. Yeah, if it if you've changed your mind, just say so. Um,
01:07:00 Um, what Superintendent Docker appears to be doing is passing on a report about your arrest. Mhm.
01:07:10 Mhm. In terms say, you will to see this most illuminating report exclamation mark. Please return to me. Superintendent HN337
01:07:21 HN337 is saying, "Seen and enjoyed. Well done, Jim." Uh, did any of that sentiment [snorts]
01:07:33 Uh, did any of that sentiment [snorts] filter down to you? I I think I was shown this. Yeah. I think I was shown this. I've seen it before.
01:07:40 before. Yeah.
01:07:40 Yeah. Yeah.
01:07:41 Yeah. And did that sentiment filter down to you?
01:07:44 you? Well, if I if it was shown to me, I would have read it. Oh, sorry. You mean shown to you at the time? Yeah. Yeah, I think so. And so, um, your managers were pleased.
01:07:56 And so, um, your managers were pleased. Yeah.
01:08:00 Can we look now at B61246957?
01:08:10 And this is uh DCI Edmonson's report about your arrest dated the 10th of August 1996. If we could have paragraph 4 expanded
01:08:22 If we could have paragraph 4 expanded please give you a moment to look at that.
01:08:44 Okay. [snorts]
01:08:47 Will be of tremendous value in boosting his standing within the group. Was that sentiment conveyed to you? Um,
01:09:02 was I mean, was this not in the file with the minute that you just showed? Yeah. So, I think I read the file at the time. So,
01:09:07 time. So, right, including this. Yeah, I don't remember specifically, but it looks like it was probably the what the minute refers to this document, and I would have read it at the time. Yeah. So, did you understand that your
01:09:18 So, did you understand that your managers
01:09:20 managers positively uh thought that being arrested was of tremendous value? Yeah, I Yeah, I think arrests were um were often seen that way. if it was for
01:09:31 were often seen that way. if it was for there was no repercussion from it and it was from quite a minor thing. I think this might have been written before a charge was something different. So at the time of my arrest, I didn't anticipate being charged with anything
01:09:42 anticipate being charged with anything because I I was sort of unlucky to be arrested. Um but but public order arrests are sometimes unavoidable if you're with people who get arrested frequently for public order offenses.
01:09:53 public order offenses. In general terms, what was management's approach to being arrested? Um,
01:10:04 don't get arrested for anything that's going to result in a charge. Probably that's probably about it. I was aware that officers had had been arrested and charged previously and that
01:10:16 arrested and charged previously and that was much more complicated. [snorts]
01:10:18 [snorts] Can we take that down now, please? And can we have B46749
01:10:24 784?
01:10:29 Uh this is a letter to you dated the 23rd of September 1996 uh to you at Vicorage Road. Did you
01:10:40 uh to you at Vicorage Road. Did you receive this letter?
01:10:48 If I did, I would have given it to the office.
01:10:51 office. Don't think I did. I don't remember this.
01:10:54 this. We have recovered this document from police sources. Okay. In that case, I've given it to the office. So, yeah. Uh I'll give you a moment to read it,
01:11:05 Uh I'll give you a moment to read it, but it's um the arrangement in the third paragraph that I'm most interested in. Yeah.
01:11:14 Yeah. So, Bman's are arranging for everyone to come to their offices on Tuesday the 8th of October. Yes. Uh, does everyone mean all of those
01:11:27 Yes. Uh, does everyone mean all of those charged?
01:11:29 charged? Uh, I assume sir. Did you attend that meeting? No.
01:11:35 No. Can you help us with the circumstances in which you did not attend it? I just didn't attend it. Was that a conscious decision on your part?
01:11:42 part? Yes, I I I certainly discussed it with the office. So, if this was in police files, I've obviously given the office the letter I've received, which is this one, and asked for their guidance, and I think their guidance was don't attend
01:11:55 think their guidance was don't attend the meeting with the with the solicitor. So, I didn't. If we can take that down, can we have a B61246957?
01:12:07 [snorts] And could we have uh page three, please?
01:12:19 Thank you.
01:12:22 This is um a report again from DCI Edmonson. It's the 26th of September. And if we look first of all at paragraph
01:12:33 And if we look first of all at paragraph two, we will see what you were charged with. Yeah. If we then go to paragraphs four and five,
01:12:47 give you a moment to absorb that.
01:12:59 Yeah. Uh it appears that you're going to be jointly represented by Michael Schwarz um with your codefendants and you are
01:13:11 um with your codefendants and you are going to be funded by legal aid. Oh, so I was reading um
01:13:27 Yes. So, I think when um it wasn't when I was arrested, as I've already said, um I remember when we went to a there was a sort of prehering
01:13:39 was a sort of prehering where um Mike Schwarz spoke to me and offered to represent me and he said that he was representing all the other defendants. I think I think there were eight of whom six of us attended and two
01:13:52 eight of whom six of us attended and two two failed to appear. Um, Mike Schw said he was representing everybody else and he would represent me as well. And obviously there was I was aware there was a problem with that because in order
01:14:04 was a problem with that because in order to claim legal aid um they needed details of your dole claim and there were issues around dole claims for undercover officers.
01:14:15 claims for undercover officers. If I could stop you there. So yeah, the question I've got for you is it right that the issue from management's perspective
01:14:27 the issue from management's perspective doesn't appear to be your appearing with codefendants or being represented by Michael Schwarz with them. The issue is
01:14:38 Michael Schwarz with them. The issue is a security issue around funding for legal aid. Correct. Yeah. And there isn't any issue with you being legally aided itself. It's a yes no
01:14:50 legally aided itself. It's a yes no answer. It's another issue. It's a security issue.
01:14:56 Uh you go on to be um to appear at court on the 23rd of October 1996 is your first appearance. So you you must have
01:15:07 first appearance. So you you must have had some inkling about or some thought about representation before that first appearance. Can you can you recall how that arose?
01:15:18 that arose? The the my recollection of it that um Mike Schwartz offered to represent me because he [clears throat] was representing everybody else. And is that was that
01:15:28 was that you you've said earlier I don't know which it was it was outside the court at at Horsery Road but I think it must have been a preliminary hearing. It obviously wasn't the main hearing you
01:15:37 you that was where we had that conversation. I think that's the only conversation I've ever had with Mr. Schwarz. Actually you gave some evidence earlier about putting Mike Schwarz down on your paperwork at Charing Cross police station.
01:15:48 station. Yeah.
01:15:49 Yeah. Did you take it that from then onwards the plan would be that you would be jointly represented by him? I didn't expect to be represented by anybody because I didn't expect to be charged
01:15:59 charged if you were charged. We didn't discuss that because I didn't we didn't
01:16:03 we didn't when you were charged. Was there any ever any consideration of you being represented in any other way? No.
01:16:15 Could we take that down please? Could we have a B48749782?
01:16:24 Could we come off the YouTube stream for this, please?
01:21:28 did at the end of our the end of our hearing. So, as far as I was concerned, I was giving evidence as a defendant of one of six people for the public order charge.
01:21:39 order charge. John's plea of guilty to that that was something totally separate and Would I be right to understand that the court did not know who you really
01:21:50 the court did not know who you really were?
01:21:50 were? Correct.
01:21:52 Correct. Was there any discussion with management about you giving evidence in a false identity?
01:21:58 identity? Not that I remember. Any consideration uh of the impact of the court not knowing that you were in fact an undercover police officer? Would
01:22:10 Would it follow that during the course of that trial you would have received legal advice from Mr. Schwarz or someone else from his firm? No, I didn't receive any any legal aid
01:22:22 No, I didn't receive any any legal aid or a legal advice from presumably you would have had a brief and a solicitor. There was there was a short meeting beforehand with Mr. Schwarz and the barister
01:22:34 barister um in which they said something along the lines of we're going to do whatever we discussed at whatever meeting I wasn't present for um and then we went into court.
01:22:45 um and then we went into court. When you say there was Can I just stop you there in the meeting? Who was present in that meeting? It wasn't a meeting. It was just they said right everybody knows you know we're going to discuss as as discussed between
01:22:55 between that conver that conversation who was party to it the defendants so you were present with the other defendants being spoken to by your
01:23:06 defendants being spoken to by your council by your solicit you're going to go along a misleading line here this is not a tactical discussion I would say if it was it was just saying are we all ready to go as discussed there was no sort of
01:23:18 to go as discussed there was no sort of discussion of tactics if there was I would say so because that makes no difference to me. But as far as I was concerned, it was are we all ready to go with the barrista um with Mr. Schwarz and then we went
01:23:29 um with Mr. Schwarz and then we went into the courtroom. Um I wasn't even expecting to be called to give evidence at all. And I I'm not sure I I don't think I was aware I was giving evidence
01:23:40 think I was aware I was giving evidence till I was called to give evidence. Although I know when I said this to my solicitor here, he thought that was incredibly unlikely. But I I think I was sat in the dependence box and I got called and I hadn't been prepped or expected to be called at all. Um but if
01:23:53 expected to be called at all. Um but if I was it would have been just outside the court when they would have said right everybody's going to give evidence. I I don't think there was any sort of tactical discussion that I was party to. And I don't think you can make a discussion about are we ready to get
01:24:04 a discussion about are we ready to get started and say that's a tactical discussion. It isn't. It's just asking if everybody's ready. That was the only conversation I ever had with um with the barister. um or with Mr. Schwarz. There
01:24:16 barister. um or with Mr. Schwarz. There was no sort of tactical discussion of the case at all. I think I just avoided it.
01:24:20 it. Did anyone take instructions from you as to what your account was? No, but we all gave the same account, I think,
01:24:29 think, which was truthful.
01:24:34 And the result was we were all acquitted except then of course John's previous plea then got dealt with at the end. Yeah,
01:24:44 Yeah, understood. Can we have up B43526753
01:24:50 at page 7.
01:25:01 And if we could have uh first of all if you see this is a note from DCI Edmonson to detective superintendent docker at es squad. If we could have paragraph three
01:25:13 squad. If we could have paragraph three and four expanded please. This is his note after the hearing. It [snorts] says, "Whatever the intention, the magistrates were able at the start of the defense case to suggest to the
01:25:25 the defense case to suggest to the defense solicitor representing DC Boiling and his codefendants that he need proceed no further as the police had failed to make any viable case against them. In fact, the case was
01:25:36 against them. In fact, the case was dismissed and costs were awarded against police."
01:25:40 police." That is that note on the basis of the evidence you've just given inaccurate in that the case was not dismissed after the prosecution case you had as a
01:25:52 the prosecution case you had as a defendant to give evidence. I remember at the end of the first day um the magistrate who um a woman magistrate very clearly suggested that she thought there was no case to answer
01:26:04 she thought there was no case to answer um and a barristister who I'm guessing you don't want me to identify uh she said to him are you accepting there's a case to answer and he said yes we are and there was then a pause while
01:26:15 we are and there was then a pause while she sort of looked at him over the top of her glasses expecting him to to offer to have it dismissed um he said nothing so we all then came back the next day but I remember in the defendants's box we were looking at each other wondering.
01:26:27 we were looking at each other wondering. It was very clear that she thought there was no case to answer and the whole thing was going to be thrown out and we came back the next day we the defendant sort of cynically thought it might be to advance the legal aid payment because we
01:26:39 advance the legal aid payment because we came back and it was sort of then binned as soon as the there was the first opportunity for the magistrate to bin it. She she binned it. Thank you for the explanation. But the bottom line is this report is inaccurate
01:26:51 bottom line is this report is inaccurate because um you did have to proceed further and give evidence. I I did give evidence. Yeah. Yeah. Can we have paragraph four please?
01:27:09 looking at that, saying that it could not have come to a better conclusion and that you were to be praised with the
01:27:21 and that you were to be praised with the way in which you dealt with each of the court appearances suggests that DCI Edmonson had no qualms whatsoever about one of his undercover police
01:27:34 about one of his undercover police officer.
01:27:35 officer. giving evidence in a false identity in a trial with codefendants. Is that fair? Is it fair that he had no problem? Is it Is it accurate that he had no
01:27:48 Is it Is it accurate that he had no problem?
01:27:48 problem? Yeah.
01:27:51 Yeah. [snorts]
01:27:51 [snorts] Did he convey these views to you? Um I don't remember him doing so, but he might well have done. Did you did you understand that it was
01:28:03 Did you did you understand that it was thought that you'd done a great job? Um, I was aware that it wasn't any sort of problem. Um, and it was just seen in in the context of um,
01:28:17 in the context of um, uh, advancing your credibility. If I could take that down now, please. Could we have B43526753?
01:28:28 Could
01:28:38 we have page four please? This is another minute and it's the minute from Docker to Pierce. The bottom
01:28:49 minute from Docker to Pierce. The bottom the bottom one. Thank you. So at the bottom of that 27th of January 97 uh superintendent Docker to Detective Superintendent Pierce
01:29:01 Superintendent Pierce please see to see 7A please which reports a most satisfactory conclusion to this drawn out affair and once again highlights the professionalism and dedication of our SDS officers. I will
01:29:14 dedication of our SDS officers. I will speak to DC Boiling personally on my next visit to the unit. Did he? No, I don't think so.
01:29:26 Did you understand at the time that uh it wasn't just your immediate managers within the SDS, but also the higher chain of command uh who uh thought uh
01:29:38 chain of command uh who uh thought uh that you had done a very good job. uh only to the extent that I've seen the minute that you showed me previously.
01:29:48 Did anyone during your time in the SDS ever raise a question as to whether the court should be told that an undercover police officer was giving evidence?
01:30:00 police officer was giving evidence? Um wasn't raised to me. Um but that would be higher up the food chain to where I was. There were quite a few arrests whilst I was on the section. It wasn't unusual.
01:30:14 Yes. No answer to this. Are you aware of any case in which one of your colleagues whilst you were serving gave evidence to a court and the court was informed?
01:30:26 a court and the court was informed? No.
01:30:28 No. [snorts]
01:30:28 [snorts] If we could take that down now please. Uh I want to move to an action which took place in Brighton on the 24th of August 1996.
01:30:42 August 1996. If we could have up please from C76 246589.
01:30:54 Uh this is 24th of August 1996. Street party in Brighton. 800 people some disorder mood antagonistic.
01:31:07 some disorder mood antagonistic. Yeah.
01:31:07 Yeah. And this is written up on the 3rd of September. It's an expos facto report. Could we look at paragraph one, please?
01:31:29 Yeah, [snorts] this event is mentioned in one of your previous reports and then you reported in detail on the plans on the 24th of
01:31:40 in detail on the plans on the 24th of August. Can you help us with the extent to which you were involved in the planning of this event? I wasn't involved in planning it. Bright Nurser first was an independent group
01:31:51 Nurser first was an independent group from us, but I was one of the small group from Reclaim the Streets who went down a couple of days early to um help them get it together.
01:32:02 them get it together. And is that how you gleaned the information you were able to report? Uh probably. Yeah. I mean, unless I reported it earlier, it depend on the date. If the report with the detail is a
01:32:13 date. If the report with the detail is a couple of days beforehand then yes it would be
01:32:18 it was dated the date of the Yeah. Yeah. So yeah. So it's from I probably phoned it through somehow from Brighton whilst I was there. Are you able to help us with whether or
01:32:30 Are you able to help us with whether or not the local activists leazed with police in advance? No they didn't. You know that. I mean I would be astonished if they did.
01:32:40 did. Could we look at um paragraph two, please?
01:32:50 Chaos and mayhem in Brighton demonstrates the fact that disorder and disruption are the most likely result of police preventing RTS and allied activists from achieving their desired objective. A static party causes fewer
01:33:03 objective. A static party causes fewer problems than a rolling confrontation does and it is easier to contain. Mhm. Would it be fair to describe this as you as someone who by this stage has some
01:33:14 as someone who by this stage has some experience of RTS and its ways and that of related activists giving advice to police about how to police these events
01:33:25 police about how to police these events more effectively? Yes.
01:33:27 Yes. Can you help us with your recollections of the day so that we can understand the level of chaos and mayhem?
01:33:39 the level of chaos and mayhem? Um, goodness me. Okay. Um, again going 30 years ago, but I remember that the the relations between the local group and the police weren't good. Local
01:33:50 group and the police weren't good. Local police were quite hostile. tried to kettle the crowd in uh confiscated their equipment. The crowd managed to pour out down a couple of the side streets
01:34:01 down a couple of the side streets and then for the rest of the day it was a running sort of battle through the side streets being chased by police right the way through till uh darkness and I think there were actually over 90
01:34:13 and I think there were actually over 90 arrests. It was a it was a Yeah. When you say a running battle Yeah.
01:34:19 Yeah. from what you actually saw yourself. Yeah.
01:34:23 Yeah. Can you give us a flavor of what that means?
01:34:26 means? Um damage to vehicles. Um missiles being thrown at police, police charging into the into the crowd sometimes trying to pull people out.
01:34:41 Was this disorder perpetrated at least in part by people who were closely associated with RTS?
01:34:53 Um
01:34:57 I I don't know because most of the people who were causing it wouldn't have been known to me. It was in Brighton that there were some reclaim the streets people involved in the disorder and most of us just running through the streets
01:35:09 of us just running through the streets as part of the part of the whole thing. If you're asking did reclaim streets organizers throw missiles and such not many. No, very rarely. That helps you.
01:35:26 Can we move now to page two, paragraph one,
01:35:33 one, [snorts]
01:35:38 some more description there of what happened.
01:35:41 happened. Included uh in that was the phrase there was remarkably little damage caused to property.
01:35:49 property. Can you help us with how much damage was caused to property? Not really. I know there I remember there was damage to um a McDonald's or one of those sort of chains as the crowd went past. I remember that vehicles
01:36:01 went past. I remember that vehicles quite a few vehicles got damaged, but considering it was um it went on all day and there were that many arrests, that's not much damage. You would have expected a lot more.
01:36:19 Could we take that down now, please? And could we have C83246648?
01:36:25 Going to move now to the Earth First Southeast Regional Gathering between the 20th and the 22nd of September 1996 held in a barn near Seafford, East
01:36:38 held in a barn near Seafford, East Sussex.
01:36:40 Sussex. Uh if we look at the bottom half of that first page, please
01:36:50 I'll give you a moment to refresh your memory, but I am interested in the reference to the Aussie Mandia's sabotage skill manual.
01:37:04 Okay.
01:37:18 Yeah. You have reported and someone has written up on the subject of incitement. A publication entitled the Oussie Mandia sabotage skill manual was circulated to
01:37:30 sabotage skill manual was circulated to some acclaim. Yeah. Can you help us with to whom this was circulated um amongst the earth first people at the gathering
01:37:41 gathering and at what form did the acclaim take? That it was very professionally produced um
01:37:50 um very well laid out, very clear.
01:37:57 Did you see the document on that occasion? Um, I mean I would have seen it but I I did have possession of it subsequently. I think that was immediately afterwards
01:38:09 think that was immediately afterwards though.
01:38:10 though. Okay. Well, we can take this down and we can go to C94246841
01:38:17 which is a report dated the 22nd of November 1996. So a couple of months Yeah.
01:38:24 Yeah. later when you submit a copy. Mhm. Did you do I take it from your last answer that you obtained the copy not in
01:38:36 answer that you obtained the copy not in September but at some later date? Yes. I think I saw it at the um at the gathering
01:38:42 gathering um but I didn't have possession of a copy of it until whatever date this is. No names for the moment. How did you obtain that copy? Uh I was given it by another activist.
01:38:55 Uh I was given it by another activist. Would you be able to write down the name of the activist who gave it to you?
01:39:14 Thank you.
01:39:38 What form did this document take? By by which I mean was it a fully bound book or was it presented in some other format?
01:39:47 format? Um, so not dissimilar to this pile of papers, but with a more professional binding, but it looked like somebody had printed it out on a professional printer page by page and then bound it at home.
01:39:58 page by page and then bound it at home. Do you know who wrote it? Uh, I could take a guess and I think I did put in a report guessing, but I don't know for sure who that who wrote it.
01:40:06 it. I I did speculate as to who was the the principal writer, but I and I I'm not certain that would be correct. Well, with that caveat, could you write
01:40:17 Well, with that caveat, could you write down the names of the people that you understood had produced this document? Okay. [clears throat]
01:40:25 Oh, this could be wrong. Understood.
01:40:41 Thank you.
01:41:10 Thank you. Did you read it? Um, yeah. I went through it to see what the content was. Uh, we've got a gist for obvious reasons. We don't want to publish the
01:41:21 reasons. We don't want to publish the contents. The gist which has been agreed is manual containing interalia information likely to be of use in
01:41:32 information likely to be of use in conducting economic sabotage including information likely to be of use in making an ID. Is that [snorts] a fair summary of the contents?
01:41:43 contents? Yes.
01:41:45 Yes. Do you know who was compiling the third volume?
01:41:50 volume? No, it's the same as my previous answer. I I wasn't certain where it had come from. I I was sort of guessing through some circumstantial evidence and that's what I would have said to the office. I know who had copies, but I wasn't
01:42:02 know who had copies, but I wasn't certain who was producing it. I I just had a likely name. The handbook circulation is extremely limited with copies being sent anonymously to only a small group of activists. Yeah.
01:42:13 Yeah. Do I take it from that last answer that you did not know who was circulating it? Yeah.
01:42:26 To your knowledge, was this handbook used by the activists that you were mingling with? Um,
01:42:39 I don't know. Most of the uh the volume would have been intended, most of it was about how to um sabotage vehicles on things like road camps, which wasn't really what we were doing. So it would probably been used
01:42:51 doing. So it would probably been used more in that context. I wasn't aware of um
01:42:55 um No, I wasn't aware of anybody directly connected to me using it directly.
01:43:01 So can I take it from that answer that you were never aware of anyone manufacturing an improvised incendary device?
01:43:08 device? Correct.
01:43:10 Correct. Or using knowledge from the manual to sabotage machinery.
01:43:23 It says in paragraph three that it was intended to eventually circulate the book via the internet. To your knowledge, was it ever so circulated by those you were mixing
01:43:36 circulated by those you were mixing with?
01:43:39 with? I don't know who circulated it, but I saw a copy of it on the internet. I don't know who posted it there. Can [snorts] we take that down, please? Can we move now to Reclaim the Future,
01:43:53 Can we move now to Reclaim the Future, an event in Liverpool over the 28th to the 30th of September, 1996. We have got a mention of it coming up and then three
01:44:07 a mention of it coming up and then three reports in which you uh first of all submit a draft leaflet but then provide some intelligence on preparations and accommodation plans. Can you help us
01:44:20 accommodation plans. Can you help us with the degree of access that you had to the planning of this event? Um initially very low. Um but then once I was actually in Liverpool for the event, I got briefed
01:44:33 Liverpool for the event, I got briefed on the whole thing very late. Um including
01:44:39 including the key part of it, which was an attempt to close down the railway access into the docks using scaffolding scaffolding tripods and I was made aware of where the scaffolding was stashed, which was
01:44:50 the scaffolding was stashed, which was the key part of it. Do you know what was done with that intelligence? Uh, I passed it on to Bob Lambert. Um, and in consequence, the local police intercepted the vehicle and
01:45:02 local police intercepted the vehicle and confiscated all the scaffolding at about 5:00 a.m. on the day of the action. Can we have up C79246610?
01:45:28 [clears throat]
01:45:30 Can we look in particular at the last two paragraphs? This is a report of the 12th of September. Um, so couple of weeks beforehand.
01:45:42 Give you a moment to look at that.
01:45:54 Okay. So, here you're reporting on details to of a plan to occupy um cranes. Yeah.
01:46:03 Yeah. And so forth. Were you uh involved in the procurement of any of the equipment that was going to be used on this action?
01:46:12 action? Not that I remember, but I might have been.
01:46:16 been. So for example, did you obtain a scanner or play any role in obtaining a scanner? No, I didn't obtain a scanner. Did you play any role in cutting
01:46:28 Did you play any role in cutting equipment to get through fences or railings?
01:46:30 railings? Not on this occasion.
01:46:36 If [snorts] we look now, if we take that down C84246679,
01:46:41 please.
01:46:46 This is um a report dated the 4th of October. So, expose facto uh report. Were you present
01:46:57 Were you present in Liverpool over that weekend? Yes, I was. Did you provide any live intelligence? Um,
01:47:07 Um, the intelligence that I provided was the evening immediately before. I'm not sure if you consider that to be live. So, I I provided a phone call to Bob Lambert
01:47:18 Bob Lambert to tell him the intention is to block the railway coming into the docks. So, it will close the docks down using scaffolding which is hidden behind the Union Building in a lorry and is going
01:47:30 Union Building in a lorry and is going to be moved at about 4:00 a.m. I think that was the the general gist of it. [snorts]
01:47:36 [snorts] Did you report at all on the 28th, 29th, or 30th?
01:47:43 or 30th? Um,
01:47:45 Um, are they the days beforehand? No, that's the weekend of the action. I've just said it was So, that would be the weekend when I phoned Bob Lambert, I think. Right. So on the Sunday before the action on the Monday
01:47:57 the action on the Monday I I think so it it was pretty tight. We were it was we're already there. It might have been the day before that but it was okay. Can we have a look at the last paragraph on the at the bottom of page
01:48:09 paragraph on the at the bottom of page one please?
01:48:13 That is refers to the tripod being in that's what I was talking about. That's what you were talking about. Also talks about fences being cut. Yes. some holes being pre-cut in the
01:48:24 Yes. some holes being pre-cut in the fencing.
01:48:25 fencing. Yeah.
01:48:26 Yeah. Were you involved in cutting the fencing at all?
01:48:29 at all? Yeah, I think I was. Yeah. And uh
01:48:33 And uh I'm not sure if I was involved in pre-cutting them, but I certainly went through the fencing into the site. Um so probably involved in cutting it. Yeah. If we go over the page to the
01:48:46 If we go over the page to the penultimate paragraph,
01:48:51 there's reference there to cutting steel bars under the cover of some drumming. I'll give you a moment to to read it.
01:49:03 Okay. Did you witness that? I think so. Did you participate in it? No.
01:49:13 Was the fence cutting and the cutting of the steel bars the limit of the criminality on this occasion or did you witness any other criminality?
01:49:25 Um I think there were isolated incidents of of damage. I'm struggling to think of of exactly what it was. Yeah. I mean there would be
01:49:38 what it was. Yeah. I mean there would be isolated incidents of of damage. There was also
01:49:44 was also I think somebody else has written this after I gave it in because there was some very aggressive um behavior by the local police towards the dockers and the and the activists.
01:49:55 and the activists. Um
01:49:59 yeah there were various clashes. Yeah both ways. When you say various clashes both ways, can you describe to us the level help calibrate the level of disord I remember
01:50:11 calibrate the level of disord I remember uh when we walked back Yeah. when we walked back to the squat at the end of the action um there were some some clashes between some of the people that were with us and
01:50:22 some of the people that were with us and some of the Liverpool police. And then there was some very provocative behavior
01:50:30 behavior by the the Liverpool police towards some of the activists. Um,
01:50:37 Um, which provoked some further clashes and a bit of anger. And then I remember when we came to the squat, the police had set up a sort of a like a a gauntlet to get into the squat.
01:50:50 like a a gauntlet to get into the squat. It was very much an attempt to intimidate the London contingent so they wouldn't come back.
01:50:57 I did report that. So I think that might have been slightly edited in this.
01:51:06 Was Monica's role on this action to stay in the customs house and make food? Um I I don't remember what Monica was doing on this action, I'm afraid.
01:51:17 doing on this action, I'm afraid. Can we take this down, please? C86246720.
01:51:27 This is a report dated the 18th of October
01:51:32 October 196
01:51:35 196 and it's the uh paragraph 2 including the source comment.
01:51:44 Give you a moment to read that.
01:51:50 Yeah, it's a source comment that I'm interested in. Okay.
01:51:55 Okay. And the Russian Revolution.
01:52:00 How did you ascertain or what who told you that the name reclaim the streets was connected to a Russian revolutionary
01:52:11 was connected to a Russian revolutionary adage?
01:52:12 adage? I think the adage was if you want to seize power, you must first reclaim the streets.
01:52:17 streets. uh and that's attributed to I can't remember who it was it's from from that period and that movement but the full the full quote from which the
01:52:28 the full the full quote from which the name was taken because the name is often taken at the time by the press to mean something against cars and vehicles but the full quote was if you want to seize power you must first reclaim the streets
01:52:39 power you must first reclaim the streets and can you help us with the your basis for reporting that it was the Russian revolutionary connection that was the root of the name
01:52:53 connection that was the root of the name as opposed to an environmental aspiration. Yeah. Because it was pointed out to me by somebody within the group that it's a frequent misreading of the name by regional groups that they they attribute a different meaning to the name, but the
01:53:04 a different meaning to the name, but the name comes from that revolutionary adage.
01:53:06 adage. Was the person who told you a core organizer? Yes.
01:53:11 Yes. I I think I think so if I remember correctly
01:53:13 correctly unless you've seen their name unredacted in the documents already. Could you write it down if you I'm not I'm not sure I'm going to get that right. So I'd rather not because it could be could be wrong but that I
01:53:24 could be could be wrong but that I someone from the core group I think his name has already been used. I think it might have been Paul but if Paul doesn't remember it and he's saying that's wrong then I will I will bow to his um recollection. And was it only one person who ever said
01:53:35 And was it only one person who ever said that to you? No, I think I saw it written down on one of the flyers that the full quote if you want to seize power you must first reclaim the streets written on reclaim the streets flyers but as the movements nobody has a
01:53:46 but as the movements nobody has a copyright on the name of these movements. So as they evolve other people tend to put separate meanings on the name and interpret the name in different ways but the original group that was where I was told the name had
01:53:57 that was where I was told the name had originally come from. How much talk was there within RTS of changing the system of government? endless.
01:54:07 endless. How much revolutionary potency did RTS have?
01:54:11 have? Um, well, they sought the the end of a global capitalist system and replacing it with a a consensus
01:54:22 and replacing it with a a consensus driven anarchist model. Well, that's an answer that goes to their revolutionary aspirations. Yeah. What my question is directed at is what level of potency did they have
01:54:35 level of potency did they have to secure those aspirations? Well, they were probably the number one public order priority for special branch at the time. So that's that's pretty high rating.
01:54:49 Was RTS regarded as subversive by the SDS?
01:54:56 Um I don't think that that's the way in which SDS looked upon it. SDS looked upon them as a a huge public order u organization for which we had a very
01:55:08 organization for which we had a very direct tasking in order to provide intelligence briefings on their events for them to be placed effectively. I don't think SDS cared whether or not they were subversive or trying to overthrow the state merely whether they
01:55:20 overthrow the state merely whether they were a public order risk. Are you able to help us with whether special branch regarded RTS as subversive or purely a public order threat? I would probably give give the same sort
01:55:31 I would probably give give the same sort of answer. Special branch isn't special branch wasn't particularly concerned about uh
01:55:38 about uh revolutionary politics. It was more concerned with customer-driven intelligence. On the question of customers, are you able to help us with with whether the security service was a customer for intelligence about RTS?
01:55:51 intelligence about RTS? Um I don't think so. I mean a lot of intelligence got passed to them anyway but this wasn't um public order wasn't their area at that time. So although
01:56:02 their area at that time. So although they did have a desk which dealt with it um we didn't view them as a customer I don't think unless yeah but we didn't view them as a customer particularly. Does to take that answer as a no or a
01:56:16 Does to take that answer as a no or a don't know? Um
01:56:20 Um I I would put that as a as a don't know but probably no. Okay. Uh so would now be a convenient time to take the afternoon break. Certainly. 10 minutes or 15 of
01:56:33 10 minutes or 15 of 10. Right. 10 minutes.
02:15:40 Halloween 1996, please Mr. Boiling and Cowi Road, Oxford.
02:15:49 Oxford. There was a an RTS event there. I'll call up the document to refresh your memory. C91246780,
02:15:59 please. And if we could have um over the page,
02:16:08 sorry, 246780.
02:16:26 This is an expos facto report 6th of November 1996. And if we could have the first three um paragraphs in particular, please. The
02:16:39 um paragraphs in particular, please. The last street party of the season took place in Oxford Town Center on Thursday evening when Cowi Road [clears throat] was blocked to traffic by the Desert Storm sound system and about 600
02:16:50 Storm sound system and about 600 people. Did you provide any advanced intelligence for this event? I I don't I don't remember whether I knew about it in detail beforehand. I would have I would have provided
02:17:01 would have I would have provided intelligence that it was happening, but I I don't think I I knew the plan beforehand. Do you know whether or not there was any advanced cooperation this time between
02:17:14 advanced cooperation this time between RTS and the local police? I don't know. Were you there? Yes. Were you there for the whole event?
02:17:27 Were you there for the whole event? Um
02:17:31 I I mean I was there for a while. I'm not sure what you consider the end of the event and I'm not sure at what point I left.
02:17:39 I left. Um
02:17:42 Um yeah, I I I don't remember how long I was there for, but I was definitely there.
02:17:47 there. If we look at the second paragraph,
02:17:53 this describes essentially a less afair approach to policing which you are describing as effectively pulling the teeth of the event which
02:18:06 pulling the teeth of the event which requires a degree of police opposition to work effectively as an action. Yes.
02:18:11 Yes. Unopposed. It literally is just a street party devoid of the necessary element of political significance. Yes.
02:18:20 Yes. [snorts and sighs] Can you help us with whether the police tactics on that occasion were affected in any way by SDS intelligence?
02:18:31 in any way by SDS intelligence? I I don't know. Or corporate learning. I I don't know. And if we go now to paragraph three,
02:18:44 the London group has now recovered the computer equipment seized in the raid on their Oakfield Road officers following the M41 action. The new computer password is gamble gold.
02:18:55 password is gamble gold. Um, were you expected to report computer passwords? Um,
02:19:04 I don't know. Um, computers were quite new 30 years ago. I I don't recall any specific briefing that was specific to computer equipment.
02:19:15 computer equipment. Do you know what was done with the password?
02:19:18 password? Um, what was done with it? How do you mean what it was used for? Uh, getting into the computer. [snorts]
02:19:27 [snorts] Were you given any guidance or training on the circumstances in which you might uh
02:19:34 uh report somebody's password for the purposes of gaining access to No, this was this was still the infancy of uh of computers. When I left Special Bunch, they still had a typing pool. They didn't use many
02:19:46 had a typing pool. They didn't use many computers. It it was a long time ago. Any mention of the Computer Misuse Act 1990?
02:19:52 1990? No.
02:19:53 No. Were you aware of that act at the time? No. Could
02:19:57 No. Could we take that down please to move now to the Dartford crossing and the 10th of December 1996 action.
02:20:08 action. Could we start please with tab C92 37
02:20:14 37 sorry 737228.
02:20:33 [sighs] Uh, can we have the This is from Detective Inspector Lambert. Yeah.
02:20:40 Yeah. Dated the 11th of December. If we could have the text um expanded, please. As you know, the attach report together with subsequent briefings formed the
02:20:51 with subsequent briefings formed the basis of an operation coordinated by CE squad and ari which successfully uh disrupted an a plan by RTS to intercept and
02:21:03 an a plan by RTS to intercept and immobilize a BP oil tanker on the M25. Yes.
02:21:07 Yes. Yesterday. Yeah.
02:21:09 Yeah. Can you help us? First of all, why was Arie
02:21:15 Arie involved in an action by nonan animal rights activists? I didn't know they were. You'd have to ask Bob Lur. Could we have page two, please?
02:21:30 [snorts]
02:21:34 This if we go over the page just to see the the end of it.
02:21:41 Thank you. [snorts] So this is before the action 6th of December 1996 from DCI signed off by DCI Edmonson an event proformer. If we look at the first
02:21:52 proformer. If we look at the first paragraph please
02:22:00 how did you get that intelligence? I was brought on to the action by the organizers and asked to be one of the drivers.
02:22:09 drivers. Can you recall how close to the day you were brought in as a driver? Um,
02:22:18 Um, not really. Quite late, I think. So, this is on the 6th, 4 days before the action. Are you likely to have reported it straight away? Yeah.
02:22:28 Yeah. How closely were you involved in the organization from that point onwards of this event? Yes.
02:22:36 Yes. Um only as a driver. And did that involve someone explaining to you the plan? Yes.
02:22:43 Yes. Did you um propose any amendments to it? To the plan? Yes.
02:22:48 Yes. Um, I I may have done I I was worried about
02:22:54 about the high danger element in the plan as they had it and I might well have suggested changes to it. Can you explain
02:23:05 Can you explain what dangers you perceived well what first of all what the original plan was and what dangers you perceived in it? I I think the plan was um
02:23:16 I think the plan was um to block the M25 ahead of a tanker with four vehicles driving a breast across the four lanes of the M25 as they were at that point at that time. The vehicles were then to
02:23:29 that time. The vehicles were then to drive a breast and to slow down gradually bringing the whole of the traffic behind them on the M25 to a halt and blockading the M25. and then people from the vehicles would then get out and
02:23:41 from the vehicles would then get out and lock on to the BP tanker to ensure that that didn't move either. The danger of that is that if you're in the fast lane of the M25 and you slow down to a halt, you're very likely to get hit from
02:23:52 you're very likely to get hit from behind
02:23:56 and you're very likely to cause a pileup.
02:23:58 pileup. Was there a plan? I assume there must have been for the lock on to get out of the vehicles and walk on the motorway to the tanker lock. So the intention was we would slow down. We would stop all the all the traffic and we would slow down
02:24:11 all the traffic and we would slow down just just ahead of the the tanker and that then activists from the vehicles would lock onto the tanker to ensure that the tanker stayed even if we got moved on.
02:24:21 moved on. And was there any plan at that stage as to how the protest would end? Not that I remember. There probably was, but I don't remember what it was.
02:24:32 but I don't remember what it was. And presumably it would be when someone came along and soared off the locks. Presumably I I there might have been a specific I I
02:24:44 I I there might have been a specific I I don't remember a plan for the end because our focus was they're just not not allowed to go ahead at all. How many people knew of the plan? Um
02:24:55 How many people knew of the plan? Um well I think about 20 20 to 30 maybe maybe 20 20 to 30. Do you know what was done with the intelligence when you reported it?
02:25:06 intelligence when you reported it? Yes it was passed on to um uh
02:25:12 uh passed on to the local police and when we arrived to carry out the action we were intercepted by [snorts]
02:25:20 [snorts] um a lot of local police.
02:25:26 Can we have paragraph two, please?
02:25:38 Okay. C can you help us with the basis for reporting that Mr. Geffen was a principal organizer for the RTS?
02:25:49 for the RTS? Um, no. I don't remember him being involved in organizing this action. Um I don't know if that's correct or not. If it is correct, then I just don't remember him being involved in organizing it because the organizer who
02:26:00 organizing it because the organizer who briefed me was somebody different. But um I
02:26:04 But um I Well, his evidence is that it he was not a principal organizer. You seem to be agreeing with him. Is that fair? Was he on this action? He says he was, but not an organizer. Okay. Well, I would imagine then that
02:26:15 Okay. Well, I would imagine then that it's quite simple. At the time that I wrote this, I thought he was because now I'm surprised that I put him down as one. But in fact, the organizers, as it became clear to me who they were, would be different, would be different people.
02:26:26 be different, would be different people. So if this was submitted 4 days before the event, I probably thought he was an organizer at that time and then realized it was other people who were organizing it and he was just a participant the same as me.
02:26:38 participant the same as me. Reads at the end, this arrangement will be subject to alteration at a rehearsal to be staged today. Mhm. Did you participate in the rehearsal? I don't think there was one. Um, but if
02:26:50 I don't think there was one. Um, but if there was, I don't remember it.
02:26:56 Action planning is always in a state of flux.
02:27:02 Was there any discussion of safety and safety precautions in the planning? Don't think so. You briefly touched on it already, but
02:27:14 You briefly touched on it already, but could you describe further what happened on the day? Large numbers of police there. Um, it was very obvious that the police were briefed because they were it was very early in the morning and they were there
02:27:26 early in the morning and they were there waiting for us on the road and they pulled over all the vehicles and I remember the first vehicle that was pulled over the uniform officer said, "What kept you?" just to make absolutely
02:27:37 "What kept you?" just to make absolutely sure that they knew that we the police knew the whole plan, which is really unhelpful. Um, and then I think they searched all the vehicles. Somebody got arrested for drugs.
02:27:48 drugs. The vehicles were turned around and told to head off. We know what you're here for. So, we all headed back back up to London where there was then an immediate inquiry amongst the some of the people on the action as to how the police had
02:28:00 on the action as to how the police had been so well briefed as to what was going to happen. Did you have a role in that internal inquiry? Oh, well, I was present at it. I'm not sure I was involved in all of it.
02:28:10 it. Well, how would you in your own words describe that role? Um,
02:28:17 Um, I was present in a pub in Finsby Park when when the activists or a number of them were discussing how police could have known in detail whether anybody had said anything on the phone or whether it would have to have been somebody on the
02:28:28 would have to have been somebody on the action and if so, who on the action would have known enough to give the police the advance meeting point. um I was present for that and then I I if there was a further discussion after that I wasn't present for it but I think
02:28:40 that I wasn't present for it but I think from subsequent years that in fact there was a subsequent discussion in my absence about who who was quite new to the group who might have been um privy to the plan.
02:28:51 to the plan. So the outcome of the first meeting was inconclusive. [snorts]
02:28:56 [snorts] Would you describe your role as key on this particular action in this investigation? Oh. Um, no.
02:29:05 no. Can we go [snorts] back to page one, please?
02:29:11 Uh, second paragraph. I know these are not your words. Yeah. Yeah. No, I I was present for it, but I wasn't doing the inquiry. I obviously saw this before you asked me. Um, no, I wouldn't have said I played a
02:29:23 Um, no, I wouldn't have said I played a key role in it. No, I was present when they were when they were trying to work out how police knew so much about the about the action. So a slight exaggeration
02:29:35 So a slight exaggeration to make the SDS role sound better than it actually possibly or just perhaps sloppy use of words maybe. Thank you. Could we take that uh down
02:29:47 Thank you. Could we take that uh down now please?
02:29:50 Milford Haven and a year after the sea empress disaster 14th to the 16th of February 1997.
02:30:03 February 1997. Could we have up please MPS 40169.
02:30:13 This is an expose facto report dated the 21st of February, a week after that event started. Did you go down to Milford Haven?
02:30:26 go down to Milford Haven? Yes.
02:30:29 Yes. If we look first of all, if we could have paragraph one expanded.
02:30:37 Give you a moment to read that. I'm interested in the change of venue. Okay.
02:30:53 Okay. What involvement did you have in the conversations which led to the change of target?
02:31:00 target? Uh, none at all. I wasn't familiar with either target. So, are you one of the people who was notified as you were boarding vehicles? I
02:31:09 I I think so. Did you um communicate this last minute change of target to your managers? Um if I had the opportunity to do so, I
02:31:20 Um if I had the opportunity to do so, I would have done, but I I don't know if that was the case. I suspect I suspect not. And it wouldn't have been in time anyway. If we were about to leave to go and do the action, they wouldn't have been time for them to respond. Could we look at paragraph two, please?
02:31:37 [snorts]
02:31:43 Yeah, there's a reference in the last line to causing damage, arrests for causing damage to mining equipment. Uh, did you witness the damage?
02:31:56 Uh, did you witness the damage? No, I was in the uh the van with another activist in a scanner.
02:32:07 If we look now at the source comment, please.
02:32:15 I'll give you a moment to look at it. But what I'm interested in is the report reporting on Mr. Geffen.
02:32:26 Okay. It says that Mr. Geffin was excluded from the closed meeting to change the target. How did you know that? I don't remember.
02:32:37 remember. Uh, Mr. Geffen in his evidence has taken exception to the verb excluded. Okay.
02:32:44 Okay. He doesn't think he was there, but he thinks he wasn't there out of choice. Fair enough. Then I will bow to his judgment.
02:32:54 judgment. Uh, if we could take that down now. I want to move to the march for social justice and never mind the ballots action on the 12th of April 1997.
02:33:06 action on the 12th of April 1997. Uh there is some uh reporting that we understand uh from you in the uh runup uh to that. I'm not going to go uh to it
02:33:17 uh to that. I'm not going to go uh to it all. Can we look first of all at C105 MPS 40194.
02:33:28 [snorts] This is a report uh dated the 4th of March about the fourthcoming uh event.
02:33:35 event. Uh if we look at the last uh paragraph
02:33:49 okay
02:33:54 says there that uh as witnessed by a number of RTS Earth first gatherings activists involved are not put off by the prospect of confrontation and large numbers of them will be keen to take on
02:34:07 numbers of them will be keen to take on the police if attempts are made to stop them.
02:34:12 them. Yes.
02:34:13 Yes. Does that accurately reflect your reporting to management? Um,
02:34:25 yes, I think it does. There there were a whole succession of reclaim the streets events that ended in uh in confrontation. And that is distinct from saying that the reclaim the streets
02:34:37 saying that the reclaim the streets organizers were themselves involved in confrontation. Those events would draw out anybody with a grievance.
02:34:47 Can you help us as to whether there was anything specific about this forthcoming action which prompted you to draw attention to this risk? Um,
02:35:03 did I think it was particularly likely at this event? Yes.
02:35:06 Yes. Yes, I did. Could you explain why? Um if I've got my actions in the right way round then um they planned to or we planned because I
02:35:17 they planned to or we planned because I was one of the organizers to take control of the vacant um department of the environment building by taking the gates off with a angle
02:35:28 by taking the gates off with a angle grinder and occupying the building and then holding it uh in the run-up to the general election as an anarchist focus and center radio
02:35:40 and center radio um blockaded in that that's quite provocative and confrontational. I think I think most people would agree that's a reasonable use of that word. Large numbers.
02:35:52 Large numbers. Yeah.
02:35:53 Yeah. What made you say there would be large numbers of them keen to take on the police? my experience of going to those events and in fact there were because it
02:36:05 events and in fact there were because it did kick off quite quite big time in Trafalga Square. So that's an accurate public order assessment given before the event.
02:36:15 event. [snorts]
02:36:15 [snorts] Can we take Sorry. No, I just said that seems to me to be an accurate use of the word. Can we take that down now and go to B65749110?
02:36:30 [snorts] Can we look um this is 18th of March 1997. Can we look at paragraph one first of all?
02:36:46 So, if I'm understanding this correctly, there's a meeting with the special branch environment desk uh person and your two sergeants
02:36:58 and your two sergeants and TN19 on the 13th of March. Yeah, that looks likely. And if we go to paragraph two,
02:37:11 [snorts] most of the meeting taken up with discussion about the forthcoming RTS extravaganza involving the DOE building scheduled for the 12th of April. H14 discussed the RTS plan frankly and
02:37:23 H14 discussed the RTS plan frankly and in detail, even showing plans of the building which had been obtained by RTS activists. This is the product of you being by this stage a member of the core organizing group.
02:37:34 organizing group. Yes.
02:37:35 Yes. TN19 agreed wholeheartedly that no action should be taken on the basis of HN14's information and that uniform need not be told at this stage. Can you help
02:37:49 not be told at this stage. Can you help us with any discussion around that decision?
02:37:53 decision? No, not really. What would be the reason for withholding it? uh from uniform. Would it be simply to protect you? Um that would be an aspect of it. Um
02:38:08 Um that would be an aspect of it. Um it might also be the case that they don't want to brief uniform until we're absolutely certain what the plan is going to be. One of the issues around organizing any action is that the plan can be very fluid up until up until the last moment
02:38:21 fluid up until up until the last moment and reporting can appear inaccurate by virtue of being given too early. Did you meet the desk officer again before the action?
02:38:32 before the action? I might have done. Did the decision to withhold information change?
02:38:39 change? Um yes, because they were certainly Yeah, certainly they were fully aware because
02:38:45 because um I was told on the phone that the decision that the activists would not be allowed to occupy the department of the environment building had been made by
02:38:56 environment building had been made by the home secretary. Who told you that? Um
02:39:01 Um being careful about anonymity. Uh I don't think I need to. I think I think it might have been Keith Edmonson. I think it was it was a phone call when I was driving my van. I remember pulling over to take the call and thinking, well, that that's going to be really
02:39:13 well, that that's going to be really difficult and I I can't see how I can get out of this because that's that's this is the principal objective. But I was told that no, he the home sector has decided that the negative publicity in
02:39:24 decided that the negative publicity in the run-up to an election caused by anarchist seizing a government building next to Parliament Square would be too damaging and it's not to go ahead. I think our policing line was that it's
02:39:35 I think our policing line was that it's a vacant building. So we we were less concerned
02:39:42 and presumably you're not able to shed any light on any details of when the home secretary took that decision or are you? It was very late. I remember it was very
02:39:55 It was very late. I remember it was very late because it was too late for me to try to see if there was any chance of tweaking the plan. Was that something that was suggested to you? Um, just generally if if it would serve
02:40:07 Um, just generally if if it would serve our interest, all we want to do is be able to give a really full briefing on what the organizers intentions are so that the event can be placed effectively and then I guess from the special branch point of view, it shows that we've got
02:40:18 point of view, it shows that we've got good coverage. Um, if if the activists come up with a plan that we can tweak towards something that's acceptable, everyone's a winner from our point of view. The disaster scenario for us is
02:40:30 view. The disaster scenario for us is where the activists have one plan and it's blocked because then we've got no idea what they're going to do and then you do get running battles and and you don't know what's going to happen then. Um so from our point of view we would
02:40:42 Um so from our point of view we would have been quite happy to give them the empty building and it was obviously you know it's not helpful to us to be told that no that's not going to happen. Did DCI Edmonson say anything to you which
02:40:54 DCI Edmonson say anything to you which led you to believe that the home secretary
02:40:58 secretary did or did not know that there was an undercover police officer in reclaimed the streets? No, he didn't. But I would be 99% certain that he he wouldn't have known
02:41:09 certain that he he wouldn't have known that. It wouldn't have been necessary part of his briefing.
02:41:14 Can we now look please at the last paragraph?
02:41:25 completely different. Uh we're back now to some of the issues with your legend. Um
02:41:36 legend. Um and there is a proposal at the end of the paragraph. What is needed now is either a reinforcement of HN14's existing employment or a credible
02:41:48 existing employment or a credible alternative income which can be disclosed to wearies. I suggest a onetoone with HN14 at Chatau Lambert to thresh out a solution ASAP that will be
02:42:00 thresh out a solution ASAP that will be a free lunch but not for BL. I don't need any details about any solution to this problem, but was going
02:42:11 solution to this problem, but was going to see DI Lambert at Mr. Lambert's home something you'd done before or was this an extraordinary event?
02:42:21 event? Um, I know it's something other officers had done. I I think there may have been only one occasion when I went there. We usually met at at SDS flats. There was a couple of flats. And was that this occasion? Um,
02:42:33 Um, yeah. Yeah, probably.
02:42:37 Was Di Lambert regarded as something of a fixer of problems in the SDS? Yeah, that's probably true. He had a
02:42:48 Yeah, that's probably true. He had a very good brain for that sort of work. And could you help us with the the dynamic between DCI Edmonson and DI Lambert? What roles did they in fact
02:43:01 Lambert? What roles did they in fact play within the unit whilst they were managing you? Um, the island was much more hands-on. I remember having regular meetings with him discussing potential scenarios where
02:43:14 him discussing potential scenarios where future areas of interest might be where there was a customer requirement for intelligence. DCI Edmonson was more of an overall um administrator of the of
02:43:25 an overall um administrator of the of the section. And to what extent did Lambert's background as a UCO impact the way in which he managed? Well, it was key.
02:43:36 Well, it was key. Could you [snorts] explain in what way? Um I think it would be very difficult to manage long-term deployments not having had some experience of a long-term deployment. Was he highly regarded and trusted by
02:43:49 Was he highly regarded and trusted by the UCOs?
02:43:51 the UCOs? He was by me.
02:43:56 Can we take that document down now, please?
02:44:04 You've reported comprehensively on the plans for
02:44:09 plans for the event in April 1997. needn't go to all of uh the reports. You've done that from within the core organizing group. Are you the treasurer
02:44:21 organizing group. Are you the treasurer by this stage? No.
02:44:24 No. Did you um as part of your position in the core organizing group debate plans? Yes.
02:44:34 Yes. Expressing opinions about those plans. Yes.
02:44:37 Yes. Presumably trying to tweak them to a more police acceptable role if possible. Uh, yes.
02:44:44 Uh, yes. Did you hire any of the equipment? Yes.
02:44:47 Yes. What did you hire? Um, I certainly hired the occasional truck
02:44:53 truck uh generators, I think. Did you take any other practical steps to facilitate the demonstration? Well, I'm if I'm one of the core organizers, I'd take all sorts of steps
02:45:05 organizers, I'd take all sorts of steps to try to facilitate the demonstration. Could you help us with the sorts of things you were doing? um briefing some of the people who were taking other roles in it. Um
02:45:16 roles in it. Um I mean just just working through most of the practical aspects of the plan wrecking the the venue um working out what the plan was going to be. I think
02:45:29 to be. I think by the eve of the event how wide was the circle of people who knew um that the DOE building was the target? Um
02:45:40 DOE building was the target? Um well initially it would have been a very small number but because this was a very large event that the uh the circle of people who knew the plan widened uh quite dramatically and in a very
02:45:52 uh quite dramatically and in a very undesirable way in the last sort of two or three days I think beforehand so it got a bit out of control.
02:46:02 Would I be right to understand it was appreciated by the SDS that this was going to be a big event? Yes.
02:46:09 Yes. And this was your reporting was very important. Were you having a lot of conversations with your managers? Yeah.
02:46:19 Yeah. Did you meet uh or communicate yourself with CO1 at any point in the run-up to the event? No, I've never communicated with CO1. Do you know whether your managers were communicating with CO? I don't uh I
02:46:32 communicating with CO? I don't uh I think no
02:46:35 think no well ser didn't Sir 11 viewed special branch as a as a rival rival agency so I don't think there was any great um communication between the
02:46:46 any great um communication between the two at all in any in any aspect. Do you know how your intelligence was disseminated uh for use at policing this event? No, but I I I pretty certain it
02:46:57 event? No, but I I I pretty certain it wouldn't have gone to CO1 on principle because CO1 we wouldn't have trusted them not to have
02:47:06 have compromised me. There was um they viewed Special Branch as a rival agency. They were just moving across. They've been set up to deal with um
02:47:17 They've been set up to deal with um football hooliganism and they were looking to move into areas that were traditionally special branch areas, but their tactics and approach were very different and special branch didn't really deal with them at all. A turf war.
02:47:28 A turf war. Yeah, basically. Yeah. So, if you're not going if if your managers aren't pushing the intelligence out to CO11, how are they getting the intelligence to the police officers who
02:47:40 intelligence to the police officers who have to manage the That's for the the management in the office. Um my my role is to pass on accurate intelligence to the office. Where it goes from there is uh is down to the handlers and the
02:47:52 is uh is down to the handlers and the controllers. Three activists are arrested on the 11th of April with the print run of evading standards which was then confiscated.
02:48:03 standards which was then confiscated. Was there any advanced discussion um of arresting them to disrupt the pro the protest?
02:48:08 protest? No, they were arrested by by C11 without reference. a special bunch. Are you sure that it was done without any reference to your Asure as I can be bowing in that I was in the field at the time organizing the
02:48:20 in the field at the time organizing the event?
02:48:21 event? Could we have up MPS 40324, please? It's tab C114, sir.
02:48:44 This is about um evading standards and if we expand the text it's an expos facto report. Okay.
02:48:54 Okay. And I'm
02:48:57 And I'm interested I'll give you a chance to look at it all, but I'm interested in the sentence which includes once the charges are inevitably dropped. Um,
02:49:17 yeah.
02:49:20 Why inevitably dropped? Well, because I I I couldn't see there was a lawful grounds for the arrest. I mean, of those uh three,
02:49:32 I mean, of those uh three, Paul and Roger weren't involved in organizing the event. John was just involved in doing the publicity for it. Um and in fact, there was some discussion around distributing 20,000 copies of of it. Um, and part of the
02:49:46 copies of of it. Um, and part of the thinking was if police do go along and arrest them, it's going to be a payout, which it was, um, because there's no grounds for the arrest. The first I knew that they had been arrested was when I
02:49:58 that they had been arrested was when I went to an organizing meeting and I was told they've just been arrested. Um, which I was staggered by because if if there had been any reference at all to special branch, then they would have been told, um, don't don't do this. And
02:50:10 been told, um, don't don't do this. And if we'd wanted to arrest the organizers, we could have done it at any time because I was on the on the board.
02:50:18 Do you know whether any action was taken by special branch to intervene to stop um the criminal process proceeding any further?
02:50:29 further? No, I don't I have no idea what happened with this. I have no involvement with it beyond just reporting that it had happened.
02:50:35 happened. Did your managers express any opinion on CO 11's activities? um
02:50:41 um they would have done and it probably would have been um negative.
02:50:49 Can we take So 11's general sorry general tactic tended to be arrest arrest arrest all the time and that that tactic was no longer effective and certainly not against people as switched on as this who are going to sue afterwards. So had
02:51:01 who are going to sue afterwards. So had had they consulted us we would have told them not to do that but they wouldn't have consulted us. Can we take that down now please? Can we have up C183 MPS 01420?
02:51:19 [snorts]
02:51:26 [snorts and clears throat] This is uh about the compensation payments. But if we could look at the second paragraph please.
02:51:37 Yeah, these arrests were carried out by the FIT team in an effort to disrupt the following day's march by preventing organizers from taking part. Unfortunately, none of the three men arrested were actually involved in
02:51:48 arrested were actually involved in organizing the event. Follows from what you've said that that's entirely true. Yeah, John John was involved in doing the publicity. Um, so he sat on the organizing group, but his role was to do
02:51:59 organizing group, but his role was to do with doing the publicity, I think. Well, if we look at the first paragraph, we'll see the settlement figure is set out. Why report on the settlement figure in civil litigation?
02:52:11 civil litigation? Um, probably to point out the stupidity of arresting people that weren't involved in in the event. It's um the MPS as an institution would already have known this because they'd have to
02:52:23 have known this because they'd have to write the check. Yeah, I I probably had a rant about it to the person who wrote the report and they've included it. is another reason for reporting is so that it goes on the file.
02:52:34 file. Um,
02:52:35 Um, possibly, but I I I expect I thought it was a particularly stupid tactic to arrest people, very intelligent people who are not going to put themselves on offer when there's a
02:52:47 put themselves on offer when there's a case in these circumstances. So, I probably had a bit of a rant about a rant about it and and it's just been recorded in this way that this is £6,000 payouts completely unnecessarily.
02:52:58 payouts completely unnecessarily. Moving back to the event, um, what level of communication and cooperation was there between RTS and police before the day in question? None at all.
02:53:10 Can we move to the day itself? I'd like you to help us with where you were and what you saw. But can
02:53:21 where you were and what you saw. But can we can we start? Did you attend throughout throughout the day from the very beginning? Yes. And that meant were you one of the marchers?
02:53:30 marchers? No. The uh I wasn't at the original meeting. I was uh near the Department of the Environment building with some equipment ready to take the gates off
02:53:41 equipment ready to take the gates off when the crowd got there with two other activists. And that of course never happens. No.
02:53:49 No. At what point did you realize it wasn't going to happen? Um I think when the crowd came over the the crowd walked from um Kennington Park, they came over the bridge and
02:54:00 Park, they came over the bridge and because police knew the venue, there was a point where we wanted the crowd to go straight straight ahead instead of following the obvious route. Um and there were lots of people in the crowd who were briefed and were were up for
02:54:12 who were briefed and were were up for doing that. But when they got to that point, the police line was incredibly thick because the police knew the venue and were making sure that the mic wasn't going to go there. It was TSG officers,
02:54:23 going to go there. It was TSG officers, not regular police, and there were TSG vehicles parked nose to tail behind them to ensure the crowd couldn't go through there. So, the crowd came over and then at the last moment realized there's no way they're going through. So, they they turned and moved along the route that
02:54:36 turned and moved along the route that the police were trying to funnel them along. And it was only at that point that you realized there's definitely not going to be anybody trying to get through through the police line. And if you can help me with the just to clarify, did you know at this stage the
02:54:47 clarify, did you know at this stage the home secretary had made a decision that they
02:54:49 they Yeah. Yeah. So that wasn't actually a surprise to you. It it wasn't, but I poling can of of some of these events can still be quite poor. So I wasn't sure if how how solid
02:55:00 poor. So I wasn't sure if how how solid the line was going to be, whether they were going to try and make it look like they didn't really know where the crowd were going by making the line a bit thinner or whether some people been in the crowd might just try anyway. So it was only when the crowd came over and
02:55:11 was only when the crowd came over and and then swerved away at the last minute. And we got phone calls from people in the crowd saying there's just no way through there that I realized that that [snorts] that was what was going to happen. And so what do you do once um the crowd has obviously turned?
02:55:24 once um the crowd has obviously turned? Um we decided to go for our sort of plan B which was just to proceed to Trafalga Square and to try to get the sound system into Trafalga Square and the sound system on your lorry.
02:55:35 and the sound system on your lorry. I wasn't driving a lorry. Um I did I hired I was at I was at the hiring when it was hired by somebody else. Um but yeah, the main sound system lorry I'd been involved in putting it together.
02:55:47 been involved in putting it together. Yeah.
02:55:49 Yeah. and in directing it into London and you participated in getting it into Trafalga Square. I know it drove through the roadblock.
02:56:00 I know it drove through the roadblock. So where were you when this vehicle go through the road block in Trafalga Square? Did you witness it? I witnessed it driving into the square. I think um because then what once you
02:56:13 I think um because then what once you can't do the original plan then then anything can happen. On this occasion because we were going into Trafalga Square they put up um I think the roadblock was a couple of police motorbikes just parked in the road and a
02:56:24 motorbikes just parked in the road and a couple of officers and the the sound system vehicle just accelerated straight through it in into the square and then the crowd sort of jumped on top of it. We we were talking them in to what we
02:56:35 We we were talking them in to what we thought was the most feasible way into the square. something.
02:56:44 Could you describe I mean are police officers having to dive out of the way or was it less dramatic than that?
02:56:51 that? I I didn't see any police officer diving out the way. There's a lot of people in Trafalga Square. I saw the vehicle coming through but I didn't see the um I didn't see that incident.
02:57:03 didn't see that incident. Uh, can you help us with events in Trafalga Square during the course of the day from then on in broad terms? Um, okay. The sound system played
02:57:14 Um, okay. The sound system played outside the National Gallery. There was a sort of a big rave going on in Trafalga Square. Um, it started to get quite nasty. Couple of points.
02:57:27 quite nasty. Couple of points. I remember there was a police van got caught in the crowd and the police van was um being attacked and I remember thinking that the driver is going to do well to get it get it out. Um I think
02:57:39 well to get it get it out. Um I think some horses started trying to shepherd the crowd out to try to get them to disperse and that that didn't go well either and then it ended up with the crowd sort of running in different
02:57:50 crowd sort of running in different directions down down some of the streets and we had a squat prepared for for later on. So most of us headed back to Boxhaw which is where that we had a big squat ready.
02:58:01 squat ready. Can you help us with an impression of the proportion of people who were involved in this disorderly conduct and the proportion of people who were simply partying?
02:58:14 Not really. Small small proportion large proportion. Um no quite a large proportion. It was quite a big event. It was um it was front page news on all the newspapers the next morning and I remember going
02:58:27 the next morning and I remember going down to the corner shop and the the headline on one of the papers was riot frenzy and they were all covered in photographs of it. Um it was considered quite serious disorder.
02:58:37 disorder. They tabloid newspapers are never known for understate for understatement. So you're as an eyewitness. Can you help us? What what was the most
02:58:48 Can you help us? What what was the most serious
02:58:50 serious crime that you witnessed on that day? Probably the attack on the police van outside um is it St. Martin in the fields the place outside there? Um I think the window was put in and I I
02:59:01 think the window was put in and I I thought the officer there was only one guy in the vehicle so it' obviously dropped off the TSG but he had taken the wrong route and got stuck in the crowd and that that's the one that I witnessed that looked uh the most
02:59:12 that looked uh the most Were people wearing masks? Yeah. Yeah. But people people were wearing masks on hunts. People wore masks all the time. That didn't necessarily mean anything. What sort of proportion of people were wearing masks?
02:59:23 wearing masks? I I couldn't say. When you say it didn't mean anything, presumably they were wearing masks for a purpose.
02:59:31 purpose. Yeah. What I meant was people would wear masks so as not to be photographed. It doesn't necessarily mean they're they're going to do anything violent, whatever. If you go on any big public order event in the 90s, there will be a lot of
02:59:42 in the 90s, there will be a lot of people masked up. Were missiles thrown? Yeah.
02:59:47 Yeah. In what sort of volumes? Uh enough to make it um as soon as people stop throwing missiles, the ground becomes covered in broken glass. I think what had happened
02:59:58 broken glass. I think what had happened was the the police were trying to uh disperse the crowd by allowing people out but not back in again. where people were going out buying beer and then trying to get back in and being held the other side of the police line and then
03:00:10 other side of the police line and then that started building up and then people who were getting frustrated started throwing their empty glasses towards the police line and it sort of kicked off from there I think. And for for how long did the disorder
03:00:22 And for for how long did the disorder last?
03:00:23 last? Well, um there were certainly police mounted charges into the crowd. Um, but I think it got to the point where there's nothing to be gained by me staying in the middle of a crowd that's
03:00:34 staying in the middle of a crowd that's being charged by mounted riot police. So, as soon as the other RTS uh core group started leaving, I left with them to head back to our squad. And what was the attitude of the core
03:00:45 And what was the attitude of the core group? Did they just want to get out of the way?
03:00:48 the way? Um,
03:00:52 no. I think we were all quite excited by it because that was seen as a as snatching something out of a out of a defeat because the original target had
03:01:03 defeat because the original target had been denied. So the one sin is if nothing happens. As a as a big event organizer, the one thing you don't want is is everybody turns up and goes home and nothing happens. We were denied our
03:01:14 and nothing happens. We were denied our principal target. We weren't able to do the action we wanted. But there there was a big event in Trafalga Square and then a big sort of running event through the streets. That that's that's a good second prize.
03:01:26 that's that's a good second prize. Can I just be clear? Are are you saying that to
03:01:31 that to turn Trafalga Square into an autonomous space and to have a a happy party for a few hours with no disorder and no crime
03:01:42 few hours with no disorder and no crime and then disperse would be regarded as a failure
03:01:45 failure by some people? Yeah. When you say some people, people people within the core organizing group. No, there's I can see what's happened is that some people within RTS are saying our goal was to create a temporary
03:01:56 our goal was to create a temporary autonomous zone not to clash with police. That's accurate. However, they do not control the people that come on their on their events. RTS events used to pull out thousands of people and it
03:02:08 to pull out thousands of people and it was sort of anybody with a grievance against all sorts of things. And this was part of the problem. You'd get groups like class war, leftwing groups or all sorts of groups would come along. You don't control a crowd like that. You
03:02:19 You don't control a crowd like that. You just give them opportunities. If you're creating barriers and blockades, that's a confrontational opportunity which a lot of groups would happily take. And when we were organizing meetings, we were fully aware of that. But that
03:02:30 were fully aware of that. But that doesn't mean that we were saying, "How are we going to get this to kick off?" Because we weren't. Just winding back a bit to the reporting you gave. We can turn it up if you need
03:02:42 you gave. We can turn it up if you need to see it. Uh but the thrust of your reporting in the runup uh to this included phrases like last minute disruption, risks, running battles and
03:02:54 disruption, risks, running battles and widespread disorder, advised to the effective not to completely thwart the event and then warning against thwarting the primary objective. That was from a report on the
03:03:06 objective. That was from a report on the 9th of April. But thwarting the primary objective was precisely what in fact happened.
03:03:13 happened. Yes, but that wasn't a police decision. Understood. Uh but would I be right to understand that essentially SDS advice on how to handle
03:03:24 essentially SDS advice on how to handle this protest based on your firsthand experience uh by that stage of almost two years uh undercover and having participated in the organization of this
03:03:37 participated in the organization of this event was ultimately ignored. Yes.
03:03:49 There's a report after the event um which suggests in which you're reporting that RTS thought that the reason their plan had been thwarted was that too just too many people knew about the plan. Is
03:04:01 too many people knew about the plan. Is that fair? Yeah. In the last few days it got out of control.
03:04:06 control. Can we take that document down now? Can we digress to a procedural document? Could we look at tab B24737225?
03:04:17 This is an operational notice uh from 1995.
03:04:23 1995. It's dated the 9th of August. And if [snorts] we look at at paragraph one,
03:04:38 [clears throat] it's about setting out a new structure for dealing with public order intelligence within the service. If we go to paragraph two,
03:04:55 purpose is intended to complement the work of special branch and not duplicate any work undertaken by them. The system will be similar to the national football
03:05:06 will be similar to the national football intelligence system. It will cater for all types of public order events, both pre-planned and spontaneous. Paragraph three.
03:05:20 New post of public order intelligence officer has now been created within CO 11. And then explains something about
03:05:31 11. And then explains something about how data is going to be stored and ends there will be no details kept of allegiance to groups or political persuasion.
03:05:42 persuasion. Is this the CO11 unit that you were referring to earlier? It looks like it, but I haven't seen this document before.
03:05:53 If CO1 have decided that for public order purposes, there is no need to keep records of people's allegiance to groups or political persuasion. Can [snorts]
03:06:05 or political persuasion. Can [snorts] you help as to why the SDS is still recording such details? because we're not that unit. We're special branch. And what is it uh over and above public
03:06:16 And what is it uh over and above public order in 1997 that was causing uh special branch to record more details? I'm not quite sure. I'm not quite sure what you're asking me, but special
03:06:27 what you're asking me, but special branch. Are you asking why we kept details of groups? Yeah. of what allegiance to groups and political persuasions in 199 because it would be impossible otherwise to you can't say right we're just going
03:06:38 to you can't say right we're just going to go out and gather we want to know the details of the next big event where it's going to be and what the plan is. You can't do that without knowing who's involved and and what the political leaning of the group is. I don't see how
03:06:49 leaning of the group is. I don't see how you could do that at all. Did you ever meet a CO1 public order intelligence officer? Um I think only when I was arrested by them
03:07:01 did the development Oh sorry uh yes they did. They stopped me in the street and in my vehicle actually. I think it was that was CO1 as well. Yeah. Sorry. Did the development of the CO11 public
03:07:14 Did the development of the CO11 public intelligence function affect your deployment on the ground in any way at all? Yes, we would have regarded them as a well
03:07:25 a well there's different agencies operating in the same field and you do get a sort of a turf war management level between them. We wouldn't have trusted public order intelligence unit um or C1 um not
03:07:38 order intelligence unit um or C1 um not to have accidentally on purpose compromised one of our officers.
03:07:46 Back to the march for social justice. Mhm.
03:07:49 Mhm. Can we have up B66746922, please?
03:07:57 [snorts]
03:08:01 This is a letter from Michael Messenger, the commander. Mhm.
03:08:07 Mhm. Uh I think from CO11 to Detective Superintendent TN61 of SO2.
03:08:16 of SO2. I'll give you a moment to read it. It's a thank you letter essentially. Okay.
03:08:32 Okay. And then if we look at the top at the um gist at the top, Keith, can you show this to those involved? Once again, many thanks and well done to all. That's
03:08:46 many thanks and well done to all. That's from HN58
03:08:50 is as far as you understand it Keith Keith Edmonson. It would be. Yeah. And were uh those thanks uh passed on amongst others to you?
03:09:01 amongst others to you? I think I was the only one who was involved in this. I think I was the only one there. So um I would have been I was certainly aware of the existence of the letter and it's referred to on my on my
03:09:13 letter and it's referred to on my on my personal file. Did Commander Messenger come and thank you personally? No, I don't remember him doing that. I don't remember him doing that. Thank you. Can we take that down now,
03:09:25 Thank you. Can we take that down now, please? I want to move now to other events uh the same day. This was the day on which your sexual relationship with Monica started, isn't it?
03:09:37 Monica started, isn't it? Yes.
03:09:39 Yes. And you were both in Trfalga Square. Yes.
03:09:43 Yes. And you both ended up in a pub together in Vauxhall. Yeah. Opposite the squat. [snorts]
03:09:50 [snorts] And there came a point in time in the evening uh where she initiated a kiss with you.
03:09:56 with you. Yes.
03:09:57 Yes. Where were you when that happened? Um sat on the wall outside the squad. And
03:10:03 And she asked to come back to your place. Yes.
03:10:08 Yes. And you went to get your van. Yes.
03:10:14 Yes. And you drove back together to your place?
03:10:17 place? Yes.
03:10:22 Can you help us with what you were thinking when that sexual advance was made to you? Um,
03:10:34 Um, I was thinking that she was very nice and I liked her very much. And I was also thinking this is a very complicated position which I hadn't expected to be in. And that was why I made an excuse
03:10:45 in. And that was why I made an excuse initially to leave saying I needed to go collect the van which I didn't um
03:10:53 um to give myself time to have a think about it.
03:10:56 about it. And how did you use that time to have a think? Um,
03:11:06 I thought that uh other people had seen us kissing. If I didn't come back, people would wonder why not, cuz generally speaking,
03:11:18 why not, cuz generally speaking, young men don't run away when nice young women kiss them. Um, but then I was also thinking, well, firstly, how do I resolve this? this is this is something
03:11:29 resolve this? this is this is something I'd want to get involved in. And then I was also thinking that I like her a lot and she's a lovely person. So, um
03:11:38 I was also thinking probably that I've been divorced for a while and I lived my whole life as Jim Sutton, not as Jim Boing. So, I decided to go back. You described to me this morning how you
03:11:52 You described to me this morning how you thought you were not going to be one of those officers who got involved in sexual activity. What had changed? Um, I probably invested too much of
03:12:03 Um, I probably invested too much of myself in the role. Yes.
03:12:07 Yes. You were still well aware though that you were a police officer. Yes. It's slightly difficult. I I lived under this identity all the time for
03:12:19 under this identity all the time for five years as you've already asked me about.
03:12:23 about. Most of the time you are not thinking I'm an undercover police officer. I'm just being myself. I I'm not an actor. I can't keep up a role for five years. I'm just being myself. Um problem with that is that you invest more and more of
03:12:34 is that you invest more and more of yourself in it and you start to lose you start to lose sight of the fact that that's your that's your primary role. I mean, I I've sat at planning meetings thinking we've been discussing we're
03:12:46 thinking we've been discussing we're going to be in trouble if the police find out about this. And then it's dawned on me that of course they're going to find out about it because I'm sat there. But you get into this old sort of scenario where you're not sort of thinking, well, I'm a police officer. What should I do as a police officer?
03:12:57 What should I do as a police officer? I'm just I'm just being myself. You are going to SDS meetings normally twice a week. Um,
03:13:08 Um, if there wasn't anything going on, if I was on the organizing group for Big Action, it would be every day for quite a long time.
03:13:18 Did you give any thought to the fact that if you proceeded you would be deceiving Monica because you were not who you had told her you were? Well, I'm deceiving everybody.
03:13:31 Well, I'm deceiving everybody. It's not quite an answer to my question. Did you think in terms of sexual conduct that you would be deceiving her as to who you were?
03:13:42 who you were? Not really, I'm afraid. No. No. um if if you're living this way, your whole life is a deceit. You can't um cordon off different areas of it and and
03:13:54 cordon off different areas of it and and consider that in a different way. Your your whole life is a deceit all the time. It's not a very healthy or authentic way to live. Um, you can after some time in a pub
03:14:09 you can after some time in a pub receive a kiss and then change your mind and in your case refer to a girlfriend in Denmark, couldn't you? No, that that that
03:14:20 No, that that that option had gone very quickly, I'm afraid.
03:14:23 afraid. When you're in the office, the idea of having a theoretical girlfriend that nobody ever meets seems quite plausible once you're out there that that you see how ridiculous that is very quickly. People will expect to meet your your
03:14:34 People will expect to meet your your girlfriend. This idea of having a hypothetical girlfriend that nobody meets is just a total non-starter. But you told me earlier today that you did use that story. I did. Yeah. And I was aware of the fact
03:14:45 I did. Yeah. And I was aware of the fact that it wasn't plausible and that it was becoming increasingly obvious much more quickly than than this date that it wasn't plausible. When the moment comes for you to deploy your pre-arranged
03:14:58 for you to deploy your pre-arranged get out, you don't do it. Well, that that would be Well, by this point, it had already been it had already gone. Where where is she? Where is this girlfriend that if you're living
03:15:09 is this girlfriend that if you're living with someone all the time and you're hanging out with them every day and they're supposed to have a girlfriend? Where is she? Why do we never meet her? Why doesn't she communicate with you? She doesn't phone you when you're with us.
03:15:17 us. It just doesn't work at all. Will you actually ask those questions? Um, I used that um early on quite a lot, but then it became apparent really quickly that I mean quite early
03:15:29 really quickly that I mean quite early on I remember actually meeting some Danish activists and so they then started asking very precise questions about my girlfriend in in Copenhagen and it just starts to become obvious really
03:15:41 it just starts to become obvious really quickly that this isn't this isn't going to work. Were you actually asked by activists from this country questions doubting her existence? I was asked by an activist woman
03:15:54 I was asked by an activist woman activist who said, "You've split up with your girlfriend." Um because you haven't mentioned her for a while. Um you're wearing different clothing. So she she'd summized that whoever it was was clearly
03:16:05 summized that whoever it was was clearly not part of my life because I wasn't mentioning her all the time. But it's very difficult to keep mentioning all the time someone who doesn't exist as if they were a constantly changing living person.
03:16:15 person. You could have you could have made some other excuse, couldn't you? No.
03:16:19 No. Why couldn't you make an excuse that you weren't ready for a relationship? Some traumatic experience in the past. Yeah. I think that's been used by female
03:16:30 Yeah. I think that's been used by female officers and is much more sympathetically received by female officers. I think when this I know this isn't the right thing to say, but when when attractive women ask to come home with young men, young men generally
03:16:42 with young men, young men generally don't make excuses and run away. It it it it's very um
03:16:48 um it may not be the response of the majority, but it's a response of some, isn't it?
03:16:53 isn't it? Is it?
03:16:55 Is it? You could have made an excuse, couldn't you?
03:16:57 you? I don't think I could have done really. I could have made an excuse that would have bought me time. Um I think but that that wouldn't have resolved the issue. I was deployed this
03:17:09 resolved the issue. I was deployed this way for years. I think also it it is fair to say that um my whole life has lived as this person and then you meet someone that you really like
03:17:23 that it's so in quite relationships form in a way which is seems quite normal and and natural with people that you really like. Um, I I don't sort of I wasn't
03:17:36 like. Um, I I don't sort of I wasn't sitting there thinking, well, I'm a I'm an undercover police officer. How should I deal with this as an undercover police officer? I was thinking, I'm Jim Sutton. How do I deal with it as Jim Sutton? Can I take that you were thinking, I've been offered sex. I'm going to take it.
03:17:49 been offered sex. I'm going to take it. Um, no, not really, because I was very nervous about the whole idea of having a relationship like that with somebody. Um, I was probably thinking that I'm a single bloke.
03:18:02 single bloke. She's really nice.
03:18:06 I will have a problem to resolve if I'm going to try and avoid the relationship. The obvious answer is don't avoid it.
03:18:17 So sex and cover. So what?
03:18:19 So what? So you get sex and cover. Um if you were being cynical, I guess you'd say that. Yeah. and no thoughts of the propriety of a
03:18:31 and no thoughts of the propriety of a serving metropolitan police service undercover police officer procuring sex by deception. Well, I'm not procuring sex by a deception. I'm not making any any deception in order to procure sex. I'm
03:18:43 deception in order to procure sex. I'm making a deception which is constant. You've deceived her as to not only who you are, but what you are. That's not what you said. You just said procuring by. That's a different You
03:18:55 procuring by. That's a different You have
03:18:55 have That's a different thing. Well, let's try it this way. You have deceived her as to who you are and what you are.
03:19:01 you are. I've deceived everybody as to who I am and what I am. That's that's the whole nature of the role. It would be a bit weird to be an undercover police officer who's going to reveal himself to be an undercover police officer. But the difference here is you are going
03:19:13 But the difference here is you are going to have sex with her. Are you Is it your evidence that that simply didn't cross your mind? Um,
03:19:25 I don't know what crossed my mind in that sense. I'm afraid.
03:19:34 You [snorts] both went back to your cover accommodation. Yeah.
03:19:39 Yeah. You both smoked tobacco and cannabis? Uh, probably. Were you aware that Monica had given up smoking?
03:19:46 smoking? Uh, no.
03:19:50 You had sex? Yeah.
03:19:52 Yeah. With a condom? Yeah.
03:19:54 Yeah. Whose condom? Um, mine, I think. I don't know. Perhaps it was hers. Which you had ready. Perhaps it was hers then. I don't know.
03:20:05 Perhaps it was hers then. I don't know. Perhaps I did have I don't know. I mean, why did you have a condom ready? I'm not sure that I did. [snorts]
03:20:13 [snorts] Had you contemplated sex in your undercover identity up before that point?
03:20:17 point? I had. and thought it wouldn't be uh is something I'd be involved in. Had you received any advice about using your own condom?
03:20:28 your own condom? Uh, no.
03:20:32 Having sex with Monica that evening marked the start of an intimate relationship, didn't it? Uh, fairly short relationship. Yeah.
03:20:47 Monica would not have consented to sex had she known that you were in fact Detective Constable Jim Boiling. Would she?
03:20:57 she? Um I don't think I would say that. No. Why not?
03:21:04 Why not? Well, I remember for instance that one of the uh the other activists who had been ex in the military at one point um was considered to be to be a spy and for either police or for
03:21:18 to be a spy and for either police or for security service. And I remember discussing it with Monica and she like you'd think that if everybody was going to shy away from a relationship with someone who was sort of as being uh
03:21:31 someone who was sort of as being uh being a UC or whatever that that he would have been spurned. But that that wasn't that wasn't what happened. Um, my my ex-wife when she found out I was a UC, it didn't make any difference. So,
03:21:44 UC, it didn't make any difference. So, the idea that it's taken for granted that if someone had known your correct occupation that they would never have been in a relationship with you, I'm not sure that's I I would concede that as a
03:21:55 sure that's I I would concede that as a given.
03:21:55 given. Did you give any thought to it at the time whether or not she would consent if she knew who you were? I don't remember doing so. And presumably you certainly didn't think I
03:22:07 presumably you certainly didn't think I better make sure I'm getting informed consent. I'll tell her who and what I really am. Well, that would have been difficult.
03:22:17 Did you give consent thought at any time during your relationship?
03:22:26 In in what sense did you give any thought to the question of whether Monica would have consented if she'd known who and what you really were?
03:22:37 were? I don't remember.
03:22:41 Monica's evidence is very clear indeed that she would not have consented if she had known who and what you really were.
03:22:52 had known who and what you really were. Have you got any grounds on which to again say that? If she says that, then I wouldn't dispute what she says. I know. Well, now if she says that, I won't dispute what she says.
03:23:04 she says. Did [snorts] the advice that you had been given by Andy Coohl's that it was going to happen play any role in your going ahead and
03:23:15 play any role in your going ahead and having sex with Monica? I I I can't say for now. What would it have taken to have stopped you?
03:23:28 Um,
03:23:34 if I thought she wasn't going to consent, I guess. But you didn't address your mind to that.
03:23:41 that. Well, I don't see how I don't see how I could have addressed that with her. Isn't the answer to that not to have sex with her?
03:23:50 with her? Well, we've already been over that. And I say that would have been I could have put it off having a relationship with somebody but I I don't think it would have been possible. If if you look at people deployed in these fields, it's
03:24:03 people deployed in these fields, it's not as if
03:24:06 not as if the overwhelming majority of people destroy deployed into animal rights and environmental anarchist fields do end up having a relationship with somebody in it because it is
03:24:17 it because it is 90% lifestyle and 10% politics. And I don't I don't think it's I think for that reason it's regarded as inevitable. Um,
03:24:28 Um, I I don't think people go into this thinking, I'm going to have a party, it's going to be great. Nobody does that. And I know that's difficult for people here to understand, but nobody goes into this thinking, well, this is
03:24:39 goes into this thinking, well, this is going to be fun. I'm going to smoke drugs and all this, so it's going to be terrific. It It's not like that at all. And I think also you develop what at least appeared to me to be a genuine
03:24:51 to be a genuine fondness for someone and a genuine relationship with someone that you like. you don't sort of think into it in in the sense of what if I told her that I was a UC what would be the situation
03:25:03 was a UC what would be the situation then which seems to be what you're sort of
03:25:05 of what I was actually driving at is would a firmer management line have made a difference
03:25:14 very clear management guidance you must not have sex undercover in your undercover identity I I I don't know I can't
03:25:25 I I I don't know I can't I think they would have had to come up also with a a way of dealing with the other side of it, which is that a single person living alone is never going to be accepted. So, they would have had to come up with some sort of operational tactic for that as well. Um, but I I
03:25:38 tactic for that as well. Um, but I I don't know. Did the fact that you were by then divorced influence your behavior? I I think so. I think if I'd still been married, I would have seen I would have felt differently about it.
03:25:51 felt differently about it. So would that be a convenient point to break?
03:25:54 break? Certainly would. Um I'm afraid you've got three days ahead and the questioning is not going to get any less uncomfortable, but um would you be here please tomorrow ready
03:26:05 would you be here please tomorrow ready to give evidence again at 10:00? Yeah.
03:26:07 Yeah. Thank you.